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.

 

Bill Nye Talks Extraterrestrial Life: 'It's Gotta Exist'

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: theghostfaceentity

Thanks for the links and I will check out these links.


Your welcome my friend, anytime for a truth seeker that needs a push in the right direction
!




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: theghostfaceentity
a reply to: Krazysh0t

your error is lack of knowledge and comprehension on the subject my friend, in a universe with 200 billion galaxies, 200 billion stars generally per a galaxy, 13.5 billion years with a single planet like ours existing after 4.5 billion years after 9 billion years passing make it impossible for various lifeforms not too exist. Even on earth weve had the troodosaur which was almost a human like specie, it was from a type of velociraptor that would have evolved into a humanoid. Right?


I never said it is impossible for various lifeforms to exist. In fact I think that life exists in many different forms on many different worlds. It's practically an inevitability at this point for the same reasons that you mentioned. Though I don't think that humans or rational thought are inevitabilities. There may be other humans on other planets out there and there may be other lifeforms out there that can think rationally, and there MAY even be humans that can think rationally out there, but I don't think for a second those things are inevitabilities.

What is a troodosaur?


www.youtube.com...
A dinosauroid that could have been humanoid and peruvian like our bodies! Your points are about to be verified, I had to train you to comprehend what Im about too say lol....SO any form of a reptile humanoid (Reptillian ect) would have evolved from an alligator type velociraptor, that was part lizard because it would have too be able to see things and learn from their vision and wisdom, this is what the reptillians would be if anything, a dinosauroid. Based off them not being mammals its more than likely theyre a spartan style species with a bad attitude highly prone to striking first, asking questions later due to the evolutionary history! Theyre not evil, many species must have good and bad people like ours with security forces and such, but theyre more than likely better equiped guerilla warfarians and were much more of a violent species in their earlier reptile-erectus and reptile-sapian generations haha.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: theghostfaceentity

What? What makes you think that evolution would cause dinosaurs to evolve humanoids if they hadn't of gone extinct? Which environmental pressures would have necessitated this? Humanoids don't just evolve because it is a cool shape for an animal to take. It happened do to many environmental pressures and random mutations aligning to create it.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
So you don't need to know how the universe originated and what forces contribute to our universe even existing and you can say it's inefficient?


Yes! We can look at the way things develop and change over time and think up more efficient ways they can change and develop over time. That makes the universe sub-efficient regardless of how it started and what drives it. If an intelligent force were guiding it, then it makes sense for the intelligent force to develop the universe intelligently NOT haphazardly like the universe does now.


That's just ASININE. Tell me about quantum gravity and it's affects on evolution? What force contributed to the vacuum energy being fined tuned to one part to 10/120 and what effects this force had on our evolution?


Stop using the phrase "fine-tuned", you haven't proved that anything is fine-tuned.


What's there to understand beyond an opinion that has nothing to do with the facts and is full of contradictions?


Newsflash: This whole thread is opinion. There are no "facts" in this thread because we cannot prove anything about what happens outside the universe.


What god of the gaps argument?


The god of the gaps argument is that god exists and operates in the gaps of science that science can't explain (yet).


How can there be a god of the gaps when it's based on science? I'm not saying, well we don't know so it must be God or a Designer. I'm saying we do know and what we know says it has to be God or a Designer.


No, you are pointing out incomplete science, saying that it doesn't match what we've measured, then say, "see god!" That has been your WHOLE point by pointing out the vacuum catastrophe. Other than that, you have no argument for fine tuning.


You can speculate about IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES all you want but it's just nonsense. What physical theory can naturally give rise to these numbers based on what we know about the standard model and quantum theory? It's just not possible and all of the wishful thinking about IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES will not change this.


There are no "physical theories" to explain this. Science doesn't have the evidence to write any! Stop pretending like this is settled science. It isn't.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You said:

No, you are pointing out incomplete science, saying that it doesn't match what we've measured, then say, "see god!"

What incomplete science are you talking about and exactly what makes it incomplete? On top of that you're not talking about science with your IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES!!

Don't you realize how crazy that sounds?

You talk about god of the gaps in one breathe and then you try to explain things with your IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES that are just hogwash.

It's only "incomplete" because people don't want to accept what the science says which is the universe was designed. They want to speculate about IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES LOL!



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Logically, it makes perfect sense when you add in other things we know about life. There's 100% guarantee that life evolved on other planets. This is due to the constants of nature.

Really? Explain to me exactly how life formed from non-living chemicals. Go ahead.

Once you figure that out, then we might be able to get a rough idea as to the probabilities involved, and we can extrapolate out into the greater universe. Until then, though, life on Earth (the only life we know of so far) might be just a complete fluke, like flipping a coin and having it land on its edge 100 billion times in a row.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
What incomplete science are you talking about and exactly what makes it incomplete? On top of that you're not talking about science with your IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES!!


Would you forget about the damn trees? I've already moved onto other points, and yet you are still hung up on them like they were my primary arguing point.

The incomplete science is CLEARLY the vacuum catastrophe. YOU brought it up and pointed out how science's prediction doesn't match what we've measured by a long shot. That means that the predictions used are incomplete and wrong. Duh! Logic son.


Don't you realize how crazy that sounds?


Yes, I realize how crazy it sounds to continually pretend like your opponent is talking about something he hasn't mentioned in several pages.


You talk about god of the gaps in one breathe and then you try to explain things with your IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES that are just hogwash.


That's because you didn't understand my point, and still don't.


It's only "incomplete" because people don't want to accept what the science says which is the universe was designed. They want to speculate about IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES LOL!


Science doesn't say that the universe was designed. That is a bold faced lie! There has been no evidence or papers put forward that lay down a convincing argument for fine tuning. Majority scientific consensus has no opinion on if the universe was designed or not. In fact, many scientists believe it wasn't designed, but even they aren't 100% sure on that.

And the damn tree branch argument was given to you so that you can conceptualize why the "fine-tuning" argument is flawed. You not understanding what I'm talking about doesn't make it a ridiculous argument. It just makes you look ignorant.

Argument from fine tuning


However, the fine-tuning argument can also be countered due to the sheer size of the universe; with one hundred billion stars in the galaxy, and as many galaxies in the universe, even a minuscule chance of life arising makes it extremely likely that it will occur somewhere. Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

Fine-tuning arguments based on the physical constants are even easier to refute. The delicate balance of, for example, the tri-alpha fusion which created all the carbon in our bodies relies on the temperature and pressure of stars being exactly right for this form of fusion. However, the pressure and temperature of the interior of a star changes depending on whether or not fusion is occurring. Similar links between other physical constants are likely and can explain their apparently delicate balance.

The argument from fine tuning also fails for the following reasons:

It bifurcates the laws of physics into constants and the equations into which those constants are placed. It asks us to consider what would happen were the constants changed but the equations stayed the same. But what if we permitted the equations to change also? Then we must admit we have no idea. Even if it is clear that the current equations with different constants cannot produce life, completely different equations (and constants) might still be life-producing. We do not know enough about mathematical physics to say, and may well never. This bifurcation of the laws of physics into constants and equations is more likely an artifact of the human mind's attempt to understand the cosmos than a fundamental property of reality itself

The argument wants us to conclude that it is highely unlikely that a life-producing set of physical constants could be arrived at by chance. But, how do we ascribe probabilities to sets of possible physical constants? Are they all supposed to be equally likely? Or are some more likely than others? And it gets even worse if we reject the bifurcation of the laws of physics into constants and equations -- what is the probability of a particular equation being part of the laws of physics? To speak of probabilities here seems to be just abusing the concept of probability in a situation in which it is meaningless.

Now, if we assume some kind of multiverse theory, then speaking of probabilities of physical constants having certain values, or of certain equations being part of the laws of physics, might have some meaning -- we could look to the distribution of those constant values or laws in different universes across the multiverse to define their probability. But, supporters of the argument from fine-tuning cannot turn to these considerations to make their argument coherent, since if there is such a multiverse then there is no need for the God they are seeking to prove either. It's a Catch-22 for creationists. On the other hand, a multiverse theory could make it significantly 'more' likely this universe was made by pure chance, since there would be infinite other universes, the vast majority of which would not be fit for life due to different constants.

edit on 27-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Really? Explain to me exactly how life formed from non-living chemicals. Go ahead.

Okay,

ENTROPY!

This is why things like the cosmological constant are so important.

Let me explain. Imagine you're riding a bike real fast and then you stop peddling and you just coast. You will still be moving forward but gravity will cause you to start to decelerate.

This is what happened with the universe. It started off like riding that fast bike but then gravity caused it to decelerate. While it was decelerating it was still moving forward or expanding. The cosmological constant is part of the fabric of space, so as space expands dark energy starts to dominate matter and space starts accelerating.

This means the universe will eventually be ripped apart unless some new matter comes from somewhere.

Now to Entropy.

The Cosmological constant is fine-tuned to one part in 10/120. It's extremely fine tuned for life.

The universe will also look to reach thermodynamic equilibrium. The level of entropy of dissapative systems depends on this expansion rate. So low entropy systems will be more efficient when it comes to reaching the goal of thermodynamic equilibrium and life will exists. There isn't any difference between life and non life in a subjective universe, there's only conscious experience.

You act like life is like flipping a coin but that makes no sense. Life exists and there isn't any other choice.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
ENTROPY!

This is not a magic word. This is not an incantation. Just saying it doesn't make things happen.

You act like life is like flipping a coin but that makes no sense. Life exists and there isn't any other choice.

Life exists now, on Earth. But as you have demonstrated, we have no idea how it arose. And without knowing that, we can't calculate the odds of it happening anywhere else. "It just does," is not really an answer.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Argument from fine tuning
Pointing to a Wiki link as evidence that the fine-tuning discussion has been settled is a sign of weakness, Wiki does not settle anything. Fact of the matter is that the fine-tuning argument is taken very very serious and that the only resolution to this conundrum (at least to some people) is the multiverse, which is more philosophy than science. You may doubt the implications, but denying that the fine-tuning is there, is like denying that the sky is blue.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, I'm not going to forget the trees because it clearly shows your hypocrisy. Those silly IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES just shows how the god of the gaps argument is so invalid when you don't even have gaps, you have IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES!!!!

Now to the diatribe you cut and pasted.


Here's what it says:

It asks us to consider what would happen were the constants changed but the equations stayed the same. But what if we permitted the equations to change also? Then we must admit we have no idea.


NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT????

That's just pure nonsense. Why do I need to consider what would happen when there's no evidence that it can happen?? Whose given him this permission? What are you changing the constants to and where's the evidence it can be changed and THESE SAME VALUES WILL ARISE NATURALLY??

THIS IS ALMOST WORSE THAN YOUR IMAGINARY TREES!!

It then says:


Now, if we assume some kind of multiverse theory, then speaking of probabilities of physical constants having certain values, or of certain equations being part of the laws of physics, might have some meaning -- we could look to the distribution of those constant values or laws in different universes across the multiverse to define their probability.


ASSUME????

I can assume I had an affair with Tyra Banks that doesn't make it real!!

This assumption is just a silly because even if there was a multiverse there's no evidence that these values arise naturally or that universes expand that have any value.

IT'S JUST PURE NONSENSE!

It's like the dice I mentioned earlier. The outcomes of the roll of the dice are random but not what outcomes CAN OCCUR because the designer of the dice limited your outcomes to a combination of 2-12.

This is just like the fine-tuned universe. All of the assumptions about IMAGINARY TREES and a multiverse still mean nothing because we already know these values don't arise naturally.
edit on 27-5-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Well, the time involved and narrow parameters involved is just pure perspective, isn't it?


Life has been on the earth for 4 billion years, that is almost 1/3 of the universe's life span, and a bit more than just 'perspective', it is factual.

Additionally, all of the ecosystems present during the earth's entire life span have lead to only one sentient species.


Maybe our planet doesn't have the ideal conditions for intelligent life to form. There for had to struggle for it.

...

Again, I think that's just perspective. If we study the process of evolution, there is no reason not to assume intelligent life wasn't inevitable.


You are showing a serious misunderstanding of evolution. Sentient life is not the 'goal' of evolution, propagation is. Evolution is not a flow chart or road map to sentience, it is a process that reacts to its environment and has no ultimate goal.

Sentient intelligence was obviously not a very desirable or necessary trait otherwise it would have occurred sometime over the course of the intervening 4 billion years. It had numerous opportunities but instead we had, among other species, 300 million years of dinosaurs and 60 million years of mammals before we see any type of move towards sentience.







edit on 27-5-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: jclmavg

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Argument from fine tuning
Pointing to a Wiki link as evidence that the fine-tuning discussion has been settled is a sign of weakness, Wiki does not settle anything. Fact of the matter is that the fine-tuning argument is taken very very serious and that the only resolution to this conundrum (at least to some people) is the multiverse, which is more philosophy than science. You may doubt the implications, but denying that the fine-tuning is there, is like denying that the sky is blue.


Taken serious by who? Creationists? I don't care about confirmation bias laden arguments. Where exactly is there evidence that fine tuning is real? And how is it so compelling that it is as obvious as saying that the sky is blue? If you are going to make that kind of comparison, you must have quite a bit of compelling evidence for it being true.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, I'm not going to forget the trees because it clearly shows your hypocrisy. Those silly IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES just shows how the god of the gaps argument is so invalid when you don't even have gaps, you have IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES!!!!


Fine. Continue looking like an idiot with a reading comprehension problem. No skin off of my back.


NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT????

That's just pure nonsense. Why do I need to consider what would happen when there's no evidence that it can happen?? Whose given him this permission? What are you changing the constants to and where's the evidence it can be changed and THESE SAME VALUES WILL ARISE NATURALLY??

THIS IS ALMOST WORSE THAN YOUR IMAGINARY TREES!!


Wow, you really DO have a reading comprehension problem don't you? Like you literally didn't understand a WORD of what you just responded to.


ASSUME????

I can assume I had an affair with Tyra Banks that doesn't make it real!!

This assumption is just a silly because even if there was a multiverse there's no evidence that these values arise naturally or that universes expand that have any value.


*facepalm*


IT'S JUST PURE NONSENSE!

It's like the dice I mentioned earlier. The outcomes of the roll of the dice are random but not what outcomes CAN OCCUR because the designer of the dice limited your outcomes to a combination of 2-12.


Well we KNOW for a fact that dice were designed. We DON'T know for a fact the universe was designed, so how can you say what values the constants of the universe can be limited to or not? Your hypocrisy is outstanding. You accuse me of being contradicting yet your ENTIRE thread and premise is based on one giant confirmation bias.


This is just like the fine-tuned universe. All of the assumptions about IMAGINARY TREES and a multiverse still mean nothing because we already know these values don't arise naturally.


We do? How do we know that? Please out line the scientific experiment that was created, performed, is duplicable, and proves that the universe was fine tuned. Go ahead and link me to the scientific paper that presents the experiment while you are at it. You know, since you are making claims about what we know and don't know?
edit on 27-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Again, you're not making any sense and you must be stuck in your IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES!

You said:


We do? How do we know that? Please out line the scientific experiment that was created, performed, is duplicable, and proves that the universe was fine tuned. Go ahead and link me to the scientific paper that presents the experiment while you are at it. You know, since you are making claims about what we know and don't know?


I already showed you.

The universe is fine-tuned for life to exist. There wouldn't even be a debate if it wasn't. The reason there's a debate at all is because the universe seems unnatural and science can't explain things like the vacuum catastrophe or the axis of evil in Cosmology.

Sean Carroll points this out in this paper and I believe he's an atheist or agnostic:

In What Sense Is the Early Universe Fine-Tuned?


It is commonplace in discussions of modern cosmology to assert that the early universe began in a special state. Conventionally, cosmologists characterize this fine-tuning in terms of the horizon and flatness problems. I argue that the fine-tuning is real, but these problems aren't the best way to think about it: causal disconnection of separated regions isn't the real problem, and flatness isn't a problem at all. Fine-tuning is better understood in terms of a measure on the space of trajectories: given reasonable conditions in the late universe, the fraction of cosmological histories that were smooth at early times is incredibly tiny. This discussion helps clarify what is required by a complete theory of cosmological initial conditions.


Here's more from the paper.


The issue of the initial conditions of the universe – in particular, the degree to which they are “unnatural” or “fine-tuned,” and possible explanations thereof – is obviously of central importance to cosmology, as well as to the foundations of statistical mechanics. The early universe was a hot, dense, rapidly-expanding plasma, spatially flat and nearly homogeneous along appropriately chosen spacelike surfaces.1 The question is, why was it like that? In particular, the thinking goes, these conditions don’t seem to be what we would expect a “randomly chosen” universe to look like, to the extent that such a concept makes any sense. In addition to the obvious challenge to physics and cosmology of developing a theory of initial conditions under which these properties might seem natural, it is a useful exercise to specify as carefully as possible the sense in which they don’t seem natural from our current point of view.


Carroll suggest science can't explain these things.


Of course, all of this discussion about fine-tuning and the cosmological measure would be completely pointless if we did have a well-formulated theory of initial conditions (or, better, of our cosmological history considered as a whole). Ultimately the goal is not to explain why our universe appears unnatural; it’s to explain why we live in this specific universe. Making its apparent unnaturalness precise is hopefully a step toward achieving this lofty ambition.


arxiv.org...

Herein lies the BIG PROBLEM IN SCIENCE. The universe looks UNNATURAL where they expect to find naturalness. Like Carroll said, science can't explain why these things are unnatural or "appears" unnatural. We should just throw out reason and logic and say even though we're not finding naturalness but fine tuning we shouldn't bother with explanations of this UNNATURALNESS , we should just explain it away.

Like I said, the universe is fine-tuned for life and naturalness can't be found. That's because the universe was designed. Here's more from Leonard Susskind talking about the fine-tuned universe.



So your SILLY imaginary tree branches make no sense in light of scientific understanding. I also think Susskind is an atheist. At the end of the day it's SCIENCE.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Ah, the old "size equals life" argument. We like it because it seems to make sense on the surface. But logically no matter how big the universe is, there's no guarantee that other life will exist in it.

Say you have a huge stadium and a football is sitting on one of the seats for some unknown reason. Are we supposed to take it for granted that if you increase the size of the stadium by 1,000 times (or 1,000,000) that there just has to be another football on one of the seats? It just magically appears at a certain point?

So I'm going to hold off believing in other life until we discover it. Bill Nye has his opinion and I have mine.


I am sorry but this analogy is completely invalid.

In order for that to be the case,the football stadium would have to have within it some mechanism through which a ball could be created, and if that were indeed the case, then another ball might, in fact, be created.

The unknown reason for the football existing is not really analogous to the existence of life in the universe.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It says IN THE VIDEO; spe-cif-ic-lee, the velociraptor IN GENERAL, could have evolved into a humanoiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid, specifically mentions itttttttttttt, pay attentionnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
The unknown reason for the football existing is not really analogous to the existence of life in the universe.

That's only because you know how footballs are made. But I didn't say that. I only said that you didn't know how it got there. You can assume somebody (God) put it there; you can assume whatever you like. But you don't know. And without knowing that for sure, you can't be sure that no matter how big the stadium is there will be another one sitting on a seat somewhere. Yeah, maybe God would put another one in there. Maybe not.

I guess if you think that a big universe would just HAVE to include more than one planet with life, the question naturally arises, how many planets would it take for there guaranteed to be one with life on it, besides Earth?



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

What? I do not understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the reason for the existence of the football, which is unknown, is analogous to the reason for the existence of life?

The basic necessities for life, molecules, just chemistry and physics in general provide for it. What provides for the ball?



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Until someone can prove that permutations of constants will not create permutations of life then this is a horrible logically inept argument made up on assumptions.




Its like:
I Met my current girlfriend when we bumped bumpers at a traffic light a month ago. Newtonian physics defines momentum and car movement. If Newtonian physics where altered slightly I would not have met my girlfriend. Therefore The universe must be set up for me and my girlfriend to be together.


Its utter hogwash.


edit on 27-5-2015 by Legman because: tyyypoooos



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join