It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Verum1quaere
www.icr.org...
"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."
originally posted by: Verum1quaereAccording to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.
So far, none of the theoretical assumptions of science to explain this have been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.
originally posted by: Verum1quaere
"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape."
originally posted by: Verum1quaere“The measurement of the earth’s spin rate shows that the earth is slowing down at a rate of 1 second per year. If earth is billions of years old, it’s initial spin rate would have been too fast for life or even the existence of our planet.”
originally posted by: Verum1quaere“Most astronomers agree that short-term comets have a lifespan of 1,500--10,000 years. Astronomers have observed the death of 10 of these comets in last 100 years.
Since evolutionists realize all short-term comets should have “died” if the universe is 7--20 billion years old, they invent unverifiable explanations.”
originally posted by: Verum1quaereNASA recently fired scientist David Coppedge, highly placed in the Cassini project, because he was handing out dvds on intelligent design based on statistical likelihood:
youtube: "Privileged Planet"
quite fascinating to think both macro (cosmos) and micro (DNA complexity) illustrates statistical likelihood of God, and eminent atheists like Dr. Franics Collins, Dr. Fred Hoyle and Dr. Antony Flew are changing their minds.
And beings we're talking about infinity (which is just a theory btw, as is eternity), that would technically happen over and over again, over vast time scales, forever. Like I said though, the thought of infinity is more or less a theory. I doubt anyone could really prove that it actually exists.
Yes, they're free lottery tickets. It's a thought experiment, and the money to buy them is far from the point.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: 7918465230
Thanks for your reply.
And beings we're talking about infinity (which is just a theory btw, as is eternity), that would technically happen over and over again, over vast time scales, forever. Like I said though, the thought of infinity is more or less a theory. I doubt anyone could really prove that it actually exists.
Well it certainly is interesting.
Yes, they're free lottery tickets. It's a thought experiment, and the money to buy them is far from the point.
That sounds like a hell of sorts... Endlessly scratching away at lottery tickets
originally posted by: Verum1quaere
www.icr.org...
“The measurement of the earth’s spin rate shows that the earth is slowing down at a rate of 1 second per year. If earth is billions of years old, it’s initial spin rate would have been too fast for life or even the existence of our planet.”
No problem. I'm glad we could have a civil argument over the internet.
However, the scratching of the lottery tickets is again not the point. We were talking something like Powerball, or Mega-Millions anyway, which you don't have to scratch, just check the numbers. You could develop a machine to pick the numbers and then decide if you won or not, if you really want to get down to the unnecessary details. Technically, doing anything forever would be hell.
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: Xtrozero
What is all this weird talk of infinite chances of winning or finding a intelligence life form....
You might as well join in. A panel of scientists has established that the tickets are free and winning is inevitable.
Harte
originally posted by: 7918465230
However, the scratching of the lottery tickets is again not the point. We were talking something like Powerball, or Mega-Millions anyway, which you don't have to scratch, just check the numbers. .
originally posted by: TrueMessiah
The possibility should be common knowledge now.
It is common knowledge.
Science has been saying for decades that it is almost certain that other life exists in the universe. I don't know of any scientists who think we are alone (although there may be some religious fundamentalist scientists may feel this -- but I bet there are very few of them).
www.technologyreview.com...
Of the many uncertainties in the Drake equation, one term is traditionally thought of as relatively reliable. That is the probability of life emerging on a planet in a habitable zone. On Earth, life arose about 3.8 billion years ago, just a few million years after the planet had cooled sufficiently to allow it.
Astrobiologists naturally argue that because life arose so quickly here, it must be pretty likely to emerge in other places where conditions allow.
Today, David Spiegel at Princeton University and Edwin Turner at the University of Tokyo say this thinking is wrong. They’ve used an entirely different kind of thinking, called Bayesian reasoning, to show that the emergence of life on Earth is consistent with life being arbitrarily rare in the universe.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Well...give this a read.
Furthermore, an argument of this general sort has been widely used in a qualitative and even intuitive way to conclude that λ is unlikely to be extremely small because it would then be surprising for abiogenesis to have occurred as quickly as it did on Earth [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Indeed, the early emergence of life on Earth is often taken as significant supporting evidence for “optimism” about the existence of extra-terrestrial life (i.e., for the view that it is fairly common) [19, 20, 9]. The major motivation of this paper is to determine the quantitative validity of this inference.
One approach to choosing appropriate priors for tmin, tmax, and δtevolve, would be to try to distill geophysical and pale- obiological evidence along with theories for the evolution of intelligence and the origin of life into quantitative distribution functions that accurately represent prior information and beliefs about these parameters.