Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

If I want to contact bacteria I'll go back and do some gardening.

Fermi's Paradox states quite clearly that there is NO life in the rest of the Universe. Its only the rampant egocentricity of scientists who insist against all odds, that there simply must be people like them ruling the entire Universe.

There aren't and they ain't.
 
S.A.M. said:
Mathematics is hypothetical and statistics is an estimate, but none of it is evidence.

I agree about the life as we know it though, it seems highly improbable that life would evolve only on earth. Also, if life were not "earth" based but "fire" or "water" based, if we could even recognise it as life.
Click to expand...

And Air based...everything is due to the elements.

(see thread in pseudo/realscience)
 
S.A.M. said:
Mathematics is hypothetical and statistics is an estimate, but none of it is evidence.

I agree about the life as we know it though, it seems highly improbable that life would evolve only on earth. Also, if life were not "earth" based but "fire" or "water" based, if we could even recognise it as life.
Click to expand...

The problem with the Drake equation is that we have no fucking clue what the variables actually are. We simply don't have the technology.
That's a problem with SETI - why presume that intelligent alien organisms will even communicate with electromagnetic energy?

But math isn't hypothetical. It's there.

OVER THERE! PEEING ON THE RUG!
 
Billy Chyldyshe said:
If I want to contact bacteria I'll go back and do some gardening.

Fermi's Paradox states quite clearly that there is NO life in the rest of the Universe. Its only the rampant egocentricity of scientists who insist against all odds, that there simply must be people like them ruling the entire Universe.

There aren't and they ain't.
Click to expand...

Never say never, Billy Bayou. :cool:
 
Xev said:
The problem with the Drake equation is that we have no fucking clue what the variables actually are. We simply don't have the technology.
That's a problem with SETI - why presume that intelligent alien organisms will even communicate with electromagnetic energy?
Click to expand...

Thats what I meant by hypothetical
But math isn't hypothetical. It's there.

OVER THERE! PEEING ON THE RUG!
Click to expand...

You mean that prickly fruit like thing with the green stuff on its head?

Thats just Geoff.
 
S.A.M. said:
So amino acids are more ubiquitous than otherwise believed. Does that mean we can recreate the ecosystem of earth on other planets?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. But, imo, if amino acids are ubiquitous, then those other planets may already have been bombarded with them.

Perhaps the key here is the stage at which the planet has developed, which would allow life to form.
 
S.A.M. said:
Mathematics is hypothetical and statistics is an estimate, but none of it is evidence.
Click to expand...

The evidence is all around you, despite what the Abrahamic gods proclaim.

Earth couldn't possibly be the ONLY planet in the universe with life. In fact, we need not just search our own galaxy, scientists are searching for life in our very own back yard; within our solar system.
 
According to the Bonner hypothesis, it may appear that L amino acids are due to polarized radiation. Perhaps, D-amino acids like L-sugars are inactive?
 
...the angst from squishing a fly?

Ok, I can't do this. You're all crazy. Bleh.
 
But why breakdown? Why? Because of Jainic non-fly-squishing? I swear, I'll have the gardener toss it outside!
 
Originally Posted by Billy Chyldyshe
If I want to contact bacteria I'll go back and do some gardening.

Fermi's Paradox states quite clearly that there is NO life in the rest of the Universe. Its only the rampant egocentricity of scientists who insist against all odds, that there simply must be people like them ruling the entire Universe.

There aren't and they ain't.
Click to expand...

The Fermi-Hart paradox states no such thing. It simply raises the question of why we haven't noticed any.
Your statement is equivalent to saying that Zeno's paradox proves that we can't go anywhere.
Granted, someone with your intellectual capacity really can't go anywhere, but that's besides the point.
Go look up what the word "paradox" implies and get back to me. Or just go play in the street.
 
S.A.M. said:
Thats what I meant by hypothetical


You mean that prickly fruit like thing with the green stuff on its head?

Thats just Geoff.
Click to expand...

Oh. I thought you were saying that math was hypothetical.
I dated a man once who claimed that math was empirical.
It was enough to make me go pee on a rug.

(Q) -

"The evidence is all around you, despite what the Abrahamic gods proclaim."

To be fair, the evidence for life on other planets isn't really "all around her."
Evidence suggesting the possibility could be, but not evidence for the fact, and definitely not evidence for the fact of intelligent life.

Besides, does the Koran say anything about life on other planets?
 
No need to move anything - this thread goes all over the place, and it's more pleasant that listening to Billy butcher the meaning of a paradox.

Oh- there you go.
 
Xev said:
The Fermi-Hart paradox states no such thing. It simply raises the question of why we haven't noticed any.
Your statement is equivalent to saying that Zeno's paradox proves that we can't go anywhere.
Granted, someone with your intellectual capacity really can't go anywhere, but that's besides the point.
Go look up what the word "paradox" implies and get back to me. Or just go play in the street.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll play squash..:p

<< Is there obvious proof that we could be alone in the Galaxy? Enrico Fermi thought so -- and he was a pretty smart guy. Might he have been right?

It's been a hundred years since Fermi, an icon of physics, was born (and nearly a half-century since he died). He's best remembered for building a working atomic reactor in a squash court. >>


Billy 1 Zev 0

try harder next time.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top