Are we alone?

by Xanthippe 38 Replies latest jw friends

Xanthippe

The title of this thread is the title of a chapter in the book by Richard Dawkins that I'm really enjoying in spite of or perhaps because of it having been written for young people. I thought I would share a couple of paragraphs on his theories of the kind of bodies aliens on other planets might have :-
'Let's exercise our imaginations a bit more. On the planet of our hypothetical aliens, the radiant energy from their star will probably range from radio waves at the long end to X-rays at the short. Why should the aliens limit themselves to the narrow band of frequencies that we call 'light'? Maybe they have radio eyes? Or X-ray eyes?
A good image relies on high resolution. What does that mean? The higher the resolution, the closer two points can be to each other while still being distinguished from each other. Not surprisingly, long wavelengths don't make for good resolution. Light wavelengths are measured in minute fractions of a millimetre and give excellent resolution, but radio wavelengths are measured in metres. So radio waves would be lousy for forming images, although they are very good for communication purposes because they can be modulated. Modulated means changed, extremely rapidly, in a controlled way. So far as is known, no living creature on our planet has evolved a natural system for transmitting, modulating or receiving radio waves: that had to wait for human technology. But perhaps there are aliens on other planets that have evolved radio communication naturally.'
(After speculating about aliens with X-ray vision or that have evolved bodies that can use sonar on planets shrouded in thick fog he says)
'Or, if the aliens have evolved organs that can handle radio waves for communication, they might also evolve true radar to find their way around, and radar does work in fog.'
The Magic of Reality, Richard Dawkins, London 2012, pp 196 - 197
steve2

You and I should never be alone for if we were, people would talk.
But seriously I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins - I love the way he invites his readers to consider perspectives they may never ever have thought of before. I liked your overview of his chapter on that topic!
Space Madness

What's the difference between theorizing the existence of aliens, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that suggest aliens exsist, and theorizing the existence of God, despite the lack of evidence?
goddidit

Space Madness, I would say he is speculating, not theorizing.
One difference is that the existence of aliens is something that can be tested using the tools and methods of science.
Otherwise, you ask a valid question, but what's your point?
snare&racket

SPACE MADNESS.....
The probability of life elsewhere based on the evidence and colaborated knowledge we have is significant, it is a legitimate question for science and most scientists believe there is a huge potential for extraterrestrial life.
The prospect of a god is bot based in evidence but a story in a scroll that one has the right to believe or not. If you don't see the difference, then I can only humbly and as politely as possible suggest that maybe you don't appreciate the science or evidence being discussed. God's and the supernatural are not observable, only the observable can be examined and tested by science. So your question doesnt even make sense. How can we begin to test for or observe your god? So why mention him in the discussion of life not from this planet? ET life is probable based on an equation, Real science and math.....
N = R* • f p • n e • f l • f i • f c • L
Where,
N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
R * =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.
f p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
n e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.
f l = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.
f i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.
f c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
Science does not say there are 'aliens' or not, as we don't know for sure 100% yet. Science says there is a high probability based on what we know (150 years of science that cannot be summrised in a forum answer) and we would from such evidence expect to LIKELY find alternate biology, and iffunctioning what we may call 'life' elsewhere in the universe.
if you still don't see the difference, I am sorry, but we can't help. A JW asked me why I believed in something akin to the big bang, so I gave a brief answer. He then laughed at my answer and said 'well the big bang just makes no sense to me!' ..... At this point I asked him how many books had he studied on the big bang or how many papers or journals he had read on the big bang? He sheepishly replied none, to which I asked if it was a suprise it made no sense?
Scienece is complex and very difficult to comprehend, without studying quantum physics you have no chance in hell of understanding it even on a simple level. Genesis 1:1 is a very easy thing to read and compute. There is a god, he made everything. Science and evidence however takes years, decades sometimes to comprehend and understand. It is easy to say a rainboe is a message from a god about floods, it is not so easy to appreciate the role of protons and their interaction with H2O suspended in an atmosphere. You wont find comprehension of ET science on forums, but in books and visiting evidence in libraries. If the scientists of the world are sayimg something you dont comprehend or appreciate, maybe a little humility is required and the question of whether you are missing any of the jigsaw puzzle pieces i.e evidence or understanding is required.
When I left the JW's I went straight into a 7 year science education. Even by week 2 I was ASTONISHED by what humans knew and had accomlished. I still am. I know I will die with very little knowledge due to the vast arenas of knowledge developing every moment of every day. Science requires areas of expertise which are then super specialised several times over, such is the vast nature of new data and evidence. Before you dismiss it be honest have you fully explored ANY of it nevermind ALL of it..
Ironically most scientists agree with you in a sense, in that you csn't give a definite answer on there being no god, there is just no reason or evidence to suggest he exists hence it is unprobable. It isn't like the question has been dismissed, despite it not being testable via science. Even dawkins himself says it is unlikely there is a god, not there is no god. He does this not 'just in case' but because he would answer the same with regard to a unicorn or a fairy... it is impossible to prove they do not exist, but they may be highly unprobsble as Dawkins feels about a god. Alien life on the other hand is highly probable, knowing that the universe is a huge labaratory with a very long time to produce vast and multiple variations of 'life'. Along with life having the means to develop and become more complex by itself right before our eyes, we have also proven that the building blocks of life can develop in thin air (miller experiment) and that life can survive in space. It is not ridiculos to hypothesise that there is biology elsewhere In the universe or even that it seeded ourvery own planet.
With no evidence, no means of observing a god, no means of testing their existence or actions, no means of pursuing the idea further than a Jewish, Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Roman, English, Egyptian ...text (depending which god you want science to hypothesise on) , how exactly do you want science to go about observing them? You cant make a hypotheis without the ability to predict, you cant predict without data, you can't get data without observing....
Do you see why your question makes no sense now? i mean no offence, but maybe you need to explore what science actually is.... Look up FRANCIS BACON and SCIENTIFIC METHOD. When you do, you will see it cant apply to a god or supernatural being.
snare x
Dis-Member
Space Madness

The probability of life elsewhere based on the evidence and colaborated knowledge we have is significant,
Would you mind sharing some of this evidence with us? As far as I know there no evidence for the existence of life anywhere in the universe.
The prospect of a god is bot based in evidence but a story in a scroll that one has the right to believe or not. If you don't see the difference, then I can only humbly and as politely as possible suggest that maybe you don't appreciate the science or evidence being discussed.
I stated in my post that there is no evidence for the existence of God, just like there is no evidence for the existence of life. There is no contradiction in my logic. Also your assumption about me not appreciating science couldn't be more wrong, as I am a chemistry major in college and have read many books in my free time on a wide range of scientific topics.
How can we begin to test for or observe your god?
You make another incorrect assumption, as i am agnostic and don't believe in God or the Bible, Koran, or any other text or religion.
God's and the supernatural are not observable, only the observable can be examined and tested by science. So your question doesnt even make sense.
Life outside of earth has never been observed and therefore there isn't anything to test, the same can be said for God. Also there is currently no evidence that suggest life exsist outside of earth, their is also no evidence for the existence of God. I fail to see where my comparison does not make sense.
ET life is probable based on an equation, Real science and math.....N = R* • f p • n e • f l • f i • f c • L
There many things wrong with this equation, all your varibles equal zero except for "R" and "fp". Also I find it odd that you refer to using abstract varibles with subjective meanings as "real science and math".
A JW asked me why I believed in something akin to the big bang, so I gave a brief answer. He then laughed at my answer and said 'well the big bang just makes no sense to me!
The big bang has been disproven. The big bang was based on the assumption that redshifts implies distant and hence the universe was expanding due to and intial bang. Recent images from telescopes show however that galaxies and quasars with higher redshifts than other galaxies are closer to our galaxy. The fact that redshifts are no indication of a galaxies position in the universe destroys the foundation of the big bang theory. There are many books that point out the many errors of the big bang theory, one that I just finished reading is entitled "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp, another good book on the fallacies of the big bang is "The Electric Universe" by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott.
With no evidence, no means of observing a god, no means of testing their existence or actions, no means of pursuing the idea further than a Jewish, Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Roman, English, Egyptian ...text (depending which god you want science to hypothesise on) , how exactly do you want science to go about observing them?
I don't. The point of my post which you completely missed is that concerning life on other planets we have nothing to observe, no data to test, and not the slightless bit evidence to even form a hypothesis, coming up with theories about how aliens look or behave is as fruitless as coming up with theories about how God look or behave. If you believe it is possible for intelligent life to exsist in the distant universe, I see no reason why "God" couldn't exsist somewhere in the distance universe.
rmt1

"The big bang has been disproven."
uh
Xanthippe, that's a nice reading level for K12. Maybe if you wrap a copy of it in the cover of My Book of Bible Stories, the JW parents might mistakenly bequeath their children some accurate knowledge.
steve2

I would feel disappointed if the big bang theory has been disproven. The little bang or no bang alternatives seem pale and anticlimactic by comparison.
snare&racket

Space madness, firstly the whole answer was not to you and your beliefs, I have been here many years and I try to write posts with an appreciation for more than just the person I have initially responded to. Apologies for any confusion.
The big bang has not at all been refuted. Forgive me but I think you are a little ...muddled up. I think you are refering to the recent discovery that the red shift is speeding up and not slowing down as expected, but this has been explained by the recent explinations concerning the universe expanding into dark energy. Have you read Dr Krauss? He is famous for discovering and explaining this issue.
As for the ESA and planck images of the radiation, they indeed PROVED the big bang true, only that the expansion was not uniformal some regions of the universe expanded quicker than others, giving a slight twist in the expansion i.e. radiation field. To say that these images have proven the big bang untrue is an outright lie, Or maybe a misunderstanding. A theory is a collation of evidence as you should know being a chemistry major. The recent telescope images simply say that the theory was wrong about uniformal expansion, not that it is untrue. Also your explanation of what you think the red shift issue is was odd, almost like you didn't really understand it.
The equation you denounced is Not mine, it is a famous equation, the drake equation and as the answer comes to a near one, i.e. a near 100% probability it is an interesting starting point for the question of life outside planet earth. I hold no great credance to the drake equation though i neither dismiss it, I was simply giving an example of what one can do with the observable against what we cant do with the unobservable. The difference between science hypothesising ET life and the proposal that it should work on the existence of god.
As for evidence for extraterrestrial life, I assume you know the universe is huge, I assume you know that atoms are formed in stars, I assume you know that in the right enviroment these atoms can form simple nucleic acids, the building blocks of life, for dna or rna from simply the enviroment around them (the miller experiment). I assume you agree that the further we dig down in the planet the further we go back in time and with that with NO exceptions, as we dig diwn the simpler the remains of lifeforms get. So we know the majority of the story right now despite only a hundred years or so of good science and only 20 years or so with computed science... Yet we have the science of abiogenesis, and it is exploring how we can get from acids to functioning unicellular life, despite being a new science we have learned much already. Being a chemistry major I am sure you know much of this already.
All of the above can take place anywhere in the universe, so evidence for ET life does exist in that there is an observable suggestion of its probability, i.e. Life on our planet. what law of physics, biology or chemistry do you know.of that prevents life evolving elsewhere too? Or maybe even being repsonsible for the seeding of life here I.e. The science of panspermia?
Why on earth would you conclude the alternative? That there is 100% no life outside of earth! A chemistry major making such an outstanding claim Is a shock to me. Don't try and claim I said there WAS Et life, I went to great lengths to only say it is highly POSSIBLE as I truly believe.

Are we alone?

Share this