How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

Many NASA scientists think we're on the verge of finding alien life.

Ellen Stofan, NASA's former chief scientist, said in 2015 that she believes we'll get "strong indications of life beyond Earth in the next decade and definitive evidence in the next 10 to 20 years."

Many astrophysicists and astronomers are convinced that it's not a matter of if we'll find life — it's when.
https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-pl ... de-2019-11

Questions for debate:
- How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?
- What empirical evidence is there that any extraterrestrial life exists?
- What are the implications if extraterrestrial life exists or do not exist?

Quantrill
Banned
Banned
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 7:41 pm
Location: Texas
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Post #121

Post by Quantrill »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:06 pm

So you are saying the ancestrial connections given in the bible are wrong, or incomplete, or ??? No one is claiming that the geneology was given specifically to date the flood, but that is what is used to estimate the date as AIG (and others) have done. By the same analysis people (starting with James Ussher in the 17th century) arrive at an approximate date for "creation":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

This is common knowledge so I'm surprised you are not familiar with it. But if you allow the biblical description to be randomly interpreted and incomplete, then of course you can arrive at any meaningless date for the flood or any other event. However, it isn't just the date that disproves the event ... practically any analysis from geology, archeology, biology, etc. can disprove it regardless of any date that is assigned to it. And no human being has ever lived to 900+ years, or anything even remotely close. This we are sure of from basic biology. You have to completely disregard science to believe that the global flood described in Genisis happened, or that human beings ever lived to 900+ years.


Again ... the date is arrived at by biblical chronology using the ages that are given for the lives of various (imaginary) people. If you don't accept the dates estimated from this chronology, then you must believe that the bible's description of the various relationships and who begat who, is wrong. But isn't that at odds with the idea that the bible is divinely inspired and the "word of God", and inerrant? You can't have it both ways.


It will always be incomplete, but that in no way makes it wrong or useless. And it doesn't "change its mind." It continuously refines the knowledge base as new information becomes available, the key point being that this new information is confirmed by observation or experiment and not just some random, untested hypothesis. The process works, and the world is a far better place because of it.
No, the genealogical records are true and complete as to their purpose. But they are not given to date the flood or the creation. They are given to show the ancestral connection. That doesn't mean everyone has to be included. And it is common with God to not include everyone.

As for the age of the people prior to the flood, you can't trust your dates as the the environmental conditions were nothing like today. As I said before, science 'assumes' everything is always as it has been. And it's tests are based upon that. And that just isn't the case. Thus your dating of the flood and of the creation can't be known.

I have no problem completely disregarding science when it is in conflict with Scripture. As I said, science is still learning. It will change it's mind many times.

No, the genealogical records of the Bible are true. But they are not given to date the flood or creation. They prove the ancestor connection. No problem with inspiration or inerrancy.

Of course science changes it's mind. How could it not if it is willing to learn. Science's knowledge is limited. It always changes it's mind. It doesn't change it's mind about it's faith in science...I agree. But it changes it's mind as it learns.

Quantrill

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1922
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 355 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Post #122

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Quantrill in post #121]
No, the genealogical records are true and complete as to their purpose. But they are not given to date the flood or the creation. They are given to show the ancestral connection. That doesn't mean everyone has to be included. And it is common with God to not include everyone.
Again, no claim has been made that the genealogical records were given specifically to date the flood or creation, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning that. You seem to be entirely missing the point, which is that because these ages and relationships are given in the bible, they can be used to estimate dates for "creation", and Noah's flood, or other things. Ussher and AIG (and many others) have done just that as shown in the earlier links. And explain how you know that "it is common with God to not include everyone." What leads to you do make that claim, and why would this not be caught by the many people and organizations (like AIG) who do such date estimates? What special information do you have that others evidently do not, which indicates that it is common for the biblical god to not include everyone?
As for the age of the people prior to the flood, you can't trust your dates as the the environmental conditions were nothing like today. As I said before, science 'assumes' everything is always as it has been. And it's tests are based upon that. And that just isn't the case. Thus your dating of the flood and of the creation can't be known.
Again, you are completely missing the point. The ages of biblical characters prior to the flood are not gotten from date estimates for the creation event, the flood, etc. And they don't depend on conditions of that time being the same as today (or not). The ages of many of these characters are explicitly given in the bible directly so there is no need to estimate their ages from begats, etc. Noah is explicitly stated to have lived to 950 years. Adam to 930 years, Methusalah to 969 years. These are given directly in the bible ... here is a list for you:

https://www.oldest.org/religion/people-bible/

I am not making up these ages, or estimating them from genealogical records ... they are given explicitly in the bible. But we know from basic biology that it is impossible for a human being to live anywhere near those ages either now, or at any time in the past. And it does not depend on conditions on earth being the same "back then" or not. But "back then" was only about 6000 years ago, or less, and we know that the only members of the genus homo alive during that time were anatomically modern homo sapiens. Therefore, none could have lived anywhere near as long as is claimed in the bible.
No, the genealogical records of the Bible are true. But they are not given to date the flood or creation. They prove the ancestor connection. No problem with inspiration or inerrancy.
Then how can you disagree with the dates derived by Ussher, AIG and many others for biblical events if the genealogical records in the bible are true? And again, never has any claim been made that these genealogical records were given specifically to date the flood or any other event. That is something you keep inserting for some reason when no such claim has been made. If you now claim that these genealogical records are correct, then you must accept that the dating for "creation" and Noah's flood that is derived from them has to be correct. Or do you disagree with the methodology used by Ussher and AIG in the early links. If so, what did they do wrong, and why?
Of course science changes it's mind. How could it not if it is willing to learn. Science's knowledge is limited. It always changes it's mind. It doesn't change it's mind about it's faith in science...I agree. But it changes it's mind as it learns.
The phrase "changes its mind' is inappropriate when the process is to add knowledge to the knowledge base, and refine knowledge when new information becomes available. But regardless, what has this got to do with dates for Noah's flood, creation, etc. as derived (not by me) from biblical genealogy? You've yet to make any connection between science "changing its mind" as you put it, and the issue of ridiculous ages for human beings described in the bible, or the dates derived from its genealogy for certain events.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Quantrill
Banned
Banned
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 7:41 pm
Location: Texas
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Post #123

Post by Quantrill »

DrNoGods wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:12 pm
Again, no claim has been made that the genealogical records were given specifically to date the flood or creation, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning that. You seem to be entirely missing the point, which is that because these ages and relationships are given in the bible, they can be used to estimate dates for "creation", and Noah's flood, or other things. Ussher and AIG (and many others) have done just that as shown in the earlier links. And explain how you know that "it is common with God to not include everyone." What leads to you do make that claim, and why would this not be caught by the many people and organizations (like AIG) who do such date estimates? What special information do you have that others evidently do not, which indicates that it is common for the biblical god to not include everyone?

Again, you are completely missing the point. The ages of biblical characters prior to the flood are not gotten from date estimates for the creation event, the flood, etc. And they don't depend on conditions of that time being the same as today (or not). The ages of many of these characters are explicitly given in the bible directly so there is no need to estimate their ages from begats, etc. Noah is explicitly stated to have lived to 950 years. Adam to 930 years, Methusalah to 969 years. These are given directly in the bible ... here is a list for you:

https://www.oldest.org/religion/people-bible/

I am not making up these ages, or estimating them from genealogical records ... they are given explicitly in the bible. But we know from basic biology that it is impossible for a human being to live anywhere near those ages either now, or at any time in the past. And it does not depend on conditions on earth being the same "back then" or not. But "back then" was only about 6000 years ago, or less, and we know that the only members of the genus homo alive during that time were anatomically modern homo sapiens. Therefore, none could have lived anywhere near as long as is claimed in the bible.

Then how can you disagree with the dates derived by Ussher, AIG and many others for biblical events if the genealogical records in the bible are true? And again, never has any claim been made that these genealogical records were given specifically to date the flood or any other event. That is something you keep inserting for some reason when no such claim has been made. If you now claim that these genealogical records are correct, then you must accept that the dating for "creation" and Noah's flood that is derived from them has to be correct. Or do you disagree with the methodology used by Ussher and AIG in the early links. If so, what did they do wrong, and why?

The phrase "changes its mind' is inappropriate when the process is to add knowledge to the knowledge base, and refine knowledge when new information becomes available. But regardless, what has this got to do with dates for Noah's flood, creation, etc. as derived (not by me) from biblical genealogy? You've yet to make any connection between science "changing its mind" as you put it, and the issue of ridiculous ages for human beings described in the bible, or the dates derived from its genealogy for certain events.
First of all, there are many Christians in the past and present that I disagree with concerning things said in the Bible. Just because I disagree with them, doesn't mean I disbelieve the Bible. I believe any who try and date the flood, or creation, using the genealogical records found in the Bible are mistaken. Just like it is quite common for believers to try and harmonize the four Gospel accounts. You can't. Each has a specific purpose in it's writing. Thus some things are left out and some included to meet that purpose.

As for people not included in a genealogy see (1 Chron. 3:11-12) and (Matt. 1:8). Matthew leaves out three. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah as sons of Joram. He simple states Jorom begat Ozias, who is Uzziah.

See also (Gen. 11:10-12) and (Luke 3:36). Luke includes Cainan where Moses does not in (Genesis 11).

I don't doubt the age of those listed. I am saying the record is not given to total those ages and determine either the flood or the creation. You don't know how many people are left out of the record.

And the conditions on the earth at that time did impact the age of those living. That is why after the flood you see the ages immediately start dropping. You don't believe it. I understand that. But that is what Scripture says.

Well, when science adds knowledge to what it knows, it also many times changes it's mind about what it previously believed. The point being, science is still learning. And of course you have faith in science though it makes mistakes here and there.

Quantrill

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8142
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Re: How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Post #124

Post by Clownboat »

Quantrill wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:20 am
DrNoGods wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:12 pm
Again, no claim has been made that the genealogical records were given specifically to date the flood or creation, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning that. You seem to be entirely missing the point, which is that because these ages and relationships are given in the bible, they can be used to estimate dates for "creation", and Noah's flood, or other things. Ussher and AIG (and many others) have done just that as shown in the earlier links. And explain how you know that "it is common with God to not include everyone." What leads to you do make that claim, and why would this not be caught by the many people and organizations (like AIG) who do such date estimates? What special information do you have that others evidently do not, which indicates that it is common for the biblical god to not include everyone?

Again, you are completely missing the point. The ages of biblical characters prior to the flood are not gotten from date estimates for the creation event, the flood, etc. And they don't depend on conditions of that time being the same as today (or not). The ages of many of these characters are explicitly given in the bible directly so there is no need to estimate their ages from begats, etc. Noah is explicitly stated to have lived to 950 years. Adam to 930 years, Methusalah to 969 years. These are given directly in the bible ... here is a list for you:

https://www.oldest.org/religion/people-bible/

I am not making up these ages, or estimating them from genealogical records ... they are given explicitly in the bible. But we know from basic biology that it is impossible for a human being to live anywhere near those ages either now, or at any time in the past. And it does not depend on conditions on earth being the same "back then" or not. But "back then" was only about 6000 years ago, or less, and we know that the only members of the genus homo alive during that time were anatomically modern homo sapiens. Therefore, none could have lived anywhere near as long as is claimed in the bible.

Then how can you disagree with the dates derived by Ussher, AIG and many others for biblical events if the genealogical records in the bible are true? And again, never has any claim been made that these genealogical records were given specifically to date the flood or any other event. That is something you keep inserting for some reason when no such claim has been made. If you now claim that these genealogical records are correct, then you must accept that the dating for "creation" and Noah's flood that is derived from them has to be correct. Or do you disagree with the methodology used by Ussher and AIG in the early links. If so, what did they do wrong, and why?

The phrase "changes its mind' is inappropriate when the process is to add knowledge to the knowledge base, and refine knowledge when new information becomes available. But regardless, what has this got to do with dates for Noah's flood, creation, etc. as derived (not by me) from biblical genealogy? You've yet to make any connection between science "changing its mind" as you put it, and the issue of ridiculous ages for human beings described in the bible, or the dates derived from its genealogy for certain events.
First of all, there are many Christians in the past and present that I disagree with concerning things said in the Bible. Just because I disagree with them, doesn't mean I disbelieve the Bible. I believe any who try and date the flood, or creation, using the genealogical records found in the Bible are mistaken. Just like it is quite common for believers to try and harmonize the four Gospel accounts. You can't. Each has a specific purpose in it's writing. Thus some things are left out and some included to meet that purpose.

As for people not included in a genealogy see (1 Chron. 3:11-12) and (Matt. 1:8). Matthew leaves out three. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah as sons of Joram. He simple states Jorom begat Ozias, who is Uzziah.

See also (Gen. 11:10-12) and (Luke 3:36). Luke includes Cainan where Moses does not in (Genesis 11).

I don't doubt the age of those listed. I am saying the record is not given to total those ages and determine either the flood or the creation. You don't know how many people are left out of the record.

And the conditions on the earth at that time did impact the age of those living. That is why after the flood you see the ages immediately start dropping. You don't believe it. I understand that. But that is what Scripture says.

Well, when science adds knowledge to what it knows, it also many times changes it's mind about what it previously believed. The point being, science is still learning. And of course you have faith in science though it makes mistakes here and there.

Quantrill
This being the science sub forum, we should not be subjected to read through things you happen to believe in.

If you can support your beliefs, that would be something. Since you cannot, you are out of your realm and it would be better suited to Holy Huddle where your beliefs will not be questioned.

What you believe is irrelevant and quite frankly uninteresting. It matters not if a Muslims believes that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and it matters not if you believe humans were once smurfs or whatever nonsense you choose to believe (until you can show you speak the truth of course).

Perhaps you would be willing to attempt to show that your beliefs have merit? Now that would be interesting! Christians on soap boxes being proud of whatever they happen to believe in is not interesting. You are no different than a Muslim celebrating their chosen belief system, which is ok, just not appropriate here.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Quantrill
Banned
Banned
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 7:41 pm
Location: Texas
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Post #125

Post by Quantrill »

Clownboat wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:04 pm
This being the science sub forum, we should not be subjected to read through things you happen to believe in.

If you can support your beliefs, that would be something. Since you cannot, you are out of your realm and it would be better suited to Holy Huddle where your beliefs will not be questioned.

What you believe is irrelevant and quite frankly uninteresting. It matters not if a Muslims believes that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and it matters not if you believe humans were once smurfs or whatever nonsense you choose to believe (until you can show you speak the truth of course).

Perhaps you would be willing to attempt to show that your beliefs have merit? Now that would be interesting! Christians on soap boxes being proud of whatever they happen to believe in is not interesting. You are no different than a Muslim celebrating their chosen belief system, which is ok, just not appropriate here.
Let's see...you asked the questions in post #(91) that I entered into. Because it isn't going your way you now say this is just a science forum.

If you just want to talk about science and not God, maybe you should just keep your mouth shut about God.

Quantrill

User avatar
woodtick
Student
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Post #126

Post by woodtick »

U
Last edited by woodtick on Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3938
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3017 times
Been thanked: 1641 times

Re: How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Post #127

Post by brunumb »

There are billions of galaxies in the known part of our universe and each contains many billions of stars. Based on the life and death cycle of stars and the fact that there is a limited number of elements produced in the process, there will be many trillions of planets out there with a good number of them having conditions favorable to life as we know it. The probability that there are other living things in the universe must be quite high. The question of intelligent extraterrestrial beings like us is another matter altogether.

For many millions of years dinosaurs were the dominant animal life on Earth. They were obviously well adapted to the conditions on this planet. If not for a chance encounter with a massive asteroid, they might still be the dominant species. If the asteroid hit a few hours earlier or later it may have impacted in the ocean causing less debris and deadly particulate matter from being thrown into the atmosphere. As it was, conditions changed dramatically and they no longer favored the dinosaurs. As they died out small mammalian creatures filled the vacated niches. Millions of years of evolution eventually led to homo sapiens and their survival was enhanced by their ability to manipulate the environment to adapt to changes in conditions. So chance does play a big part in the type of life that will evolve and how long it will populate a planet. The big survivors are the simple life forms and I believe they are scattered out there throughout the universe.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1922
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 355 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Post #128

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to woodtick in post #126]
Aliens - UFO's etc. are a different story, and I believe a good case can be made that they are NOT extraterrestrial but the fallen angels.
This sounds like a double dilemma. First, there has never been any verifiable evidence that "aliens" (ie. extraterristrial life forms) have ever visited earth in any way. Plenty of reports of possible qualifying events, but none verified to date. UFO is an acronym for unidentified flying object, which could be anything observed to be flying but not identified. A subset of these could be alien spacecraft, but again there are no verified instances of such visitors to our planet.

Second, you claim that a good case could be made that these supposed sightings could be "fallen angels." What, exactly, are "fallen angels", and what prompts you to suggest that they could credibly ("good case") represent aliens or UFO's?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
woodtick
Student
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Post #129

Post by woodtick »

Last edited by woodtick on Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Online
User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7146
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1278 times
Been thanked: 1505 times

Re: How likely are we to find extraterrestrial life?

Post #130

Post by Tcg »

woodtick wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:33 pm [Replying to DrNoGods in post #128]
I come from a state that has had several abductions and sightings witnessed by police and fire. I've seen them, my sons have seen them, and they scare the heck out of people, and an entire Church outing in the 80's in Wilmot Flat, NH, including police, fire, etc. witnessed one hovering treetop high moving about 5 miles an hour. The same happened in Exeter where a young soldier was abducted.
Can you provide a source that documents reports the police and firefighters filed after these alleged sightings and abductions?

Have any of the abductees returned? If so can you provide a source that documents police closing cases due to these returns?


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Post Reply