6. We need to clarify the difference between a deductive argument and a fact so we're all on the same page. CFunk, do you think your statements are deductive arguments or facts?
All we're trying to do here is get you to admit your stating opinions based on your research not absolute facts based on data. The truth is you have NO data about life on other planets, but continue to act as if you do backed by a lot of low grade debating tactics.
Well, it's a good thing science doesn't work by democracy. Cuz you guys have no idea what you're talking about.
Chest beating, not data on life forms on other planets.
We're all coming dangerously close to the perfect definition of insanity -- using the same methods, over and over, hoping for different results. I'm gonna give this at least one last go, and maybe I can phrase things differently, in a way that might catch one or two of your's attention.
Condescending, not data, facts or any hard science.
Will it make you guys feel better if I admit that I used to feel the same way as you? You think I've got a closed mind on this subject. No, I once shared the EXACT same reasoning as you. Then, I got an education. I feel it is actually you guys who are being closed-minded to me. For just this post, open your thoughts, and consider the following.
Chest beating, condescending.
I'm not overlooking your points at all. In fact, I've addressed them directly. Your main point is "sheer volume". It's really not that difficult to think about a really, really, really big number. What you don't realize is that I'm also talking about a really, really, really big number. And dude, I have a very strong grasp on the basics of odds and probability.
If you flip a coin ten times, and it lands on heads ten times in a row, the odds are really good that it will come up tails on the next toss, right? I mean, what's the probability that you would toss eleven heads in a row? Very low. So, it's extremely likely that the next toss will be tails.
Of course you and I know that this is false logic. The coin has no memory. Every time you toss it, the probability of landing heads is 1/2. You could land 5,000,000,000,000,000 heads in a row. The probability of landing heads again will still be 1/2.
Deductive argument. No data, no facts.
Our physical universe - the one we live in - is definitely finite. There's no disagreement on this, in the scientific community. It's possible, perhaps, that there might be other universes beyond our universe, maybe even existing in another dimension or plane. I'm assuming you and I are both aware of the multi-verse theory, and for all we know, the number of existing universes could be infinite. But that has nothing to do with our conversation. We are talking about OUR universe, and it is absolutely finite.
Time, looking to the future, might very well be infinite. It might also be infinite, looking to the past (though, to be frank, I can't really wrap my brain around how it could be either finite OR infinite, looking to the past; weirds me out). The time that has passed since the Big Bang, however, is finite. 5,000,000,000,000,000 years from now, the amount of time that will have passed since the Big Bang will still be finite.
When we talk about genetic mutations, the possibilities are infinite. 5,000,000,000,000,000 genetic mutations from now, the possibilities will still be infinite. When you flip a coin, the probability of a desired result is 1-in-2. When you toss a regular six-sided die, it's 1-in-6. A regular deck of cards, 1-in-52.
How you calculate the probability of 1-in-infinity?
No data, no facts, no topological data on other planets. Intellectual muscle flexing, nothing more. NO FACTS.
You see, M1chae1, my main point is DIRECTLY addressing your main point. "Random" doesn't have shades of grey. Something is either random, or it is not. When it is random, the possibilities are infinite. Infinity is a really, really, really big number. That's why I don't care how many galaxies exist. That really, really, really big number of galaxies is nothing, in comparison to infinity.
What you're doing, with your logic, is assuming that if you toss the dice of genetic mutation enough times, eventually, you'll land on those traits that are familiar to us. That is the same false logic I mentioned earlier. No matter how many times you toss those genetic-mutation-dice, with each new genetic mutation, the probability of landing a particular gene is 1-in-infinity.
The matter is further complicated by the fact of how many individual genes are needed to make up a genetic trait (the difference between a "trait" and a "gene" are important to this discussion -- wikipedia it if you don't already know). You're asking for a whole lot of coincidences.
Mathematical rant based on modern scientific reasoning. No facts, no data. Nothing at all.
You've assumed too much. My education in Anthropology (in regards to our conversation) only taught me how to REALLY understand the process of evolution, in a way that most people JUST. DON'T. GET. I'm not familiar with any school of Anthropology that would discuss possible life on other planets. I've reached these conclusions on my own, and they're quite easy conclusions to reach. If you TRULY understand the process of evolution, the idea of a humanoid on another planet is absurd.
Chest beating. Brow beating. Ridicule. You need topological data from probes on hundreds of millions of planets in order to back up your assertion. You don't provide this.
I will concede nothing of the sort. Fish and sea cucumbers are complex life forms. Nothing exists like them on any other planet, anywhere in the universe.
Is this an opinion? Or do you have data from probes to back this up?
I don't need to think about the cosmos to understand that the biological conditions we have on Earth cannot be repeated. And I say that in absolute certainty.
Nice, could you please forward your first 1,000,000 probe results for the first million planets? Or admit this is an opinion.
The laws of physics are the same everywhere. The process of evolution would be the same everywhere (that's IF DNA even exists anywhere else).
O RLY? Is this an opinion or do you have an extra-terrestrial physics book, full knowledge of other dimensions and multi-frequency readings of the electo-magnetic spectrum in say, 100 of the closest galaxies?
EXACTLY! That's called science. And I'm trying my best to explain to you guys a scientific concept that you don't quite understand.
Chest beating + condescending/finger wagging.
Same thing goes for global warming. The evidence is undeniable and insurmountable. Human activity has DEFINITELY caused a major change in climate. Again, the scientific community is basically unanimous in this view.
Hahahah total nonsense, Google it. Plenty of Phd's and respected scientists against it.
The real experts (notice the lack of quotations) are in full-agreement on the subject of global warming. There is no real dissent on this issue, in the scientific community.
Rubbish. There is plenty of disagreement and Gore's position loses traction by the day. If you're as ill informed on the global warming debate as you are on exo-biology then Lord help us all.
"Expert" is not really a subjective term if you believe in the scientific process.
Chest beating, condescending. Expert is a VERY subjective term. 100 years ago medical experts were prescribing leeches. Flat Earth 500 years ago.
That's all for now. All opinions presented in the spirit of geek fun.
