They found Arvin!

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/40/165877-29144-marvin-the-martian_large.jpg


well, sorta....

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite/

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/604/341/Bacteria%20in%20Meteorites.jpg

We are not alone in the universe -- and alien life forms may have a lot more in common with life on Earth than we had previously thought.

That's the stunning conclusion one NASA scientist has come to, releasing his groundbreaking revelations in a new study in the March edition of the Journal of Cosmology.

Dr. Richard B. Hoover, an astrobiologist with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, gave FoxNews.com early access to the out-of-this-world research, published late Friday evening in the March edition of the Journal of Cosmology. In it, Hoover describes the latest findings in his study of an extremely rare class of meteorites, called CI1 carbonaceous chondrites -- only nine such meteorites are known to exist on Earth.

Though it may be hard to swallow, Hoover has become convinced that his findings reveal fossil evidence of bacterial life within such meteorites -- and by extension, suggest we are not alone in the universe.

“I interpret it as indicating that life is more broadly distributed than restricted strictly to the planet earth,” Hoover told FoxNews.com. “This field of study has just barely been touched -- because quite frankly, a great many scientist would say that this is impossible.”

[...]

[pcosmar]

Arvin ?
:confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_the_Martian

[oyarde]

Marvin.

[Kotin]

its so funny to me that any scientist would say its outright impossible that life exists anywhere besides earth... really?? have you visited the trillions of planets and and star systems out there?? its completely ridiculous to think earth is the only source of life in the universe.. in fact its laughable.

[Petar]

I'm still hiding.

[erowe1]

its so funny to me that any scientist would say its outright impossible that life exists anywhere besides earth... really?? have you visited the trillions of planets and and star systems out there?? its completely ridiculous to think earth is the only source of life in the universe.. in fact its laughable.

If something is statistically improbable enough, it warrants being called impossible.

Since the likelihood of any given planet being capable of sustaining life is something like 1 in 10^500, even if there were trillions of planets (which sounds high to me, but I can't remember), that would warrant calling it statistically impossible for life to exist on any of them. The fact that even one earth exists at all is a miracle.

[Dr.3D]

One has to wonder if those meteorites were not simply blown out of the atmosphere by either a cosmic collision or volcanic explosion and then simply fell back to earth, giving the impression they fell from space.

[Petar]

If something is statistically improbable enough, it warrants being called impossible.

Since the likelihood of any given planet being capable of sustaining life is something like 1 in 10^500, even if there were trillions of planets (which sounds high to me, but I can't remember), that would warrant calling it statistically impossible for life to exist on any of them. The fact that even one earth exists at all is a miracle.

Just know that somewhere in the universe, there is a really weird looking alien, who also doubts that you exist.

[MelissaWV]

If something is statistically improbable enough, it warrants being called impossible.

Since the likelihood of any given planet being capable of sustaining life is something like 1 in 10^500, even if there were trillions of planets (which sounds high to me, but I can't remember), that would warrant calling it statistically impossible for life to exist on any of them. The fact that even one earth exists at all is a miracle.

Yet the same scientists have found numerous earthlike planets. Many, many, many planets are "almost" capable of maintaining life as we know it. They might be barely too hot, or too cold, or have too much gravity... but who says life has to be "as we know it"?

Now, intelligent life? That's improbable to show up in our neck of the woods. That's more a product of our technology and the chances that we're even remotely interesting enough to a fellow civilization that has far better technology.

[ClayTrainor]

its so funny to me that any scientist would say its outright impossible that life exists anywhere besides earth... really?? have you visited the trillions of planets and and star systems out there?? its completely ridiculous to think earth is the only source of life in the universe.. in fact its laughable.

Agreed... And life only needs a small location to flourish, it doesn't need a whole planet. Many of the planets that seem hostile to life, could potentially have pockets of life within them. Like mars for example, if there's water under the surface, there could be a whole sea of life under there we don't know about, even though the surface of the planet seems quite hostile to life. We don't even know about the all the life that exists at the depths of earths oceans.

And the things is, we only know about how life forms on earths conditions. Life on other planets may not form in the same way, or under the same conditions. The likelihood of there being life on other planets somewhere in the universe is extremely high, as far as I'm concerned.

[Petar]

If something is statistically improbable enough, it warrants being called impossible.

Since the likelihood of any given planet being capable of sustaining life is something like 1 in 10^500, even if there were trillions of planets (which sounds high to me, but I can't remember), that would warrant calling it statistically impossible for life to exist on any of them. The fact that even one earth exists at all is a miracle.

Also, how the fuck do you know what the statistical odds are for a planet to form which is able to sustain Earth-like life?

What is the precise portion of stars in even 1 single galaxy that you were able to closely investigate, in order to come up with even a theoretical frequency for how often such sun/planet combinations might form?

Is it possible that you are simply pulling numbers out of your rear black-hole?

Please enlighten me, you extra special, super unique, galactic chemical snow-flake you.

[erowe1]

Also, how the fuck do you know what the statistical odds are for a planet to form which is able to sustain Earth-like life?

What is the precise portion of stars in even 1 single galaxy that you were able to closely investigate, in order to come up with even a theoretical frequency for how often such sun/planet combinations might form?

Is it possible that you are simply pulling numbers out of your rear black-hole?

Please enlighten me, you extra special, super unique, galactic chemical snow-flake you.

From here (http://www.reasons.org/probability-life-earth) and here (http://www.reasons.org/extra-terrestrials-ufos/habitable-planets/does-probability-eti-1). Don't take it personally. Nobody was going to believe you were a real life Martian anyway.

[Petar]

From here (http://www.reasons.org/probability-life-earth) and here (http://www.reasons.org/extra-terrestrials-ufos/habitable-planets/does-probability-eti-1). Don't take it personally. Nobody was going to believe you were a real life Martian anyway.

I think it is barely interesting that you were able to find a source of myriad pseudo-scientific facts regarding this subject.

Please try to offer some answer to my specific question instead.

Thank you.

[Kotin]

Also, how the fuck do you know what the statistical odds are for a planet to form which is able to sustain Earth-like life?

What is the precise portion of stars in even 1 single galaxy that you were able to closely investigate, in order to come up with even a theoretical frequency for how often such sun/planet combinations might form?

Is it possible that you are simply pulling numbers out of your rear black-hole?

Please enlighten me, you extra special, super unique, galactic chemical snow-flake you.

yeah I agree with this..


its hilarious that one could claim such a thing.

[erowe1]

I think it is barely interesting that you were able to find a source of myriad pseudo-scientific facts regarding this subject.

Please try to offer some answer to my specific question instead.

Thank you.

I did answer it. You asked if I pulled that number out of my black hole, and my answer is, no, I got it from Hugh Ross. If you don't like it, feel free to explain what's wrong with his analysis. There's not much more I can say about it.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I think it is barely interesting that you were able to find a source of myriad pseudo-scientific facts regarding this subject.

Please try to offer some answer to my specific question instead.

Thank you.

The probability is high that he went to a Catholic school. Science is "different" in those places.

[erowe1]

The probability is high that he went to a Catholic school. Science is "different" in those places.

I didn't. I went to public school. Although I wouldn't imagine that the science education I received there was better than it would have been had I gone to a private school (probably not Catholic, though, since I'm not Catholic), or, better yet, been home schooled. But I also have a bachelors in engineering, for what that's worth.

By the way, I find the arguments you all have put in your responses to my comment very compelling so far.

[tangent4ronpaul]

One has to wonder if those meteorites were not simply blown out of the atmosphere by either a cosmic collision or volcanic explosion and then simply fell back to earth, giving the impression they fell from space.

This is a huge problem with this copyright crap - it really screws up comprehension and spurs false rumors/chain mails because people often don't click through for the full story.


Hoover says he isn’t worried about the process and is open to any other explanations.

“If someone can explain how it is possible to have a biological remain that has no nitrogen, or nitrogen below the detect ability limits that I have, in a time period as short as 150 years, then I would be very interested in hearing that."

"I’ve talked with many scientists about this and no one has been able to explain,” he said.

[TheTyke]

The probability is high that he went to a Catholic school. Science is "different" in those places.

Government indoctrination is so much more likely to be true! ;)

[tangent4ronpaul]

I didn't. I went to public school. Although I wouldn't imagine that the science education I received there was better than it would have been had I gone to a private school (probably not Catholic, though, since I'm not Catholic), or, better yet, been home schooled. But I also have a bachelors in engineering, for what that's worth.

By the way, I find the arguments you all have put in your responses to my comment very compelling so far.

What kind of engineering?

From other posts, you obviously have a strong religious bias, so I am assuming that is effecting your answer here.

[Petar]

Fine.

Allow me the tedious pleasure of repeating my main actual question then:

"What is the precise portion of stars in even 1 single galaxy that you were able to closely investigate, in order to come up with even a theoretical frequency for how often such sun/planet combinations might form?"

Please do not be afraid to answer my main actual question directly.

It is not a space-monster, and it is not trying to steal your bible.

Thank you.

[LinusVanPelt]

It's funny to me that people will eagerly believe that there is alien life somewhere (to the point of saying that mere doubt is "laughable") without even a single shred of proof, yet they will dismiss or mock those who believe in God for the exact same reason.

The mathematical improbability of life spontaneously occurring anywhere is self-evident if you buy into conventional explanations of evolutionary biology. How many random mutations would need to occur to produce milions of species of varied, fully-functioning life-forms such as we see on earth? Or even to produce a conducive environment for such processes to even begin occuring? Many, many trillions of "lucky" dice rolls upon lucky dice rolls. It is quite literally more improbable than a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and assembling a 747 by random chance.

Also, I'd take your profane intellectual critiques more seriously if you could even get the name of the Looney Tunes character correct, "Arvin."

It seems the laugher has become the laughed-at.

[erowe1]

What kind of engineering?

From other posts, you obviously have a strong religious bias, so I am assuming that is effecting your answer here.

Civil.

Yes, I have a religious bias. We all do. It's impossible not to. I don't deny that the reason I don't take sensationalistic claims about life on other planets seriously has a lot to to with my religious bias, just as anyone else's susceptibility to swallow those claims has a lot to do with theirs.

[erowe1]

Allow me the tedious pleasure of repeating my main actual question then:

"What is the precise portion of stars in even 1 single galaxy that you were able to closely investigate, in order to come up with even a theoretical frequency for how often such sun/planet combinations might form?"

Oh. That was a serious question? Sorry. The answer is zero, obviously. You don't think that's the only way to come up with a probability like that, do you?

And, as I said above, the answer I gave you was an answer to your question. But it was an answer to the question that deserved an answer, not to the one that didn't.

[MelissaWV]

I think people are confusing two totally different things.

The probability that, somewhere out there, there is some form of life... is very high.

The probability that, given the vastness of space, some of that life would appear on earth in a form we could recognize and study... is very low.

[erowe1]

I think people are confusing two totally different things.

The probability that, somewhere out there, there is some form of life... is very high.

The probability that, given the vastness of space, some of that life would appear on earth in a form we could recognize and study... is very low.

Maybe. But I'm talking about the first kind when I say I think the probability is very low.

[Petar]

Oh. That was a serious question? Sorry. The answer is zero, obviously. You don't think that's the only way to come up with a probability like that, do you?

And, as I said above, the answer I gave you was an answer to your question. But it was an answer to the question that deserved an answer, not to the one that didn't.

Unless you are able to take a significant sample of stars in a given galaxy, and directly observe how many of them are/aren't sun-like, with orbiting Earth-like planets, then you are pulling that figure directly out of your rear black-hole (which I am 100% sure has Martians living in it).

[erowe1]

Unless you are able to take a significant sample of stars in a given galaxy, and directly observe how many of them are/aren't sun-like, with orbiting Earth-like planets, then you are pulling that figure directly out of your rear black-hole (which I am 100% sure has Martians living in it).

You can't really believe that.

[LinusVanPelt]

I think people are confusing two totally different things.

The probability that, somewhere out there, there is some form of life... is very high.

The probability that, given the vastness of space, some of that life would appear on earth in a form we could recognize and study... is very low.

If you believe in the math and physics which form the basis of those probabilities then what we define as "life" is undoubtedly a narrow and arbitrary classification based on an incredibly arbitrary, narrow and incomplete understanding of physical reality and our quaint little list of physical elements.

In which case all bets are off and we are all talking out of sheer religious faith (either pro- or anti-). Which I happen to believe is actually the case.

[Petar]

You can't really believe that.

That's the funny thing about reality erowe1; in order to know something with a reasonable degree of certainty, you need to observe some kind of actual evidence for its existence.

Kind of takes the fun out of making things up I guess...

[erowe1]

That's the funny thing about reality erowe1; in order to know something with a reasonable degree of certainty, you need to observe some kind of actual evidence for its existence.

Kind of takes the fun out of making things up I guess...

So, in your mind, the options are that either I must personally acquire the empirical evidence, or else I'm making it up. Do you apply that rule consistently to all of science? If so, then I'm also obligated to prescind from belief in the claim that the picture in the OP came from a meteor, since I didn't verify it personally.

[Petar]

Some kind of legitimate source answering my main actual question would have been sufficient for our purposes.

[erowe1]

Some kind of legitimate source answering my main actual question would have been sufficient for our purposes.

Which question? The one about whether or not I've personally been to other galaxies? Or the one about where I got that number, which I answered by giving you the link to where I got it?

[Petar]

Which question? The one about whether or not I've personally been to other galaxies? Or the one about where I got that number, which I answered by giving you the link to where I got it?

Stop playing dumb you fool.

Tell me who has been able to thoroughly investigate enough stars in a given galaxy, so that you could come up with your bullshit number.

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5739563.ece

'trillions' of planets could be supporting life

Almost every star similar to the Sun probably has a life-harbouring planet like the Earth in orbit around it, a leading astronomer said yesterday.

The discovery of hundreds of planets around distant stars in our galaxy suggests that most solar systems have a world like ours that is capable of supporting life, and many of them are likely to have evolved it, according to Alan Boss, of the Carnegie Institution in Washington.

Nasa’s Kepler spacecraft, which will be launched next month to seek Earth-like worlds, is expected to find thousands of rocky planets in the patch of sky it surveys, Dr Boss told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Chicago.

“We’re on the verge of finding out convincingly how frequently habitable planets occur in the Universe,” he said. “A little over 20 years ago we knew of no other planetary system other than our own. We now know of well over 300. I suspect that virtually every star when you look up at the night sky has an Earth-like planet around it.” These “exoplanets” are mainly gas giants like Jupiter, but they do include some “super-Earths” that are a few times larger than our planet. While smaller worlds like ours are invisible to existing telescopes, Kepler will be capable of finding them.

“The estimates are that super-Earths probably occur in one third of solar-like stars, and I would say that those oddball planets are the tip of the iceberg,” Dr Boss said. “About three or four years from now there’ll be a press conference announcing how frequently Earths occur. It’s quite an exciting time to be alive.”

His expectation was that 85 per cent of Sun-like stars had one Earth-like planet, and that some could have many more. Given that there are 100 billion Sun-like stars in the galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies in the Universe, there may be 10 billion trillion planets that are good candidates for life. That is a one followed by 22 noughts. (noughts is another word for zero's)

With a habitable world sitting for five or ten billion years around another star, it was inevitable that some sort of life would form, Dr Boss said. If you had a planet with the right temperature and water for billions of years, you were bound to get life. Comets carrying the organic building blocks of life regularly bombard planets, he said.

If Kepler, and a European planet-finder called Corot, do find Earth-like worlds, the next step will be to launch space-based telescopes to study them. “If we find the signature of oxygen, that would be pretty strong proof that not only are they habitable, but they are inhabited,” Dr Boss said.
[...]
It was likely that some planets had produced intelligent organisms and civilisations, though our chances of locating one were very remote, Dr Boss said. “Maybe we haven’t found them yet because we haven’t looked long and hard enough in the galaxy, and maybe there are intelligent civilisations which could have formed and lasted 100,000 years, but maybe they happened 100 million years ago, and so we’re just out of phase with them.”
[...]

[erowe1]

Stop playing dumb you fool.

Tell me who has been able to thoroughly investigate enough stars in given galaxy, so that you could come up with your bullshit number.

There are two possibilities here. Either you really are so naive to think that the only way anyone could derive a probability of a given planet being capable of supporting life is if some individual out there personally investigated such a large number of planets and induced the number from that investigation. Or you aren't.

If the former, then the level of education you require in basic concepts of science and math exceeds what could be provided in an internet forum. If the latter, then you're not engaging in serious conversation. Either way, there's no point trying to answer you.

[Petar]

There are two possibilities here. Either you really are so naive to think that the only way anyone could derive a probability of a given planet being capable of supporting life is if some individual out there personally investigated such a large number of planets and induced the number from that investigation. Or you aren't.

If the former, then the level of education you require in basic concepts of science and math exceeds what could be provided in an internet forum. If the latter, then you're not engaging in serious conversation. Either way, there's no point trying to answer you.

I'm not sure if you have ever personally seen this thing called a "telescope", but I can assure you that they do in fact exist.

I also heard that "astronomers" often "use" them in order to "investigate" "stars".

I also have a feeling that if your numbers were in any way legitimate, then it is possible that a telescope may have been used at some point, in order to provide "evidence" for them.

[erowe1]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5739563.ece

'trillions' of planets could be supporting life

Almost every star similar to the Sun probably has a life-harbouring planet like the Earth in orbit around it, a leading astronomer said yesterday.

The discovery of hundreds of planets around distant stars in our galaxy suggests that most solar systems have a world like ours that is capable of supporting life, and many of them are likely to have evolved it, according to Alan Boss, of the Carnegie Institution in Washington.

Nasa’s Kepler spacecraft, which will be launched next month to seek Earth-like worlds, is expected to find thousands of rocky planets in the patch of sky it surveys, Dr Boss told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Chicago.

“We’re on the verge of finding out convincingly how frequently habitable planets occur in the Universe,” he said. “A little over 20 years ago we knew of no other planetary system other than our own. We now know of well over 300. I suspect that virtually every star when you look up at the night sky has an Earth-like planet around it.” These “exoplanets” are mainly gas giants like Jupiter, but they do include some “super-Earths” that are a few times larger than our planet. While smaller worlds like ours are invisible to existing telescopes, Kepler will be capable of finding them.

“The estimates are that super-Earths probably occur in one third of solar-like stars, and I would say that those oddball planets are the tip of the iceberg,” Dr Boss said. “About three or four years from now there’ll be a press conference announcing how frequently Earths occur. It’s quite an exciting time to be alive.”

His expectation was that 85 per cent of Sun-like stars had one Earth-like planet, and that some could have many more. Given that there are 100 billion Sun-like stars in the galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies in the Universe, there may be 10 billion trillion planets that are good candidates for life. That is a one followed by 22 noughts. (noughts is another word for zero's)

With a habitable world sitting for five or ten billion years around another star, it was inevitable that some sort of life would form, Dr Boss said. If you had a planet with the right temperature and water for billions of years, you were bound to get life. Comets carrying the organic building blocks of life regularly bombard planets, he said.

If Kepler, and a European planet-finder called Corot, do find Earth-like worlds, the next step will be to launch space-based telescopes to study them. “If we find the signature of oxygen, that would be pretty strong proof that not only are they habitable, but they are inhabited,” Dr Boss said.
[...]
It was likely that some planets had produced intelligent organisms and civilisations, though our chances of locating one were very remote, Dr Boss said. “Maybe we haven’t found them yet because we haven’t looked long and hard enough in the galaxy, and maybe there are intelligent civilisations which could have formed and lasted 100,000 years, but maybe they happened 100 million years ago, and so we’re just out of phase with them.”
[...]

I see you've changed your tune.

In post #16 above, you seemed to be playing along with Petar's nonsense that all claims about probability of life on other planets are impossible until someone actually investigates so many other planets, and induces that probability from the bottom up. Now, you're at least willing to entertain the much more sensible idea that a deductive approach to such questions is possible.

But even in that article, terms like "earth like planets" and "good candidates for life" are suspiciously flexible. If a good candidate for life is one where the probability of it being able to sustain life is as high as 1 in 10^100 (in other words, much, much higher than average), but there are only 10^22 such planets. We're still left with a practical statistical impossibility of any of them actually being able to sustain life.

[erowe1]

I'm not sure if you have ever personally seen this thing called a "telescope", but I can assure you that they do in fact exist.

I also heard that "astronomers" often "use" them in order to "investigate" "stars".

I also have a feeling that if your numbers were in any way legitimate, then it is possible that a telescope may have been used at some point, in order to provide "evidence" for them.

What exactly do you have in mind as a method here?

Some astronomer uses a telescope and looks at one planet after another to see how many have life and how many don't, so that he can calculate the percentage of those with life when he's looked at a large enough sample?

Because that's what it sounds like you've been trying to say so far, and I'm trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have a more sophisticated understanding of things.

Now, as for your last point, yes, of course, I'm sure telescopes were used in acquiring the evidence for the hundreds of numbers from which that probability was calculated. I'm sure that if you looked through all the articles and conference papers cited in that link to check each number, you'll find some information about which ones relied on data collected from telescopes and which didn't. I don't really care to sift through it looking for that. It seems like a pretty trivial point to me.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Also, I'd take your profane intellectual critiques more seriously if you could even get the name of the Looney Tunes character correct, "Arvin."

It seems the laugher has become the laughed-at.

I couldn't remember the name of the Disney martian character, but thought it started with a M, typed in a guess and image search and came up empty. Made some adjustments to search terms (added martian) and consenents and google suggested "arvin". Searchng that, I got the character I was looking for, so I figured my memory of the name starting with a M was faulty and ran with it. In retrospect, it looks like whoever titled the images (bunch of diff ppl) all truncated the M in the cut and paste operation.

OOPS! - shit happens.

-t

[YumYum]

Mathematical probabilities are meaningless when discussing whether there is life on other planets or mutations regarding evolution. It would be like asking: "What are the chances if we went back 2,000 years ago and started all over, and let history play out randomly anyway it chooses, that "I" would be here today?" The chances are zero, because the probability is zero. At best, it is so close to zero it is not worth measuring. For me to be here it would mean that all of the thousands of ancestors that I had (men and women) would have to meet and have sex at the exact same time that they had it for me to be here as I am now. It would mean that every grandpa that I ever had would have to make sure that out of the one hundred to three hundred million sperm that came out during sex with my grandmas, that exact same sperm would have to match up with that exact same egg. That in of itself is a zero probability. Then to make sure that I would be here all my grandpas and grandmas must never die before having the sex that would eventually allow me to be here. That would mean that they would have to live their lives over exactly the same; that means living through very close calls of death. The possibility of all of this happening a second time is so close to zero, we should just say that there is "zero" chances. Add it all up, there is a "zero" chance that I would be here if we went back in time and I hoped that history would repeat itself. It wouldn't and I wouldn't be here. But guess what? I am here, and that in itself is a "miracle". And I figure that if I can be here, when the probability of my very existence is so low and so close to zero we can't measure it, then I have no problem that other "miracles"; such as life on other planets, or millions of mutations, exist or have taken place.

[amy31416]

The probability is high that he went to a Catholic school. Science is "different" in those places.

Catholic schools teach science extensively.

[tpreitzel]

More ado with little substance. The problem isn't the possibility of extra-terrestrial (I'm using the term, extra-terrestrial, accurately here to accompany the possibility of "life" covering an unimaginable range) life, it's the ludicrous leaps of assumptions stemming from the possibility. ;)

[tangent4ronpaul]

Post 16 was totally about pre-conceived bias and what glasses you are looking through. Nothing more

There have been a lot of planets discovered recently that are the correct distance from their sun to support earth like life. (though consider that life has been discovered at the bottom of the sea at pressures that should preclude it's existence and in volcano's where the temperatures and toxic atmosphere should preclude it. There are also recent discoveries of organisms that don't use the same chemical basics that we do.)

Some of these planets have been studied and found to have oceans of water and atmospheres of oxygen. Add to that the known fact that amino acids scoot around the universe on asteroids and impact planets at regular intervals....

[Petar]

I am saying that you need some kind of way (possibly a telescope) to:

1. Observe how many sun-like stars may exist in a statistically significant portion of a given galaxy.

2. Observe how many Earth-like planets may exist within a similar orbit to said sun-like stars.

If you can do that, then you can figure out how many planets *could possibly* support Earth-style life in that area, and perhaps legitimately apply that as a theoretical statistic for the rest of that galaxy, and perhaps the rest of the known Universe as well.

If you cannot at least sufficiently investigate a statistically significant portion of a given galaxy, then you are PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF YOUR ASS.

[erowe1]

I am saying that you need some kind of way (possibly a telescope) to:

1. Observe how many sun-like stars may exist in a statistically significant portion of a given galaxy.

2. Observe how many Earth-like planets may exist within a similar orbit to said sun-like stars.

If you can do that, then you can figure out how many planets *could possibly* support Earth-style life in that area, and perhaps legitimately apply that as a theoretical statistic for the rest of that galaxy, and perhaps the rest of the known Universe as well.

If you cannot at least sufficiently investigate a statistically significant portion of a given galaxy, then you are PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF YOUR ASS.

It looks like we're going in circles here. Are you saying that I personally have to do this? If not, then what's wrong with the source I gave you? Those figures are included in the hundred plus parameters they cover there.

[Petar]

It looks like we're going in circles here. Are you saying that I personally have to do this? If not, then what's wrong with the source I gave you? Those figures are included in the hundred plus parameters they cover there.

If you would stop playing dumb, then maybe we could walk in a straight line.

I already told you that some kind of legitimate source would suit our purposes here.

As for the sources that you provided, all I saw was a long list of bullshit.

Please tell me where they even claim to have thorough, observation-based information, regarding a statistically significant portion of any given galaxy.

[erowe1]

Post 16 was totally about pre-conceived bias and what glasses you are looking through. Nothing more

There have been a lot of planets discovered recently that are the correct distance from their sun to support earth like life. (though consider that life has been discovered at the bottom of the sea at pressures that should preclude it's existence and in volcano's where the temperatures and toxic atmosphere should preclude it. There are also recent discoveries of organisms that don't use the same chemical basics that we do.)

Some of these planets have been studied and found to have oceans of water and atmospheres of oxygen. Add to that the known fact that amino acids scoot around the universe on asteroids and impact planets at regular intervals....

Sure, add that, and add tons more factors that make such planets more conducive for life, and you're still at astronomical odds against it being on any of them.

But when you say, "There are also recent discoveries of organisms that don't use the same chemical basics that we do." What are you talking about?

And when you say, that it is a known fact that amino acids scoot around the universe on asteroids, is that really a known fact that has been verified? Or is it merely something that has been posited as a necessary precondition for the existence of life on earth, based on the religious assumption that it arose entirely by natural causes?

[erowe1]

If you would stop playing dumb, then maybe we could walk in a straight line.

I already told you that some kind of legitimate source would suit our purposes here.

As for the sources that you provided, all I saw was a long list of bullshit.

Please tell me where they even claim to have thorough, observation-based information, regarding a statistically significant portion of any given galaxy.

What makes you think that the articles cited there from Science, Nature, Astrophysical Journal, the Journal of Ecology, and so on, weren't observation-based?

And I noticed that the number that link gives for the question you're asking about planets is the same number given in the article tangent4ronpaul cited (10^22), which comes to the opposite conclusion about the likelihood of life's existence. So it seems doubtful that they both made it up.

[Petar]

What makes you think that the articles cited there from Science, Nature, Astrophysical Journal, the Journal of Ecology, and so on, weren't observation-based?

And I noticed that the number that link gives for the question you're asking about planets is the same number given in the article tangent4ronpaul cited (10^22), which comes to the opposite conclusion about the likelihood of life's existence. So it seems doubtful that they both made it up.

I guess I was thrown off by the idiotic conclusions, combined with the long list of bullshit...

[erowe1]

I guess I was thrown off by the idiotic conclusions, combined with the long list of bullshit...

That can happen. Refusing to accept the conclusion of an argument sometimes can cause a person to treat the steps that lead to it disingenuously.

[devil21]

Got two words for ya:

BLUE BEAM

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Our human minds cannot comprehend the vastness of the Universe. I have no doubt there is sentient life elsewhere within the vast cosmos, but finding it -- that I doubt.

[Vessol]

If something is statistically improbable enough, it warrants being called impossible.

Since the likelihood of any given planet being capable of sustaining life is something like 1 in 10^500, even if there were trillions of planets (which sounds high to me, but I can't remember), that would warrant calling it statistically impossible for life to exist on any of them. The fact that even one earth exists at all is a miracle.

I'd say that the building blocks of life, amino acids and the what-not are fairly common in the universe. These took billions of years for those acids to develop into even the most primitive forms of "life".

My understanding on it is of course fairly bare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1JUTNI5OH4

While kind of outdated, Carl Sagan is absolutely brilliant in his presentation and explanation of all this.

As for trillions of planets, that's not a high number at all. In the Milky Way Galaxy alone, our own galaxy, we believe there are 200-400 billion stars, each with their own potential planetary systems. Trillions of planets are easy to imagine.

But that's just our galaxy. Within visible universe(that is, space that is close enough to where we can actually see the light from billions of years ago) there is an estimated 50 BILLION individual galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

And that's just visible space, remember that after the Big Bang space rapidly expanded and it is most likely that we can only see a sliver of the entirety of the universe.

That's not even going into quantum theory and the idea of a multi-verse which I barely understand myself.

[erowe1]

As for trillions of planets, that's not a high number at all.

You're right. It's not.

[Vessol]

You're right. It's not.

I meant high as in I was countering your claim where you said "sounds high to me". Trillions of planets is a massive amount, and that is just in our galaxy. As I said, in visible space alone there are 50+ billion galaxies, each with trillions of planets themselves.

[tangent4ronpaul]

But when you say, "There are also recent discoveries of organisms that don't use the same chemical basics that we do." What are you talking about?

From Post 18: “If someone can explain how it is possible to have a biological remain that has no nitrogen, or nitrogen below the detect ability limits that I have, in a time period as short as 150 years, then I would be very interested in hearing that."

This one is currently contraversial but made it into Science and NASA did a televised press conference on it:
Discoverer Asks for Time, Patience Over Arsenic Bacteria Controversy
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6012/1734.short

Seems like I've seen others, but not finding others right now


And when you say, that it is a known fact that amino acids scoot around the universe on asteroids, is that really a known fact that has been verified? Or is it merely something that has been posited as a necessary precondition for the existence of life on earth, based on the religious assumption that it arose entirely by natural causes?

Amino acid survival in large cometary impacts
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1945-5100.1999.tb01409.x/abstract

The chemical conditions on the parent body of the murchison meteorite: Some conclusions based on amino, hydroxy and dicarboxylic acids
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3S-479D85R-1G&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1984&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1666518141&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=900186dbdc81c2e9be0fff71cfb91fbb&searchtype=a

Amino acids from ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice analogues
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6879/abs/416403a.html

Extraterrestrial amino acids in Orgueil and Ivuna: Tracing the parent body of CI type carbonaceous chondrites
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/5/2138.abstract

[Vessol]

Guys, stop being researchers for others.

That's the number one thing I hate about forum debates.

Someone always goes "Well I don't believe you! Provide sources!" You then spend 30-60 minutes finding sources. They then glance over them for a second and then go "Meh! So!? I'm still right in this this and this way! Provide sources otherwise!" And then again, you waste more time.

If someone is interested themselves and is not a lazy bastard, then they'll go research what you claim themselves.

Just a little hint from an internet and forum veteran of 10+ years.

[Fox McCloud]

I'll wait a good month before I reach any conclusions; the arsenic bacteria claim turned out to be extreme hype and not, at all, what was originally described---if anything, this is coming off, to me, as just more hype to get extra funding.

[Vessol]

I'll wait a good month before I reach any conclusions; the arsenic bacteria claim turned out to be extreme hype and not, at all, what was originally described---if anything, this is coming off, to me, as just more hype to get extra funding.

Was the arsenic bacteria paper run through any peer-reviewing? I'm just wondering.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I'll wait a good month before I reach any conclusions; the arsenic bacteria claim turned out to be extreme hype and not, at all, what was originally described---if anything, this is coming off, to me, as just more hype to get extra funding.

Stuff like this pops up in the scientific journals all the time. Occasionally, something gets picked up by a science writer and the damn thing goes viral. Most articles like this are never noticed and written about in the MSM. What's different about this one is the amount of pre-vetting it's getting. No ones been able to explain the unusual results they found.

I seriously doubt it's about funding. They already have their labs and equip. There is no huge rush to retrieve and cut open asteroids. The telescopes to study the planets have already been built and put into space - so funding for what?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Was the arsenic bacteria paper run through any peer-reviewing? I'm just wondering.

It got published in Science, so yes - it passed a panel of peer reviewers. They are pretty picky about what they publish.

[Petar]

That can happen. Refusing to accept the conclusion of an argument sometimes can cause a person to treat the steps that lead to it disingenuously.

You're lucky that I am more in the mood to just be an asshole, VS debating logically...

[erowe1]

I meant high as in I was countering your claim where you said "sounds high to me". Trillions of planets is a massive amount, and that is just in our galaxy. As I said, in visible space alone there are 50+ billion galaxies, each with trillions of planets themselves.

I know. And I was agreeing. When I first said that, I noted that I wasn't sure.

But even at 10^22 planets, that's still such a tiny number in comparison to the unlikelihood of any being able to sustain life that it's statistically impossible for a life sustaining planet (including ours) to exist.

The reason so many people feel so certain that there must be life elsewhere out there is because they accept as an axiom that life came about here by natural causes, requiring nothing other than chance, time, and the matter and energy that comprise the universe together with their natural physical properties. Given that axiom, it's hard to believe that it only happened once. But the axiom itself is based on religion, not science.

[pcosmar]

SO What ??
A insignificant organism was found on a space rock?

It changes nothing. It proves little other than life is possible elsewhere. well duh!

Much ado about nothing.

[erowe1]

It proves little other than life is possible elsewhere. well duh!


When all is said and done, and nobody is paying attention to the story any more, those who do will learn that it doesn't prove that. We've been through this all before, and that's always how it turns out.

[Dr.3D]

As I said before, how do they even know the rock was from space? It could very well have been from earth.

[erowe1]

As I said before, how do they even know the rock was from space? It could very well have been from earth.

Hugh Ross predicted in 1988 that exactly such a discovery would be made eventually.
http://www.reasons.org/life-mars

[angelatc]

Arvin ?
:confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_the_Martian

It's his lesser known cousin - Arvin the Artian. He's got a paintball gun.

[pcosmar]

Hugh Ross predicted in 1988 that exactly such a discovery would be made eventually.
http://www.reasons.org/life-mars

I suspected this was the purpose of this.

It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when, the remains of life will be discovered on Mars. Will such a discovery shake the foundations of Christian faith?

Why should it? Why would it?
It is not in the slightest bit relevant.
Nor is the prior creation on this planet relevant. (we are not the first)

[Dr.3D]

Hugh Ross predicted in 1988 that exactly such a discovery would be made eventually.
http://www.reasons.org/life-mars

That article doesn't prove that rock came from Mars or any place other than possibly earth. It did say some rocks from earth may end up in space and I would have to believe those same rocks may have fallen back to earth and people may believe they are from mars or some other planet. They very well may be from earth in the first place.

[pcosmar]

They very well may be from earth in the first place.

Also possible. But still ,,,
how is it relevant ?

[Fox McCloud]

I'd like to point out this is the organism in question, on the right, not the one in the OP:

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/604/341/actual%20bacterium.jpg

And that's another problem, IMHO---if it's too similar to some of our own bacteria, then it's very likely it came from the earth itself and merely escaped from the atmosphere at an earlier date/time.

[erowe1]

That article doesn't prove that rock came from Mars or any place other than possibly earth. It did say some rocks from earth may end up in space and I would have to believe those same rocks may have fallen back to earth and people may believe they are from mars or some other planet. They very well may be from earth in the first place.

All I said was that he predicted it would happen eventually. I didn't say he claimed it had happened yet. At any rate, it supports your theory.

[Dr.3D]

Also possible. But still ,,,
how is it relevant ?

Relevant to what? That life from earth can be found in rocks from earth that have fallen from the sky?

[pcosmar]

Relevant to what? That life from earth can be found in rocks from earth that have fallen from the sky?

to,
Life, the Universe, and Everything.

[Fox McCloud]

interesting...this certainly puts me well within the skeptical side of things now:

http://www.panspermia.org/hoover2.htm
http://spie.org/x648.html?product_id=742284

This guy has been making the same claims since at least 2004, so this is hardly a "new" discovery, and definitely not a Fox News exclusive.

Considering this hasn't caught on in the scientific community (and that he originally published his original paper in a rather obscure journal), the genuineness of his findings (or accuracy) seems a bit dubious, at this point.

[Dr.3D]

to,
Life, the Universe, and Everything.

It isn't relevant to anything but the fact rocks thrown out of the atmosphere can fall back to earth and be found to contain what was on earth to begin with.

[eproxy100]

Check out the ultra deep field picture taken by the hubble: http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/skyimage_2144_36208769

Guess what each of those dots are? They're galaxies. That picture covers only ~1/13000000 of the sky that we see and it was taken on the darkest part of the sky that we thought there was nothing to see. There are about 10000 galaxies there in that small portion of the sky alone. Each of those galaxies can contain upto trillions of stars EACH.

Amino acids formed from basic molecules by electricity is a scientific fact - the results are repeatable.

[Fox McCloud]

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/05/6198177-life-in-meteorites-study-stirs-debate?GT1=43001

this is very interesting---the more skeptical side will be presented soon, and it doesn't seem positive for Hoover.

[pcosmar]

It isn't relevant to anything but the fact rocks thrown out of the atmosphere can fall back to earth and be found to contain what was on earth to begin with.
Sort of my point.

It seems like these stories are posted with an,,Ah Ha ! When it is really ho hum, and oh well so what.

[S.Shorland]

Is it Io or Calista?One of the moons of Saturn or Jupiter that they think is covered in water ice with an ocean kept liquid below by gravitational forces.Anywhere there is water,I think you will find life.

[Dr.3D]

Sort of my point.

It seems like these stories are posted with an,,Ah Ha ! When it is really ho hum, and oh well so what.

Well, maybe NASA is looking for a reason for the government to keep giving them money. Hey.... if there is life out there, let's spend all of the money we can to find it. LOL

[erowe1]

Check out the ultra deep field picture taken by the hubble: http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/skyimage_2144_36208769

Guess what each of those dots are? They're galaxies. That picture covers only ~1/13000000 of the sky that we see and it was taken on the darkest part of the sky that we thought there was nothing to see. There are about 10000 galaxies there in that small portion of the sky alone. Each of those galaxies can contain upto trillions of stars EACH.

Amino acids formed from basic molecules by electricity is a scientific fact - the results are repeatable.

Yes. In other words, compared to the astronomical odds against life, the entire universe is minuscule.

[Dr.3D]

And one can take a jar of amino acids and do every conceivable experiment they can come up with to that jar of acids and still no life would exist in that jar.

[ClayTrainor]

So people are seriously trying to argue that life existing on Earth is some kind of "Miracle" and unlikely to be found anywhere else in the vastness universe?

[erowe1]

So people are seriously trying to argue that life existing on Earth is some kind of "Miracle" and unlikely to be found anywhere else in the vastness universe?

Yes.

[YumYum]

So people are seriously trying to argue that life existing on Earth is some kind of "Miracle" and unlikely to be found anywhere else in the vastness universe?

Christians argue that it is, because the theory that we are 'unique' is more in harmony with the creation account in Genesis. For instance, G-d made the heavens (the stars and moon) to serve as luminaries for man so we can see at night. G-d made the single cell for the benefit of man. After all, our cells protect us, don't they?

Everything G-d made was with the creation of man in mind; for the benefit or usefulness to man (including the creation of woman).

[ClayTrainor]

Yes.

lol, okay, carry on then.

[erowe1]

Christians argue that it is, because the theory that we are 'unique' is more in harmony with the creation account in Genesis. For instance, G-d made the heavens (the stars and moon) to serve as luminaries for man so we can see at night. G-d made the single cell for the benefit of man. After all, our cells protect us, don't they?

Everything G-d made was with the creation of man in mind; for the benefit or usefulness to man (including the creation of woman).

That's reasonable but not necessary. Christianity won't crumble if it turns out we're not alone.

On the other hand, naturalism practically necessitates that earth can't be that unique. So the naturalist is compelled by his religion to think the vastness of the universe must be great enough to overcome the improbability of life. Christians are more free to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

[1000-points-of-fright]

The probability is high that he went to a Catholic school. Science is "different" in those places.

Bullshit. I went to a Jesuit High School and I've been an agnostic since I was 5. The only time religion was mentioned was in a specific class called (surprise surprise) "Religion Class".

[pcosmar]

Christians argue that it is, because the theory that we are 'unique' is more in harmony with the creation account in Genesis. For instance, G-d made the heavens (the stars and moon) to serve as luminaries for man so we can see at night. G-d made the single cell for the benefit of man. After all, our cells protect us, don't they?

Everything G-d made was with the creation of man in mind; for the benefit or usefulness to man (including the creation of woman).

I believe that God created it all because it is his nature to create. Something that we get from him and sets us apart from the animals. Creativity.


That's reasonable but not necessary. Christianity won't crumble if it turns out we're not alone.


Nope it won't. I would not be surprised if there was life elsewhere. But it is not relevant to my life or life on earth in the slightest.

[oyarde]

I believe that God created it all because it is his nature to create. Something that we get from him and sets us apart from the animals. Creativity.


Nope it won't. I would not be surprised if there was life elsewhere. But it is not relevant to my life or life on earth in the slightest.

My thoughts as well.