It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
With all those stars in the Universe do you not think the odds are highly against only one average sized star in all of the likely infinite Universe having intelligent life?
Our World maybe a giant hologram
DRIVING through the countryside south of Hanover, it would be easy to miss the GEO600 experiment. From the outside, it doesn't look much: in the corner of a field stands an assortment of boxy temporary buildings, from which two long trenches emerge, at a right angle to each other, covered with corrugated iron. Underneath the metal sheets, however, lies a detector that stretches for 600 metres.
For the past seven years, this German set-up has been looking for gravitational waves - ripples in space-time thrown off by super-dense astronomical objects such as neutron stars and black holes. GEO600 has not detected any gravitational waves so far, but it might inadvertently have made the most important discovery in physics for half a century.
University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
1) Lets assume that life is on other planets. How do you know that it is intelligent?
.Thus it appears that, even as early as 3.5 billion years ago,microorganisms had become remarkably durable and sophisticated!
2) What type of life forms are they? (The aliens). Are they of human genetic makeup? or something else entirely? etc. etc.
3) What is the universe, is it holographic? infinite? expanding? Electronic? Physical? etc. etc
4) What proof is their that what these ancients were seeing was not their imagination? Timetravelers? There technology? A different race of humans? etc. etc.
So lets review:
1) Chirality= 10 to the power of 33,113
2) Life Specific Amino Acids= 10 to the power of 6,021
3) Correct Amino ACid placement= 10 to the power of 13,010
4) Correct Genetic Material= 10 to the power of 60,155
5) And most importantly, gene placement, correct gene placement= 10 to the power of 528
Add it up it comes to the total of 10 to the power of 112,827 and worst of all its 1 out 10 to the 112,827. 1 !!!!
Materials that could jump-start organic evolution have shown up in interstellar dust clouds and dusty planet-forming discs around many stars. These findings fuel an increasingly strong suspicion that the raw material of planet Earth was primed for life.
The infrared-sensing eyes of NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope made the latest discovery. As NASA recently announced, Dan Watson and William Forrest at the University of Rochester in New York found "significant amounts of icy organic materials" around five young stars in Spitzer data.
Water, methanol, and carbon dioxide coat dust particles around these stars located 420 light-years away in the constellation Taurus. NASA notes that, while such materials have been found elsewhere, "this is the first time they were seen unambiguously in the dust making up planet-forming gases."
Such discs appear to be common in our galaxy. Infrared light penetrates dust, allowing astronomers to see into dusty areas. Spitzer - launched last August - can image these areas with unprecedented clarity and detail.
The cosmos. Yes, but what are the cosmos? Apparently science does not know.
This originally comes from Dr. Ralph O. Muncaster? My friend, he is a PhD in Religious Education and Business Administration.
1. Given Occam’s Razor, what is more likely and why?
That in a 24 Sextillion star universe (likely twice that amount of planets) that only ONE planet “miraculously” developed life?
That life is quite common throughout the Universe and there is nothing all that special about Earth?
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
2. Given the current evidence and models of an infinite Universe one must realize that there then becomes a 100% chance of another intelligent life form existing, considering the system is infinite. Also consider the quantum interpretation of probability. Your rebuttal to that?
I don’t think I need to even bother stating the obvious bias and lack of proper education in the field of biochemistry, genetics, and abiogenesis by a hardcore creationist! I am sure he knows more than PhD’s in biochemistry….
Each part of the equation comprised either a number or a factor and during the conference the team of scientists discussed each term in detail and made their best estimate of its value. The individual terms were then placed within the Drake equation to evaluate the number, N, of civilisations with whom we might communicate:...............
For example, let us suppose that such a civilisation comes into being about every 10,000 years. If such civilisations attempt to make contact with others for 1,000,000 years on average, then we would expect there to be around 100 in our galaxy from whom we might possibly detect signals.
How accurate is the current estimate of N?
The problem is that while some of the factors involved in the evaluation of Rcc are reasonably well known, we can only make educated guesses for others. Neither do we have any real idea of the typical value for L (More on L), so our final estimate for N is not expected to be accurate.
In fact it has been said that the Drake Equation is a way of encapsulating a lot of ignorance in a small space! Evaluations of N in the early days of SETI were probably on the optimistic side with values of up to 1,000,000 considered possible.
Some now say that intelligent civilisations will arise only rarely and thus that we might be the only one existing in our Galaxy at the present time. The true answer will no doubt lie somewhere in between and the SETI projects could perhaps be regarded as an experimental way of finding the answer of how often advanced civilisations arise.
The integers that are plugged into this equation are often subject to wide interpretation and can differ significantly from scientist to scientist. Even the slightest change can result in vastly different answers. Part of the problem is that our understanding of cosmology and astrobiology is rapidly changing and there is often very little consensus among specialists as to what the variables might be.
Another major problem of the Drake Equation is that it does not account for two rather important variables: cosmological developmental phases and time
However, silicon is less abundant in the universe and its structures are much less stable and much more reactive than carbon's, particularly in the presence of oxygen where it produces a solid
If water existed (on mars), it would have been locked up as ice. As a result, the formation and evolution of life forms would have been exceedingly difficult.
Not so far as we know. There are 9 major planets in the solar system, and only one moon, Saturn's great moon Titan, which is known to have an atmosphere. With the exception of the Earth, however, no other planets or moons in our solar system are expected to have living systems. Titan and the atmosphere of Jupiter, however, may have a complex soup of organic molecules including some amino acids and simple proteins in a pre-biotic state. But no one seriously expects to see bacteria or single celled life anywhere else but on Earth.
Does life exist?
Recent research argues that an atmosphere rich in oxygen is the most likely source of energy for complex life to exist anywhere in the Universe, thereby limiting the number of places life may exist.
Professor David Catling at Bristol University, along with colleagues at the University of Washington and NASA, contend that significant oxygen in the air and oceans is essential for the evolution of multicellular organisms, and that on Earth the time required for oxygen levels to reach a point where animals could evolve was almost four billion years.
a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities
1) Since you do not "know" if life is out their on other planets, what are you basing your belief on? Probability?
2) Since you do not know what type of life forms they are, what evidence are you basing that they are intelligent?
3) Since you do not know what the universe is, how can you come to the conclusion that we are not in the matrix? Not in a golographic universe? etc. The reason I ask is because what if the above is true, that means that aliens do not exist and that also means that what we are seeing is a massive illusion.
The best theory that I know of this is the Drake Equation:
But if any of the life existed with these type of genetic and life forms a huge problem occurs to the Contact scenario (as hinted in jkrog08's OP). A big problem:
If these life forms were to come to earth, simply put, they would DIE. Arcenic needs Extreme cold to even be considered, but not to cold as to kill the life forms. Silicon needs so many things that it is almost impossible to think that they would even be alive.
1. How can you explain the stunning resemblance of the Kimberly, Australia cave paintings to those of modern day “Grey aliens” thousands of years before the first modern reports?
2. How can you explain the “Nuremberg Wood Carving” and the witness testimony of an obvious aerial battle in the sky?
3. How can you explain the very obvious looking, self illuminating saucer shaped object in the background of the Ghirlandaio painting? What was it then?
4. Since you dodged it before I will ask it again; Applying Occam’s Razor to this debate which seems more likely?
-That some very unlikely “biochemical miracle” occurred on only one planet out of an incomprehensible amount?
-Life on Earth is quite common and no ‘1 out of 10^2000000’ probability occurred?
5. Finally, how can you explain the cross world ancient accounts of UFOs and drawings of beings that obviously look like a classic Grey alien by almost any account?
The molecular world is dominated by random events.
Random DNA, Evolution
Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment. The other major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population.
Genetic variation comes from random mutations that occur in the genomes of organisms.
A random number is a number chosen as if by chance from some specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these numbers reproduces the underlying distribution. Almost always, such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there are no correlations between successive numbers. Computer-generated random numbers are sometimes called pseudorandom numbers, while the term "random" is reserved for the output of unpredictable physical processes.
1) Why is it that their is no solid evidence of aliens visting earth, but assumptions from paintings? Because as we know paintings are not proof of anything. As I demonstared above.
2) If aliens came here, how did they manage to travel?
3) If they made CONTACT with people how did they not die? If their genetic makeup is different.
It could be just bad paintings or resemeblences to ghosts. They look more like ghosts then anything.
WALLUNGUNDER, the big boss WANDJINA, came down from the Milky Way during DREAMTIME and created the earth and all its inhabitants. Then he took one look at those inhabitants and headed back home for reinforcements. This was going to be a tricky job.
With the aid of the DREAMTIME-SNAKE, the WANDJINA descended and spent their DREAMTIME creating, teaching and being God-like to the natives. These Gods from the Milky Way were so powerful that they didn't need to speak. So they didn't bother to have mouths.
But their are other explanations such as solar waves or solar flares.
Well I believe in advanced ancient technology, so I can explain it that way.
Its the sun or a star, or what the majority go with a cloud.
it seems to represent an angel coming from the clouds and the sky.
The above is proof of an angel coming from the clouds.
Well lets see, their are same accounts of dragons all over the globe, accounts of unicorns all over the world, accounts that the world was flat ALL over the world
Random changes in random molecules created the world and that same randomness pattern started evolution over a period of time and then through RANDOM changes as stated in evolution created the beings that we see today.
Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators.
Einstein stated that two objects cannot occupy the same space
but in way does that mean Randomness is a Pattern.
The probability distribution describes the range of possible values that a random variable can attain and the probability that the value of the random variable is within any (measurable) subset of that range.
1. Applying Occam’s Razor, what is more likely given your theory of a “random Universe”; That the Aborigine’s coincidently drew mythological gods that look exactly like the Grey’s, or actually drew images representing an encounter with alien beings in their drawings(given your own theory of randomness as well)?
2. Can you explain in at least 3 sentences(more than just “the first one”) why Occam’s Razor dictates that Earth is the only planet with life(I do not believe you or anyone can)?
3. What’s your explanation of the modern abduction accounts?
4. You now know everything is not random. What is your revised rebuttal to the existence of intelligent life?
2) If aliens came here, how did they manage to travel?
Is this a fish market? LOL, just joking but seriously this is irrelevant to this debate.
Needless to say their very mythos sounds a lot like other stories around the world of “a race coming from the sky” to help or create humans and their culture. The “no speaking” part also sounds a lot like the reported telepathy of the Grey’s does it not?
That is a portion of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, it was pointed at a very small part of the sky, covering less than a fraction of a fraction percentage of the sky. It contains 10,000 GALAXIES (just that we can see), each galaxy contains on average around 100 BILLION stars. Those 10,000 galaxies only represent less than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of the total number of galaxies in the observable Universe, which is AT LEAST 100 BILLION.
Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is the collective name for a number of activities people undertake to search for extraterrestrial life. SETI projects use scientific methods to search for electromagnetic transmissions from civilizations on distant planets. The United States government contributed to earlier SETI projects, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.
1) What is the evidnece other than probability that aliens exist?
2) How would the aliens get here?
3) Does the majority decision prove aliens?.
4) Would you agree that the colletive consciousness could be "wanting" or a "need" for humans not to be alone?
why is it that we have come up with no results? no proof? not even to add evidence that they might exist.
What were the odds of something being created out of nothing?
Alexandra Barnett, an astronomer and executive director of the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland, California," It would just be too tough a pill to swallow to believe that nothing else has evolved in all that time and space."
First of all this was an exceptional debate; congratulations to both fighters.
Both did a good job on the opening remarks but I felt that TheMythLives explained his premise better, However in the future you should make sure that your sources don't require a subscription to read.
In the following posts both fighters did an excellent job of defending and counter-attacking. Neither fighter allowed the other one to distract him with the red herrings both were using. I believe that jkog08 made better use of his Socratic questions to support his position and reveal any weakness in TheMythLives position.
Both of used excellent sources with the one exception noted above but I believe that jkog08's sources were slightly better.
Closing arguments were very well done by both fighters. Both used the opportunity to restate their positions and make a final attack on the other's position. I liked jkog08's summary it was excellent and was a great way finish.
I would in all honesty like to say this is a tie but a winner has to be chosen. So based on his slightly better use of sources and questions combined with an excellent closing summary this debate by a very slight margin goes to jkog08.
Thank you to both fighters; it was an awesome debate that was a privilege to judge.
An interesting topic and two skilled Fighters. This will be a good one. For the record, this is the first time I have read the debate and most of the judgment is provided as I read it, argument by argument.
jkrog08 starts out solidly, by establishing his intent and then providing a basic ypothetical that leads to a valid statistical question. He also says that there are many historical accounts. I anticipate these accounts will certainly not be ignored throughout this debate.
TheMythLives somes out of the gate citing statistics as well, albeit with much more specificity. Very convincing save for one point - it has happened before meaning that it is indeed possible for someone to pick the same electron 1,376 times in a row. However, he was much more thorough and the statistical point is at this point a tie in my opinion.
TheMythLives also brings into the argument the fact that the universe may just be a hologram. This is a confusing tactic as I am not sure that I see the relevance. Even if the universe is a hologram, it is still measurable and it is still inhabited (by us humans). So while an interesting side bar, I found its' inclusion as confusing and immaterial, making the following statement:
but I think the point has been made.
...not entirely true.
And jkrog08 pretty much answers those points and more. I found the arguement that given the combination of certain chemicals that life had to result to be on the interesting side, as well as the suggestion of agiogensis. Using TheMytheLives' electron analogy was also very effective.
TheMythLives offers a rebuttal to the credibility of Mr. Muncaster. Interesting and stron though I would have liked to have seen a source providing dates (this is ATS after all... ). He then continues to answer the SQ's. His first answer is solid but subjective, since the use of statistics and the proliferation of similar chemical situations as measured from Earth in other parts of the universe could suggest that it is simpler to assume multiple life forms have evolved. So the answer is subjective (and the reason for the debate... )
His answer to the second SQ is, again, confusing. His stance that he cannot know what the universe is but as a supporting piece of evidence to use measurable quantities of this 'unknown universe' to support an absolution (there is no other intelligent life) is contradictory. Indeed, if one does not know what the universe is then one cannot logically assert the components of the universe (one component being the evolution and existence of intelligent life forms). I think this stance, brought up originally by TheMythLives, is damaging to his position.
TheMythLives counters (pre-emptively?) The Drake Equation effectively. He is indeed correct that the slightest change in the factorization could lead to vastly different results and this was a brilliant tactic and conclusion which helped diffuse an argument I came into this debate expecting to see talked more about.
TheMythLives also hurts himself with the following statement:
Now mirror based life is just like us, accept opposite amino acids. Thats easy to understand and put forth, however, that life would need similar conditions that we have on earth.
...as jkrog08 has already demonstrated that (in our brief time of being able to measure chemical compositions of other systems) there are "similar conditions to Earth:
In addition to that there is no argument from nearly anyone that exosolar planets, probably similar to the conditions on Pre-Biotic Earth are quite common in just our galaxy alone.
TheMythLives also claims that Mars is too cold and as well that lifeforms formed under different conditions would die if they came to Earth. The former, in my opinion, is not so much relevant as it is but one aspect of the universe and tends to narrow the focus of the debate (a clever tactic if successfully employed) and the latter is fallacious as Humans have already proven that they could live in an environment in which conditions greatly differed from that of Earth.
jkrog08 correctly presents the definition of Occam's Razor and answers the SQ's successfully, in my opinion. Indeed, the answer to the third SQ focus's on one of the weakest points of TheMythLives' argument (which I am still confused as to its' use).
Also, the statement that "carbon is highly abundant in the universe" goes a long way to refute the supposition implied by TheMythLives, that alien life need be based on a different fundamental building block.
jkrog08 goes on to provide the promised examples of ancient evidence. I am looking for TheMythLives to answer that, while the evidence is compelling, it certainly does not necessitate as proof.
And TheMythLives does indeed provide alternate explanations for the photos...and successfully provides other examples of the Virgin Mary example.
TheMythLives then describes how probability cannot predict randomness and I think it is an interesting excercise in abstract logic. However, it is a philisophical point and one that does not incorporate, necessarily, observable and measurable traits. The universe has demonstrated patterns and we are still observing and analyzing new factors by which to increase the efficacy of our use of observed pattern to increase our comprehension. As such, while I think it was a potentially great tactic, I feel it comes across as a bit too late and reactive without enough applicative validity.
His first SQ was brilliant, however and I am looking forward to the answer, which was unexpected and interesting, however the use of conspiracy to counter a subjective question is indeed subjective and a bit on the weak side.
jkrog08 dodges the second SQ and as such fails to provide a direct answer, which is required by the debate rules. The question is indeed relevant as a means of travel could have been an indirect proof or non proof of the term "intelligent" contained in the debate topic. The answer to the third SQ is more than adequate.
jkrog also effectively refutes the randomness theory, in my opinion, and ends with a visual to reinforce his opening argument.
TheMythLives continues to show why subjective interpretation is exactly that, subjective and through action makes void the accusation of abusing symbolistic representation. But after that, his post comes across as tired and flat. The reiteration of randomness as not disproven does not interact with jkrog's statement that was brought from the talkorigins.org, in that molecules arrange themselves according to their chemical properties. That is a very relevant assertion towards the randomness theory and one that I find helps support jkrog's entire position.
He also cites Seti as a failure and a support of his position. I liked his brief look at the psychological aspect of humans not wanting to be alone and while I feel that it ultimately is exclusive of the debate premis I do note that it is yet another field utilized by the TheMythLives...which shows that he is all over the place and less focused.
The conclusions were a recount of the debate and as such I will not provide a play by play.
This was a brilliant and enjoyable debate. Both Fighters brought in sound arguments and rebuttals. However, I must choose one and I feel that jkrog08 provided the more consistent argument.
Congratulations to both Fighters!!