-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NASA scientist: ''Mars could be biologically active.''
- Thread starter UbiSoftologist
- Start date
- Status
I heard the chances that its something OTHER than biology producing methane, are slim to none. I mean its obvious there's life there, and its jsut a matter of time before they announce it. Non-biological methane is very short term, and very rare. I think this would be a big FU to people who don't believe there is life on other planets, or galaxies .. when that would be two planets right here in our solar system.
Escape Goat
Member
We can't colonize Mars. Think of the caribo...I mean microbes!
MrPing1000
Member
the sooner we find live on another planet thats at least the size of a mouse the better. I want the religious folk to have a theological crisis. It will be fun
Link648099
Banned
Drensch said:
Umm...religiously speaking, could you please show me where theres an apparent "ban" on people of religious faith accepting/believing there is life on other planets?
I mean, the way i see it, the more life in the universe, the more glory to God.
Link648099
Banned
whytemyke said:
:lol
:snicker: stupid atheists
Answer my posts in the "Does God Exist" thread and then get back to me.
Link648099 said:
From what I've read, some of the more hardcore(and ignorant) Christian sects consider the notion of extraterrestrial life to be blasphemous.
I have full confidence that we'll find planets outside our solar system with life by 2020.
NASA and the ESA both have a bunch of telescopes planned that can detect planets the size of Earth or Mars launching, starting in 2007. The Terrestrial Planet Finder(2012) is supposed to be able to read the atmospheric composition of those planets too, and if there are gases like Methane or Oxygen, that's a pretty good indication of life(since Oxygen especially tends to combine with Iron, like on Mars, and doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long unless it's constantly resupplied.) It's supposed to have a sister project that could actually take decent quality pictures of those planets.
psycho_snake
I went to WAGs boutique and all I got was a sniff
Thats the first thing that came to my mind too :lolPochacco said:
909er said:
This is more like it. If we can identify "candidate" planets quickly enough, presumably we could hone radio telescopes in on them to try and listen for any artificial signals (instead of just listening to everything and hoping we hit the jackpot)? Will this be tied together with SETI to speed things up?
If those telescopes are capable enough, can cover a wide enough area, and can investigate areas quickly...and if life IS reasonably abundant in the universe..we might find ET a lot quicker than I'd expected previously.
I guess the big question is...will these telescopes have as much trouble finding "candidate" planets as SETI has had finding "candidate" signals? Hopefully this won't be a needle in a haystack problem :/
Link648099 said:
Stupid Link648099, There is no thread entitled "Does God Exist". Moreover, if you're talking about the thread I made recently, then it's something else the name escapes me now, but I've called you out twice, to which you've not responded, but continue to refer to that thread... or a thread of a similar nature.
Edit: The thread was entitled; Proof of God's Existence? (or some such).
Edit2: Foolish Link, don't think me harsh, or unfairly targetting you, but I find it both amusing and irksome that you would continually refer to a thread in which you don't reach a conclusion and in fact come off second best. Amusing, because it's self ownage, but irksome because you ignore my last post to which you haven't explained yourself.
To rehash, don't attack the definition of nothing. Attack the idea that I gave; to argue with the lesser interpretation is to argue erroneously and flailingly.
To rehash again, I challenge any theist to make a strong secularly acceptable proof of connection between the idea of a creator and their chosen deity.
Link648099 said:
You cannot PROVE that God exists. The very basis of religion is the fact that you have faith. That means that you have a belief that something exists without actually knowing that it does. You BELIEVE it does. But, I'm sure if God exists, you'll have no problem showing me, right now, a picture of him.
And don't be so stupid as to think that just because I have a problem with lies perpetuated on behalf of religious organizations, who outwardly abuse peoples beliefs and faith in order to further their own personal gain, that I'm anywhere near athiest. I completely believe in God.
"Got is all wrong holy man. I absolutely beieve in God and I absolutely hate the fucker."
Hollywood said:
Why would I? I believe in God. But at the same time I still can't expect other people to believe just because some people do. And it doesn't help the fact that people who don't go to church tend to not believe in God. If God existed, do you think people would need to be told that he's there? Personally, I think they should be able to recognize it themselves. Compare it to gravity... even in an abstract, uneducated form, people can recognize that it is there... that for some reason, things fall down and not up.
*sigh* I'm getting tired of seeing threads like this devolve into yet another theology fight, and the people baiting for one need to stop now. However, since this thread is already beyond help...
The burden of proof is on the side making the positive claim. Logically speaking, you have no reason to believe in Magic Buffalo until I somehow provide evidence that they in fact DO exist.
What about Magic Buffalo that fly through the sky distributing happiness when you aren't looking. You can't prove those don't exist either, CAN YOU?Hollywood said:
The burden of proof is on the side making the positive claim. Logically speaking, you have no reason to believe in Magic Buffalo until I somehow provide evidence that they in fact DO exist.
Couldnt have said it better myself. The definition of God and how people interpret it has evolved over the years to provide an excuse to almost any questioning. It's the same sort of story with Santa, ie. he gets through every single house in one night because he's magic, you cant see him because he only comes when you're asleep etc etc. It's just another example of human reasoning run amok. I'm sure when life is proven on another planet, religious followers will work out an excuse they can all agree on as to how that life got there, something like "God spread his love to multiple planets, not just ours" or something along those lines.Hitokage said:
Link648099
Banned
Zaptruder said:
I'm pretty sure I told you that that was my last post in that thread, but I would gladly continue the conversation elsewhere, and even invited you to PM me or catch me on AIM (screenname is the same as this one). second, you didnt call me out, you simply retreated to agnositicism and gave me an illogical arguement that an atheist might use to get around the one I had made.
I forgot the exact name of it, but people could just follow my posts through my name anyways.
I reached the conclusion in that thread on my first or second post, and that was my argument for the existence of God, one which you, or anyone else, have not been able to get around as of yet. You havnt seemed to challenge that argument specifically, from what I can remember, but instead choose to push agnosticicm down a level, into religion. You can take that stance if you want, but I wasnt arguing about religion, but about theism.
I attacked the idea that you gave by simply telling you that out of nothing, comes more nothing. If you can show me how that statement is wrong in any way, then I will gladly acknowledge my mistake. Simply give me one real world example where something came out of nothing. Do that and your arguement has some weight to it. That was your first premise, what the rest of your arguement depended on to be plausible. If you cannot offer any evidence for something coming out of nothing, then the rest of your arguement, and your idea, does not have a chance. That is the rule of logic. If your first premise is false, then at the very least, so is your conclusion.
And on your challenge, i was never specifically arguing for a specific religion, like ive said, just for the existence of God. To argue for a specific religion, to be frankly honest with you, is beyond the scope that I am willing to go on a forum like this, and the detail I would need to delve into.
I tend to stick to the God topics, and let other people figure out the religion part on their own.
Link648099
Banned
Koshiro,
When compared to some others I know (fundamentalists), im pretty liberal from a theological perspective. I know, that as human beings, our knowledge is continually changing and growing, so I do not see why we cannot use that knowledge to better understand concepts of scripture.
For instance, I have no problem with evolutionary thought, and I even see it as a greater testament to the power of God then with an instantaneous creation of all life. Life on other planets isnt a problem for me either, and I would also see it just like I see creation through evolution. I mean, it's not like the Bible addresses evolution (or the concept) or life on other planets. The Fundies jump to those conclusions based usually only on one valid interpretation of scripture, when there are a few valid ones possible.
I make the basic connection between scripture and the universe. For me, if both are the product of a perfect God, one who does not give false information or contradict himself, then it simply follows that the Bible (assumming it is from God) will not contradict what we can find out about the universe around us. So I am not afraid to mesh the two together when I seek explanations, etc. Of course, I dont like to jump to conclusions on either side too. To say "oh, since science cant explain it, then it MUST be God!" is falling into the whole "God of the Gaps" mentality, something shown to be erronous many times over. But in addition, to commit an unwavering faith to science to provide a purely natural explanation for EVERYTHING is also jumping the gun.
As with everything, time will tell, and who knows, I could be wrong. But then again, I could also be right.
When compared to some others I know (fundamentalists), im pretty liberal from a theological perspective. I know, that as human beings, our knowledge is continually changing and growing, so I do not see why we cannot use that knowledge to better understand concepts of scripture.
For instance, I have no problem with evolutionary thought, and I even see it as a greater testament to the power of God then with an instantaneous creation of all life. Life on other planets isnt a problem for me either, and I would also see it just like I see creation through evolution. I mean, it's not like the Bible addresses evolution (or the concept) or life on other planets. The Fundies jump to those conclusions based usually only on one valid interpretation of scripture, when there are a few valid ones possible.
I make the basic connection between scripture and the universe. For me, if both are the product of a perfect God, one who does not give false information or contradict himself, then it simply follows that the Bible (assumming it is from God) will not contradict what we can find out about the universe around us. So I am not afraid to mesh the two together when I seek explanations, etc. Of course, I dont like to jump to conclusions on either side too. To say "oh, since science cant explain it, then it MUST be God!" is falling into the whole "God of the Gaps" mentality, something shown to be erronous many times over. But in addition, to commit an unwavering faith to science to provide a purely natural explanation for EVERYTHING is also jumping the gun.
As with everything, time will tell, and who knows, I could be wrong. But then again, I could also be right.
You think organized religion wouldn't adapt?
Sure, it'd be fun to see the fundamentalists panic, but general religious people would just change their view.
Remember there was a time when the Roman Catholic church thought the earth was the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, etc.
I may be mistaken, but where in the Bible does it deny life on other planets? It's kind of like the center of the universe thing. It's just arrogant simple mindedness that's assumed with some of the crazies of the religious lot.
Sure, it'd be fun to see the fundamentalists panic, but general religious people would just change their view.
Remember there was a time when the Roman Catholic church thought the earth was the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, etc.
I may be mistaken, but where in the Bible does it deny life on other planets? It's kind of like the center of the universe thing. It's just arrogant simple mindedness that's assumed with some of the crazies of the religious lot.
Instigator
Banned
teh_pwn said:
It's not said directly, so it is more of an assumption. A big deal is made of God creating the Earth and creating man in his image. That's where the belief of the Earth being at the center of the universe stems from (on top of appearing completely physically evident to most people a few centuries ago) and where the assumption of being the only beings in the universe.
But before you say it is as flawed as the assumption of the heavens revolving around Earth, there's another element. Satan rebelling, man's downfall and the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus to save mankind kinda suggest that this is the first time it all happened. It reaffirms that Earth is the centerpiece of creation and, by extention, there is no other living thing elsewhere in the universe. Otherwise, if other beings going astray was fairly common, would it cause such a ruckus in the heavens every single time?
Of course, you could just say that the human writers of Genesis really had limited knowledge of astronomy and they couldn't imagine all those sparkling dots in the night sky to be planets like Earth, let alone be inhabited by other beings. Either way, for something that major to be left out of the Bible, that again suggests no life is expected nor supposed to be there.
I think that is the gist of it.
Hitokage said:
Everything exists and in the so called science law something has to happen to cause something else to happen - so there must be a being to have made the universe exist. It can't come from nothing, if you use science as an excuse, because NOTHING comes from nothing. I could use the Bible, Kiran, etc, etc as a text of experiences with God, but you would say its fake, blah, blah, so whats the use? But you wanna use science, you are a hypocrite; because if anything the rules of science PROVE there must be an all powerful being.
Instigator
Banned
Hollywood said:
Wow...
I do recommend you actually learn science before invoking it in such claims. There's such a thing as spontaneous generation of matter/antimatter pairs, and while such events are a net zero it is "something" from "nothing". Please read up on it.Hollywood said:
Even ignoring things like that, the existence of our universe only proves there was a shitload of energy present for its creation. Be it the result of a chain of natural or supernatural events, it still offers no credence to standard claims of the existence of anyone's pet deity, semi or all-powerful. Otherwise you had better start respecting the Magic Caribou that created it.
Link648099 said:
No, you attack my idea based on the usage of the word nothing. Obviously, nothing is nothing. But the idea of something that is similar to nothing, but not nothing, because it has the characteristic of chance of creating something is not, nothing. You fail to acknowledge this idea, instead simply attacking the words I used to describe its other none characteristics.
Moreover, you say that you don't argue for religion, but that's the key difference between an agnostic and an atheist.
To an agnostic, the possibility of most any God is equally likely (save for logically contradicting Gods), so that the idea of a pascallion God and an anti-pascallion God (a God that punishes people based on their worship of the christian god that pascal worshipped), are equally as likely. As is the idea of the aetheist 'creator' which I provided.
As for giving you examples of when something came out of nothing, because it's an exercise of the pedantic, I can simply assign qualities to the 'nothing soup' that creates something, until it logically fits into the idea of the universe... which is more than can be said for an all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent God. If you're pining for the cohesive answers I can provide, then you miss the entire point of this whole argumentative exercise (that is nothing can be known about that which we can't measure either through indirect or direct methods; and that assigning cohesive and congent but otherwise arbitary characteristics to something does not make them any more real).
Because you've shown a quite complete lack of understanding previously, let me make the conclusion for you; Unless you can draw the secularly satisfying logical connections between the idea of the universe needing creation, and that of your chosen God, then more than likely (read 99.9recurring%), because of the sheer bewildering array of Gods that can be constructed that have cohesive internal logic (that is they can logically exist, given that their arbitarily assigned characteristics are true), your chosen God is an arbitary construct of the minds of millions of people.
The movie was so fucked up that I loved the shit out of it as well.BuG said:Last night on the tele over here in Australia there was a really awesome movie called Wild Zero, which had either zombie aliens or alien zombies. Hopefully these new findings on Mars are somehow related.
Actually, strictly speaking, pair production only takes place when you have a high energy photon (net electric charge 0 and spin 0) which creates pairs of antiparticles (sum of electric charge and spin equal to 0). The two particles don't come from "nothing," since a photon certain is "something," although a very different "something" than lepton or hadron pairs.Hitokage said:
Now, the TRULY weird shit is zero-point fluctuations, but that's another story, and I'm tired.
Hitokage said:
That's not spontaneous generation, I believe it is pulling energy from the natural atoms and electrons all around us. There was a program last night on Coast to Coast AM about Net Zero energy, that in fact it is possible to develop an energy source out of 'nothing'. But it's not really 'nothing' - is hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen in the air all around us and gases that permiate the universe. That's not nothing.
ImNotLikeThem
Member
well on that same token, you can't apply the "science law" to one part, but not the other. If "something" had to exist to create everything, then something else had to exist before that to allow that something to exist, etc etc. you can't prove anything with selective logic, nor can you prove everything with something we don't understand and that's taking completely out of context. (nor can you prove anything with centuries-old text that's proved true based on the fact that it itself says its true. even though it doesn't really.)Hollywood said:
- Status