Poll: Do you believe in psychics, extraterrestrial life, time travel, other universes?

Page 26 of 31 FirstFirst ...
16
24
25
26
27
28
... LastLast
  1. #501
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Actually, it can be. Heat organic chemicals and you tend to get random glop with no specific structure. This is what you get out of prebiotic chemstry experiements -- a soup where the concentration of the chemicals decreases exponentially with their complexity.




    All the life we know of has large chemical systems to get the error rate low enough in reproduction for evolution to occur. You can hypothesize that there are simpler systems with sufficiently high reproductive fidelity, but at this point it would just be a hypothesis.
    1) You do know that we have made peptides in experiments that mimic the early earth right? Also, what you are describing is not even random. No specific structure does not mean random.
    2) You don't need evolution for life. Life can evolve, but we have no reason to assume life must evolve or even must be able to evolve. Stop bringing up evolution it does not belong in this discussion. It doesn't belong.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  2. #502
    Just a random thought, a hypothesis floating about; Theia is a hypothesized ancient planet in the early Solar System that, according to the giant-impact hypothesis, collided with the early Earth around 4.5 billion years ago, with some of the resulting ejected debris gathering to form the Moon.

    According to one version of the hypothesis, Theia was an Earth trojan about the size of Mars, with a diameter of about 6,102 km (3,792 miles). Additional evidence published in 2019 suggests that Theia might have formed in the outer Solar System rather than the inner Solar System, and that much of Earth's water originated on Theia.


    --------
    Just a little something I found interesting especially regarding Earth's water. (It's just a theory, but interesting nonetheless. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theia_(planet)

  3. #503
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    This is a bad argument. If the time required to get a specific macromolecule increases exponentially with its complexity, then this quickly overwhelms the large size and duration of the observable universe.
    This is a flawed premise. You're essentially leapfrogging a whole array of steps, going from random simple chemicals straight to macromolecules. That's not how it works. You start small, with simple organic compounds, that then progressively become more complex - but that doesn't happen randomly. You get increased complexity BECAUSE you have less complex building blocks - this is a contingency chain, not a series of random events. What's subject to (mostly) random chance are only the first steps, after that you follow from previous contingencies which is (largely) a non-random process.

    This is effectively the same logic as creationists arguing you can't just go from fish to human by chance - it's a misrepresentation of progressive systems that build on one another, and while some random elements are definitely part of the chain it's VASTLY different from purely random processes.

    And for the first few organic compounds, there isn't actually THAT much variety of possible combinations. Certainly nothing that would dwarf the constantly ongoing chemical processes on millions of planets over billions of years. Same with the contingent steps after that.

    This, by the way, is also why there's a good number of scientists who think that it's not at all unreasonable that alien life would be fairly similar in structure to life as we know it - because life on Earth didn't just evolve by being subject to random fluctuations, but in response to statistical filters determined by the environment. Similar environments tend to produce similar structures; there's plenty of examples of that kind of convergent evolution.

  4. #504
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    This, by the way, is also why there's a good number of scientists who think that it's not at all unreasonable that alien life would be fairly similar in structure to life as we know it - because life on Earth didn't just evolve by being subject to random fluctuations, but in response to statistical filters determined by the environment.
    One of which may be this; Morphogenetic field an idea still being tossed about.

  5. #505
    Quote Originally Posted by Dch48 View Post
    I am probably more "mentally equipped" than 99% of people here with a tested IQ of as high as 162. I know very well what science means and i also know enough not to blindly accept what it says. All too frequently it has to be revised and changed because of being totally wrong in what it said. Every time I hear about a new discovery (which most of the time is just a theory), my response is "Okay, Maybe".
    HAhahahaha! Trust me, guys. My IQ is SO high. I don’t listen to what SCIENCE says. It’s just THEORIES, not fact like my future dreams!

    This has been a laugh from start to finish, I gotta give you that at least.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2021-10-20 at 01:46 AM.

  6. #506
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    I didn't make that claim. Reading for comprehension is hard?
    Literally you:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    The evidence we have is consistent with life being rare.
    Want to try that again?

    The "evidence" can not possibly be consistent with that suggestion when the "evidence" consists of a sample size so utterly minuscule as to be completely meaningless.

  7. #507
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post

    That's about as moronic as making the following observation:
    - I found ants in my yard.
    - I did not find ants in my neighbors yard.

    And attempting to argue that therefore, ants must be exceedingly rare on planet earth.
    This is too funny and the only analogy needed.
    Could have stopped here lol.

  8. #508
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Dch48 View Post
    I'm sure you guys will come up with something to try and refute this. There is just no reasoning with completely closed minds.
    But we do have an open mind. The difference is that we know to use a filter to keep up bad ideas from entering and taking up space that could be used by bad ideas.

    Someone with an open mind considers the ideas that they come across, and accepts or dismisses said ideas depending on their actual validity, i.e., the evidence for it. Having an open mind does not mean giving ideas the same weight and validity. Flat Earth and round Earth ideas do not have the same merit. Young Earth and old Earth ideas do not have the same merit.

    There is a reason the saying "be open-minded, but not so open that your brain falls off" is a thing.

    It's funny, but those who accuse others of being "close-minded", are, much more often than not, the ones actually being close-minded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

  9. #509
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    It's funny, but those who accuse others of being "close-minded", are, much more often than not, the ones actually being close-minded.
    That is definitely one of my favorite paradoxes.

    "Why are you so close-minded? All I'm saying is that I follow a dogmatic religious position that isn't subject to evidence and doesn't permit critique, and here you go with your science la-di-da."

    "I believe in psychics, and I don't need to prove they're real, they just are because I know so and I'm not interested in your science or reason. You should be more open-minded!"

  10. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    No, you have a very distorted sense of reality if you truly believe that. That's like saying the whole world today would burn women alive on pyres if they revealed themselves to be witches, "because that is how it was done in the past." And I guarantee you it wouldn't happen. And guess what? Neither of us can make any guarantees.
    White people still casually murder black people in the USA simply for being black in the wrong place literally RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Gay people all across the world still live with constant harassment, death threats, and persecution. And you think people with freaky unexplainable powers outing themselves is going to end well? You seriously need to step out of whatever sheltered bubble live you have been living and take a good hard look around you. Just because we moved on from burning innocent women at the stake doesn't mean we have become nearly as "enlightened" as a society as you might think. We've moved milimeters on the scale in the right direction. Not feet like you seem to think.

    The guy had a rifle and acted just like a sniper. He wasn't just a "rando nobody", and nowadays important people don't just travel through cities on convertibles, but on full-on bullet proof cars, with very dark tinted windows and one or two cars that are exactly alike to make it harder to figure out which one the VIP is traveling in. Along with police/military escort.
    And? Technology has improved over the years. There are probably a half a dozen easy ways someone could kill a famous person these days that didn't even exist back when JFK was shot. We have guns powerful enough to snipe people from kilometers away, and electronic scopes and measuring equipment that would let amateurs hit targets at that distance with near pinpoint accuracy. Hell, anyone with a moderate amount of tech savvy could probably figure out how to get a drone to drop an explosive charge ontop of a target at an outdoor speaking engagement in a weekend, and put together everything they need to get it done in a couple of hours on amazon. Unless you plan to live your entire life behind a bulletproof barrier, you will always be vulnerable.

    Nope. It's a very relevant question. If you're going to say "famous people die because they're famous", then knowing how many die vs how many are still alive is very relevant information. Because it shows that, hey, famous people are not dying left and right because they're famous.
    Nowhere have I ever implied that famous people are dropping like flies, or being assassinated at the drop of a hat. Literally the only argument I have made on this tangent is that Fame would make you a target, and Fame is also not going to protect you from someone sufficiently determined to do you harm. That's it. And the evidence bears this out, because Famous people do, infact, get killed. Frequency is not, and has never been, a factor here. It's a literally binary question: Do Famous people get killed because of their Fame. Yes or No.

  11. #511
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    White people still casually murder black people in the USA simply for being black in the wrong place literally RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Gay people all across the world still live with constant harassment, death threats, and persecution. And you think people with freaky unexplainable powers outing themselves is going to end well? You seriously need to step out of whatever sheltered bubble live you have been living and take a good hard look around you. Just because we moved on from burning innocent women at the stake doesn't mean we have become nearly as "enlightened" as a society as you might think. We've moved milimeters on the scale in the right direction. Not feet like you seem to think.
    Really, now? Do all black people leave in fear of leaving their homes in fear of being immediately shot dead? Do all gay people fear exposing themselves in fear of being immediately shot dead? No. No, they don't. And that is how what it was for the women back in the dark ages: the moment you get accused of witchcraft, that's when your life ended. Figuratively and literally.

    Are we in a perfect place, today? Hell no. Far from it. But we did improve by leaps and bounds since then.

    And? Technology has improved over the years. There are probably a half a dozen easy ways someone could kill a famous person these days that didn't even exist back when JFK was shot. We have guns powerful enough to snipe people from kilometers away, and electronic scopes and measuring equipment that would let amateurs hit targets at that distance with near pinpoint accuracy. Hell, anyone with a moderate amount of tech savvy could probably figure out how to get a drone to drop an explosive charge ontop of a target at an outdoor speaking engagement in a weekend, and put together everything they need to get it done in a couple of hours on amazon. Unless you plan to live your entire life behind a bulletproof barrier, you will always be vulnerable.
    And trained security would snipe that drone right off the air before it gets any closer to their VIP. It's not just the technology for the evil-doers that improved. Technology improved as a whole, which also means new ways to better protect others.

    Nowhere have I ever implied that famous people are dropping like flies, or being assassinated at the drop of a hat. Literally the only argument I have made on this tangent is that Fame would make you a target, and Fame is also not going to protect you from someone sufficiently determined to do you harm. That's it. And the evidence bears this out, because Famous people do, infact, get killed. Frequency is not, and has never been, a factor here. It's a literally binary question: Do Famous people get killed because of their Fame. Yes or No.
    No, evidence does not bear this out. Because the amount of famous people being assassinated is minimal. Famous people get protection. Even more so than your average Joe. That's a fact. And someone much more unique and therefore much more famous than them, because they have unique gifts such as supernatural powers? Those would likely get more protection. Hell, even more so than heads of state or the pope.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

  12. #512
    Quote Originally Posted by Amarys View Post
    Too many variables in that formula are unknown so for now it isn't actual math, it's more of a reference or a reminder that we need to know these things to answer this question. So no, you can't use any kind of math or bring in statistics unless you fill the gaps with your imagination and wishful thinking but then it stops being science.
    I'm sorry but there is real math and real equations around this topic, made by real scientists.

  13. #513
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And trained security would snipe that drone right off the air before it gets any closer to their VIP.
    Do you have any idea what modern drones are capable of? A good quality drone for areal photography capable of carrying a half decent camera is about the size of a loaf of bread. They are capable of flight speeds of 40kmph, and some have operating ceilings between 3,500 and 10,000 METERS. You think the average Secret Service mook is going to be able to spot a properly painted loaf of bread from nearly 6 kilometers or more up in the sky, at, say early evening, and snipe it out of the air while it travels at almost 30 or 40 kmph?? Your "sniper" would literally need to be superhuman. Thing would be effectively invisible unless you knew exactly where to look for it.

    No, evidence does not bear this out. Because the amount of famous people being assassinated is minimal. Famous people get protection. Even more so than your average Joe. That's a fact. And someone much more unique and therefore much more famous than them, because they have unique gifts such as supernatural powers? Those would likely get more protection. Hell, even more so than heads of state or the pope.
    What part of "Murdered / Assassinated Famous people > 1 = It is possible" is escaping you? Because that is LITERALLY MY ASSERTION: If you are famous, the possibility exists that someone may eventually try to kill you. I have made no statements about frequency. Or likelyhood. Or literally anything other than: It can happen as a direct result of Fame / Infamy. And the evidence 100% supports this because at least 1 Famous person has been murdered because of their fame / infamy. Literally the only way you can contradict this statement is to argue that no famous person has ever been murdered. Which is literally not possible.
    Last edited by Surfd; 2021-10-20 at 11:17 AM.

  14. #514
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    Literally you:

    Want to try that again?

    The "evidence" can not possibly be consistent with that suggestion when the "evidence" consists of a sample size so utterly minuscule as to be completely meaningless.
    My god. You think these two statements mean the same thing:

    "Life must be rare."

    "The evidence we have is consistent with life being rare."

    They are not the same thing AT ALL. The second is a much weaker statement, and does not imply the first. If you do not understand this, just slink away quietly, you are not smart enough to contribute anything to this discussion.

    Your last sentence illustrates your mental fog. The weaker evidence is, the more it can be consistent with. "Is consistent with" means "does not rule out". If we had no evidence at all, that empty set of evidence would be consistent with anything that wasn't self-contradictory.
    Last edited by Osmeric; 2021-10-20 at 11:12 AM.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences." -- Robert Louis Stevenson
    Get your COVID booster. It works so much better than horse paste.

  15. #515
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    My god. You think these two statements mean the same thing:

    "Life must be rare."

    "The evidence we have is consistent with life being rare."

    They are not the same thing AT ALL. The second is a much weaker statement, and does not imply the first. If you do not understand this, just slink away quietly, you are not smart enough to contribute anything to this discussion.

    Your last sentence illustrates your mental fog. The weaker evidence is, the more it can be consistent with. "Is consistent with" means "does not rule out". If we had no evidence at all, that empty set of evidence would be consistent with anything that wasn't self-contradictory.
    What's with you and not actually addressing the arguments? That isn't what they said.

    Seriously, you strawmanned arguments, you misrepresented points, you don't understand the data we have, etc ... and yet you think the problem is with the other people in this argument?
    Last edited by Darththeo; 2021-10-20 at 01:16 PM.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  16. #516
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    Do you have any idea what modern drones are capable of? A good quality drone for areal photography capable of carrying a half decent camera is about the size of a loaf of bread. They are capable of flight speeds of 40kmph, and some have operating ceilings between 3,500 and 10,000 METERS. You think the average Secret Service mook is going to be able to spot a properly painted loaf of bread from nearly 6 kilometers or more up in the sky, at, say early evening, and snipe it out of the air while it travels at almost 30 or 40 kmph?? Your "sniper" would literally need to be superhuman. Thing would be effectively invisible unless you knew exactly where to look for it.
    It's almost as if you don't know what today's security training is. Also, we wouldn't be talking with your rando "We purtektz u!" security agencies. We'd much more likely be talking about some of the best of the best security agencies, to protect one of the most unique and important people on the planet.

    What part of "Murdered / Assassinated Famous people > 1 = It is possible" is escaping you? Because that is LITERALLY MY ASSERTION: If you are famous, the possibility exists that someone may eventually try to kill you.
    And the answer for that is: so what? I never claimed fame is a 100% effective in deterring any and all kinds of assassination attempts and that famous people . I simply stated that it is a deterrent. Because famous people get security detail, and often, the more famous they are, the better the security.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

  17. #517
    Have to say that this thread isn't really all that "fun."
    I have some wild hairy beliefs...and that's what they are. I've no desire to share most of them because many here prefer pissing on that which I hold dear.
    Logic should never replace imagination.

  18. #518
    Quote Originally Posted by Hauzhi View Post
    I'm sorry but there is real math and real equations around this topic, made by real scientists.
    Not sure if you're trolling or just don't know what you're talking about. Drake's equation is literally a multiplication of all the variables. If even 1 variable is unknown, the formula can't me solved and currently more than 1 of those variables is unknown so this isn't helpful at all. There is no more math behind this because you'd need at least a second sample of life that doesn't originate from Earth to get things started.

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

  19. #519
    Stealthed Defender unbound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    All that moves is easily heard in the void.
    Posts
    6,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Amarys View Post
    Not sure if you're trolling or just don't know what you're talking about. Drake's equation is literally a multiplication of all the variables. If even 1 variable is unknown, the formula can't me solved and currently more than 1 of those variables is unknown so this isn't helpful at all. There is no more math behind this because you'd need at least a second sample of life that doesn't originate from Earth to get things started.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
    Yep.

    Furthermore, Drake's Equation is a mix of simple (rate of star formation) and complex (fraction of planets with life that develops intelligent life) numbers to calculate.

    We don't have a clue if some of the Drake equation variables are in the ballpark of 1 in 100 or 1 in trillions. Various people have thrown in numbers that "seem right" to come to wide variety of conclusions.

  20. #520
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Amarys View Post
    Not sure if you're trolling or just don't know what you're talking about. Drake's equation is literally a multiplication of all the variables. If even 1 variable is unknown, the formula can't me solved and currently more than 1 of those variables is unknown so this isn't helpful at all. There is no more math behind this because you'd need at least a second sample of life that doesn't originate from Earth to get things started.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
    While an unknown variable is possible. A possible unknown factor is not enough to discount what we know.

    The Drake equation is about a specific subset of intelligent life the could exist. Life is likely to exist =/= Detectable Intelligent Life is likely to exist. The Drake equation is interesting, but is misused. The topic is about extraterrestrial life in general as OP didn't single out intelligent life.

    We know life happened early in Earth's life, we know complex carbon molecules are becoming more easily made as we improve our knowledge on the early earth, we know things like lipid bilayers are produced on their own if exposed to water, we know that liquid water can be in more places than just the Goldilocks zone, etc ... Every time a proposed limit on life has been tested, we find that said limit is more common than we thought. Therefore there is no logical reason that if there is another unknown factor would make life impossible or nearly impossible elsewhere.

    It is far more likely that life is elsewhere in the universe than it is not. The evidence for this is life exists in the universe already and we have no evidence of true uniqueness in the universe. So, for life to be unique to Earth is not a rational position to hold and neither is holding onto that it is reasonable to assume that is a likely outcome.

    The default position in science is that events that occur once can and often do occur again. It is the foundation of study. Arguing the default position is "Life is so rare, it maybe no where else" is an unscientific position.
    Last edited by Darththeo; 2021-10-20 at 03:00 PM.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •