Do you believe in other life in the Universe?

[hoosierdoc]

I think a lot of people need there to be "life" elsewhere because they think that would invalidate creationism. They're wrong, and I feel bad for them.

 

[jamil]

I think a lot of people need there to be "life" elsewhere because they think that would invalidate creationism. They're wrong, and I feel bad for them.

It could be that a lot of people need there to be no other life elsewhere to validate creationism. But really. Why? Couldn't God have created life elsewhere but not told us about it in the Bible? Scientists estimate that there are 100 billion planets in our galaxy, one of 100 billion galaxies. It may be as naive to think God only created life on Earth as it was to have believe everything revolved around the Earth before they had the means to discover otherwise.

 

[jamil]

Timely article.
Probing the Atmospheres of Exoplanets for Signs of Life

We've found ~5k planets, with ~3k that have detectable atmospheres.

5K planets are a thimble compared to the pacific ocean. If you only find one tiny sea bug in that thimble, should we extrapolate that no other bugs could exist in the rest of the ocean?

 

[jamil]

That was in reference my comment about how environments were necessary for compounds that lead to life. What about that is wrong. I suspect we can come to an agreement on a certain order for things.

Are you simply saying I'm wrong because the compounds exist on comets or asteroids?

You have to admit that the way you stated it read like you were saying planets existed before the compounds that make them up.

So where do you come down?

Does "life" (however you want to define it) exist beyond our world (and if you think so, please define what level of life you believe is likely).

I thought I had made that clear. I can't say I know for sure. It seems to me like the greater probability is that life at least as advanced as ours is likely in a universe of 100s of billions of galaxies with 100s of billions of planets. We find repetition in the natural things around us. It seems less likely that there's only one place in the vast universe where life is. But until someone has proven it I'll stick with I don't really know.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree.

The problem is that if you accept observations as the lynchpin of science - the differentiator between the world of "known" and the world of "faith" - then we have observed no other world that actually contains life.

I am not a scientist, but I don't recall ever being taught that the linchpin of science is observation. You make guesses. Then you test the guesses. And you refine your guesses as you get the results. Observation is one way to test. There are other ways to test stuff. Math, for example.

Now, if we define "life" in a primordial ooze of amino acids and procreation, then ok. I'll admit THAT kind of life is more probable. But, that kind of "life" does not really impact people of faith.* If we're talking sentientertaining (which will hopefully be more entertaining than network TV), then the hurdle for proof is higher, right?

So this confirms what we're talking about. You don't seem to mind entertaining the notion that there is life elsewhere if it's just primordial ooze. Your contention is that it's unlikely that it's on the level of humans. I would say the hurdle of proof is higher to prove human-comparable life than it would be to prove primordial ooze elsewhere. But that's not what we're comparing. We're comparing the two competing assertions that there is or is not human-comparable life. For that, the hurdle is higher to prove that there isn't, because you have to search everywhere not to find it. You only have to find one counter example to prove otherwise.

So of course - those suggesting life DOES exist on other planets have it relatively easy. They only need 1. The problem is, at this timeslice of this multiverse, that 1 does not appear to exist. And, the more we learn, the more our observations suggest that the chaos that resulted in our world has not happened in the same way, anywhere else.

That means unique.

That conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Just because you've examined 5 thousand thimbles of ocean water doesn't mean you've examined enough to extrapolate the contents of the entire pacific ocean.

* I continue to believe God, in his infinite power and wisdom, can create other life. In fact, for those who believe in the Bible, He already has.

It's okay. I don't know why so many Creationists think that if human-comparable life were to exist elsewhere in the universe, that God is somehow disproved. If Scientists produced credible evidence of a sky scraper on some very distant planet, would you lose your faith? Would you stop believing in Jesus? If your God can create the universe, and make humans to inhabit the Earth, why couldn't he have made other Earths and other human-comparable life to inhabit them? That discovery wouldn't destroy one jot or tittle of the gospel.

The Bible didn't say that the Earth was the center of the universe, yet it was blasphemy to say it wasn't.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

The Bible didn't say that the Earth was the center of the universe, yet it was blasphemy to say it wasn't.

That's an interesting point. The Bible says that there is only one God, but it doesn't say that there is only one Earth. Maybe God Created many Earths, and each one has it's own Bible and it's own "people".

Which would be more of a jaw-dropper? That alien life visited Earth? Or That alien life visited Earth and was carrying a Bible?

 

[halfmileharry]

That's an interesting point. The Bible says that there is only one God, but it doesn't say that there is only one Earth. Maybe God Created many Earths, and each one has it's own Bible and it's own "people".

Which would be more of a jaw-dropper? That alien life visited Earth? Or That alien life visited Earth and was carrying a Bible?

IF the bible was King James version I'd be really wanting to know more...

 

[nipprdog]

I think a lot of people need there to be "life" elsewhere because they think that would invalidate creationism. They're wrong, and I feel bad for them.

Just.........wow.

 

[jamil]

That's an interesting point. The Bible says that there is only one God, but it doesn't say that there is only one Earth. Maybe God Created many Earths, and each one has it's own Bible and it's own "people".

Which would be more of a jaw-dropper? That alien life visited Earth? Or That alien life visited Earth and was carrying a Bible?

As an practitioner and then observer of Christianity, I've noticed that theologians (authorities of the religion) often infer things not said in the Bible, teach them, and then call dissenters blasphemous. Even as a Christian, I thought many people had more faith in what their preachers told them the Bible said, than they did in what the Bible itself actually said. It's easier to believe what your preacher says God's law is, or what faith is, or what grace is, or what salvation is, or what eternal punishment is, than it is to read it for yourself separated from the teachings of theologians. This is exactly why Galileo was imprisoned. This is why people were burned at the stake. It was to protect the people's faith in the theologians to maintain their power over people's belief.

 

[NKBJ]

"Alien life"?
On the weight of recorded testimony over the course of thousands of years we can pretty well take for granted that something is interacting with humanity.
Whether one or many somethings, why would people think those somethings are alien to this planet?

 

[T.Lex]

If we start with an agreement that the universe "began" (and it is not totally agreed among the theoreticians that that is so), then fundamental forces were thought to have been fixed in the earliest phase of the universe. Although we don't always think of organization as a fundamental force it appears to be so. Usually, entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is used as the determinant, but organization does not violate entropy as the energy used in organization leads to greater entropy of the system as a whole.

Looks like a whole lot of faith in something unseen happening there.

But, I'm just ribbing you. Theoretical physics is just that - theoretical. There are a lot of ways things "could" be when you go back far enough, look small enough, or look big enough.

Having said that, energy was rapidly organized into sub-atomic mesons, leptons, et. al, then further organized into protons and neutrons. Hydrogen formed. The first organized atom. Fusion formed larger atoms. Supernovae created more elements. I think you see where this might be headed: the universe became more organized in its multi-billion year life, entropy notwithstanding. Planetary systems, galaxies, clusters, etc.

I was picking up after all that, specific to our solar system. Specific to earth, actually. But, I do see where the ambiguity arose with regard to my post (especially when combined with jamil's observation below).

That entropy, IMHO, mitigates toward the uniqueness of earth.

All that could be explained by the fundamental forces along with energy. Chemistry with a little gravity thrown in. And it is no wonder that atoms formed molecules and amino acids (glycine has been detected in the dust clouds of our galaxy).

The next step, cellular structure and replication, is a huge step. But it happened here with all the cosmic forces and energy at work. It's not feasible that our planet is the only place it can occur or has occurred.

As to what has been discovered to date....well, we've just begun to look and only in our neighborhood. Most observations have been within 400 parsecs (the galaxy is approx 30 kiloparsecs in diameter and the furthest galactic star is about 40 kparsecs away) That same article states that there could be as many as 40 BILLION earth-size planets in our galaxy, and there are over 300 billion galaxies.

The numbers are just too large to think that we are the only ones.

Please show your work?

In a calculation with an infinite number of results, there are an infinite number of possibilities, sure. But if you were to stack all of the 1-in-a-billion events that had to happen, at the right time, to bring humanity into existence on earth, you begin to approach the numbers you're talking about.

You have to admit that the way you stated it read like you were saying planets existed before the compounds that make them up.

Ah, right. Again, I see that as part of the ambiguity I introduced.

I was not starting "In the beginning...." My starting point was the formation of earth, then following on with the compounds that started life.

Indeed, I did not write it as clearly as I was thinking it.

I am not a scientist, but I don't recall ever being taught that the linchpin of science is observation. You make guesses. Then you test the guesses. And you refine your guesses as you get the results. Observation is one way to test. There are other ways to test stuff. Math, for example.

The testing part is the observational part. You observe the results, then tweak the theory.

Math is modeling. Which is absolutely important, but it is not proof unless the model can be matched to observation.

So this confirms what we're talking about. You don't seem to mind entertaining the notion that there is life elsewhere if it's just primordial ooze.

This is a definitional thing. In order to not move the goalposts on each other, we need to be clear about our expectations. Amino acids are far more likely to be present on other planets than sentient creatures, because they are simpler. Complexity is hard.

This thread quickly jumped into science v. religion. From a religious perspective, primordial ooze causes no heartburn (IMHO). God created humans to have dominion over animals. If there are animal-level (or lower) life forms on other planets, I don't think that presents a religious problem. (Others can certainly disagree with that, of course.)

The problem arises with sentient, in-the-image-of-God type life forms. The possibility of those is becoming increasingly rare.

That conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Just because you've examined 5 thousand thimbles of ocean water doesn't mean you've examined enough to extrapolate the contents of the entire pacific ocean.

I disagree with the thimble analogy. We continue to scale the size of our testing/observation, dramatically. In the last 20 years, we've effectively gone from 0-5000, with the vast majority of those coming in just the last few years.

And yet, we've found many Goldilocks, but none that even come close to the "serendipitous combination" that exists on Earth.

Updating the formula with less theoretical odds to reflect observable phenomenon decreases the likelihood of finding "life" (however it is defined).

It's okay. I don't know why so many Creationists think that if human-comparable life were to exist elsewhere in the universe, that God is somehow disproved. If Scientists produced credible evidence of a sky scraper on some very distant planet, would you lose your faith? Would you stop believing in Jesus? If your God can create the universe, and make humans to inhabit the Earth, why couldn't he have made other Earths and other human-comparable life to inhabit them? That discovery wouldn't destroy one jot or tittle of the gospel.

The Bible didn't say that the Earth was the center of the universe, yet it was blasphemy to say it wasn't.

Yeah, you aren't really the audience that I think will freak out, either.

 

[T.Lex]

Thought this was interesting, and timely.

Amazing haul of ancient human finds unveiled - BBC News

The researchers say that finding the remains of multiple individuals in a separate chamber bolsters the idea that Homo naledi was caching its dead. If correct, this surprising - and controversial claim - hints at an intelligent mind and, perhaps, the stirrings of culture.
...

By combining results together, they were able to constrain the age of the Homo naledi remains to between 236,000 and 335,000 years ago.

 

[1980Harley]

Life? Hard to believe that there wouldn't be. Intelligent Life? That's a whole different ballpark.

 

[NKBJ]

People burying their loved ones a quarter million years ago. That's awesome.

 

[T.Lex]

People burying their loved ones a quarter million years ago. That's awesome.

Careful who you consider "people."

 

[NKBJ]

Careful who you consider "people."

Well, think about a minute. If they were only smart enough to keep the stink down to not attract predators then they were smarter than a lot of folks you probably have known. But they went to a lot of trouble to position the corpses down in a cave. I'm thinking people is OK.

 

[Jludo]

That's an interesting point. The Bible says that there is only one God, but it doesn't say that there is only one Earth. Maybe God Created many Earths, and each one has it's own Bible and it's own "people".

Which would be more of a jaw-dropper? That alien life visited Earth? Or That alien life visited Earth and was carrying a Bible?

Shoot, maybe he even gave different bibles to different groups here on our own planet.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, think about a minute. If they were only smart enough to keep the stink down to not attract predators then they were smarter than a lot of folks you probably have known. But they went to a lot of trouble to position the corpses down in a cave. I'm thinking people is OK.

This is me resisting a certain temptation to go down another rabbit hole in a thematic overlap with the religious discussion thread.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Shoot, maybe he even gave different bibles to different groups here on our own planet.

Wow, and I thought I was going out on a limb.

 

[jamil]

This is a definitional thing. In order to not move the goalposts on each other, we need to be clear about our expectations. Amino acids are far more likely to be present on other planets than sentient creatures, because they are simpler. Complexity is hard.

This thread quickly jumped into science v. religion. From a religious perspective, primordial ooze causes no heartburn (IMHO). God created humans to have dominion over animals. If there are animal-level (or lower) life forms on other planets, I don't think that presents a religious problem. (Others can certainly disagree with that, of course.)

The problem arises with sentient, in-the-image-of-God type life forms. The possibility of those is becoming increasingly rare.

Sure. It is naturally a discussion of science v. religion. Is there any other explanation for why the religious people are the most reluctant to believe there may be other life out there than non-religious people?

And just to state where the goalposts are, let's be clear that we're all talking about human-comparable life, or as you say, "in-the-image-of-God type life forms". So when I say "life" that's what I mean from here on out.

Creationists are most likely to declare that there is no other life but on Earth. To declare such a thing is at least as much a matter of faith as to declare that there IS life elsewhere. So I think of it as a scale from no other life to some other life, where the in-between points are less probable to more probable. I'm in the middle there.

As Doc said, yes, I think there may be some people who believe there is other life because they think it confirms their disbelief in God. If that's true, of course the opposite can be true as well. By my observations I find most people who say there is definitely no other out there are creationists. The people who tend to say there is definitely life out there somewhere tend to think of the vastness of the universe is proof that there is other life out there. My standard of belief is that I'm not going to believe something just to help confirm something else.

I disagree with the thimble analogy. We continue to scale the size of our testing/observation, dramatically. In the last 20 years, we've effectively gone from 0-5000, with the vast majority of those coming in just the last few years.

And yet, we've found many Goldilocks, but none that even come close to the "serendipitous combination" that exists on Earth.

Updating the formula with less theoretical odds to reflect observable phenomenon decreases the likelihood of finding "life" (however it is defined).

You say that we're at the beginning of the search. And you keep saying that the more we search--even though the search has barely begun and what we've searched is just a thimble in the ocean--the more we reduce the likelihood that there is life elsewhere. We might as well call elections after the first person votes.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Creationists are most likely to declare that there is no other life but on Earth. To declare such a thing is at least as much a matter of faith as to declare that there IS life elsewhere. So I think of it as a scale from no other life to some other life, where the in-between points are less probable to more probable. I'm in the middle there.

Mathematically, who is most likely to be right?