They found Arvin!

Fine.

Allow me the tedious pleasure of repeating my main actual question then:

"What is the precise portion of stars in even 1 single galaxy that you were able to closely investigate, in order to come up with even a theoretical frequency for how often such sun/planet combinations might form?"

Please do not be afraid to answer my main actual question directly.

It is not a space-monster, and it is not trying to steal your bible.

Thank you.
 
It's funny to me that people will eagerly believe that there is alien life somewhere (to the point of saying that mere doubt is "laughable") without even a single shred of proof, yet they will dismiss or mock those who believe in God for the exact same reason.

The mathematical improbability of life spontaneously occurring anywhere is self-evident if you buy into conventional explanations of evolutionary biology. How many random mutations would need to occur to produce milions of species of varied, fully-functioning life-forms such as we see on earth? Or even to produce a conducive environment for such processes to even begin occuring? Many, many trillions of "lucky" dice rolls upon lucky dice rolls. It is quite literally more improbable than a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and assembling a 747 by random chance.

Also, I'd take your profane intellectual critiques more seriously if you could even get the name of the Looney Tunes character correct, "Arvin."

It seems the laugher has become the laughed-at.
 
What kind of engineering?

From other posts, you obviously have a strong religious bias, so I am assuming that is effecting your answer here.

Civil.

Yes, I have a religious bias. We all do. It's impossible not to. I don't deny that the reason I don't take sensationalistic claims about life on other planets seriously has a lot to to with my religious bias, just as anyone else's susceptibility to swallow those claims has a lot to do with theirs.
 
Allow me the tedious pleasure of repeating my main actual question then:

"What is the precise portion of stars in even 1 single galaxy that you were able to closely investigate, in order to come up with even a theoretical frequency for how often such sun/planet combinations might form?"

Oh. That was a serious question? Sorry. The answer is zero, obviously. You don't think that's the only way to come up with a probability like that, do you?

And, as I said above, the answer I gave you was an answer to your question. But it was an answer to the question that deserved an answer, not to the one that didn't.
 
I think people are confusing two totally different things.

The probability that, somewhere out there, there is some form of life... is very high.

The probability that, given the vastness of space, some of that life would appear on earth in a form we could recognize and study... is very low.
 
I think people are confusing two totally different things.

The probability that, somewhere out there, there is some form of life... is very high.

The probability that, given the vastness of space, some of that life would appear on earth in a form we could recognize and study... is very low.

Maybe. But I'm talking about the first kind when I say I think the probability is very low.
 
Oh. That was a serious question? Sorry. The answer is zero, obviously. You don't think that's the only way to come up with a probability like that, do you?

And, as I said above, the answer I gave you was an answer to your question. But it was an answer to the question that deserved an answer, not to the one that didn't.

Unless you are able to take a significant sample of stars in a given galaxy, and directly observe how many of them are/aren't sun-like, with orbiting Earth-like planets, then you are pulling that figure directly out of your rear black-hole (which I am 100% sure has Martians living in it).
 
Last edited:
Unless you are able to take a significant sample of stars in a given galaxy, and directly observe how many of them are/aren't sun-like, with orbiting Earth-like planets, then you are pulling that figure directly out of your rear black-hole (which I am 100% sure has Martians living in it).

You can't really believe that.
 
I think people are confusing two totally different things.

The probability that, somewhere out there, there is some form of life... is very high.

The probability that, given the vastness of space, some of that life would appear on earth in a form we could recognize and study... is very low.

If you believe in the math and physics which form the basis of those probabilities then what we define as "life" is undoubtedly a narrow and arbitrary classification based on an incredibly arbitrary, narrow and incomplete understanding of physical reality and our quaint little list of physical elements.

In which case all bets are off and we are all talking out of sheer religious faith (either pro- or anti-). Which I happen to believe is actually the case.
 
You can't really believe that.

That's the funny thing about reality erowe1; in order to know something with a reasonable degree of certainty, you need to observe some kind of actual evidence for its existence.

Kind of takes the fun out of making things up I guess...
 
Last edited:
That's the funny thing about reality erowe1; in order to know something with a reasonable degree of certainty, you need to observe some kind of actual evidence for its existence.

Kind of takes the fun out of making things up I guess...

So, in your mind, the options are that either I must personally acquire the empirical evidence, or else I'm making it up. Do you apply that rule consistently to all of science? If so, then I'm also obligated to prescind from belief in the claim that the picture in the OP came from a meteor, since I didn't verify it personally.
 
Some kind of legitimate source answering my main actual question would have been sufficient for our purposes.
 
Some kind of legitimate source answering my main actual question would have been sufficient for our purposes.

Which question? The one about whether or not I've personally been to other galaxies? Or the one about where I got that number, which I answered by giving you the link to where I got it?
 
Which question? The one about whether or not I've personally been to other galaxies? Or the one about where I got that number, which I answered by giving you the link to where I got it?

Stop playing dumb you fool.

Tell me who has been able to thoroughly investigate enough stars in a given galaxy, so that you could come up with your bullshit number.
 
Last edited:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5739563.ece

'trillions' of planets could be supporting life

Almost every star similar to the Sun probably has a life-harbouring planet like the Earth in orbit around it, a leading astronomer said yesterday.

The discovery of hundreds of planets around distant stars in our galaxy suggests that most solar systems have a world like ours that is capable of supporting life, and many of them are likely to have evolved it, according to Alan Boss, of the Carnegie Institution in Washington.

Nasa’s Kepler spacecraft, which will be launched next month to seek Earth-like worlds, is expected to find thousands of rocky planets in the patch of sky it surveys, Dr Boss told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Chicago.

“We’re on the verge of finding out convincingly how frequently habitable planets occur in the Universe,” he said. “A little over 20 years ago we knew of no other planetary system other than our own. We now know of well over 300. I suspect that virtually every star when you look up at the night sky has an Earth-like planet around it.” These “exoplanets” are mainly gas giants like Jupiter, but they do include some “super-Earths” that are a few times larger than our planet. While smaller worlds like ours are invisible to existing telescopes, Kepler will be capable of finding them.

“The estimates are that super-Earths probably occur in one third of solar-like stars, and I would say that those oddball planets are the tip of the iceberg,” Dr Boss said. “About three or four years from now there’ll be a press conference announcing how frequently Earths occur. It’s quite an exciting time to be alive.”

His expectation was that 85 per cent of Sun-like stars had one Earth-like planet, and that some could have many more. Given that there are 100 billion Sun-like stars in the galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies in the Universe, there may be 10 billion trillion planets that are good candidates for life. That is a one followed by 22 noughts. (noughts is another word for zero's)

With a habitable world sitting for five or ten billion years around another star, it was inevitable that some sort of life would form, Dr Boss said. If you had a planet with the right temperature and water for billions of years, you were bound to get life. Comets carrying the organic building blocks of life regularly bombard planets, he said.

If Kepler, and a European planet-finder called Corot, do find Earth-like worlds, the next step will be to launch space-based telescopes to study them. “If we find the signature of oxygen, that would be pretty strong proof that not only are they habitable, but they are inhabited,” Dr Boss said.
[...]
It was likely that some planets had produced intelligent organisms and civilisations, though our chances of locating one were very remote, Dr Boss said. “Maybe we haven’t found them yet because we haven’t looked long and hard enough in the galaxy, and maybe there are intelligent civilisations which could have formed and lasted 100,000 years, but maybe they happened 100 million years ago, and so we’re just out of phase with them.”
[...]
 
Last edited:
Stop playing dumb you fool.

Tell me who has been able to thoroughly investigate enough stars in given galaxy, so that you could come up with your bullshit number.

There are two possibilities here. Either you really are so naive to think that the only way anyone could derive a probability of a given planet being capable of supporting life is if some individual out there personally investigated such a large number of planets and induced the number from that investigation. Or you aren't.

If the former, then the level of education you require in basic concepts of science and math exceeds what could be provided in an internet forum. If the latter, then you're not engaging in serious conversation. Either way, there's no point trying to answer you.
 
There are two possibilities here. Either you really are so naive to think that the only way anyone could derive a probability of a given planet being capable of supporting life is if some individual out there personally investigated such a large number of planets and induced the number from that investigation. Or you aren't.

If the former, then the level of education you require in basic concepts of science and math exceeds what could be provided in an internet forum. If the latter, then you're not engaging in serious conversation. Either way, there's no point trying to answer you.

I'm not sure if you have ever personally seen this thing called a "telescope", but I can assure you that they do in fact exist.

I also heard that "astronomers" often "use" them in order to "investigate" "stars".

I also have a feeling that if your numbers were in any way legitimate, then it is possible that a telescope may have been used at some point, in order to provide "evidence" for them.
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5739563.ece

'trillions' of planets could be supporting life

Almost every star similar to the Sun probably has a life-harbouring planet like the Earth in orbit around it, a leading astronomer said yesterday.

The discovery of hundreds of planets around distant stars in our galaxy suggests that most solar systems have a world like ours that is capable of supporting life, and many of them are likely to have evolved it, according to Alan Boss, of the Carnegie Institution in Washington.

Nasa’s Kepler spacecraft, which will be launched next month to seek Earth-like worlds, is expected to find thousands of rocky planets in the patch of sky it surveys, Dr Boss told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Chicago.

“We’re on the verge of finding out convincingly how frequently habitable planets occur in the Universe,” he said. “A little over 20 years ago we knew of no other planetary system other than our own. We now know of well over 300. I suspect that virtually every star when you look up at the night sky has an Earth-like planet around it.” These “exoplanets” are mainly gas giants like Jupiter, but they do include some “super-Earths” that are a few times larger than our planet. While smaller worlds like ours are invisible to existing telescopes, Kepler will be capable of finding them.

“The estimates are that super-Earths probably occur in one third of solar-like stars, and I would say that those oddball planets are the tip of the iceberg,” Dr Boss said. “About three or four years from now there’ll be a press conference announcing how frequently Earths occur. It’s quite an exciting time to be alive.”

His expectation was that 85 per cent of Sun-like stars had one Earth-like planet, and that some could have many more. Given that there are 100 billion Sun-like stars in the galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies in the Universe, there may be 10 billion trillion planets that are good candidates for life. That is a one followed by 22 noughts. (noughts is another word for zero's)

With a habitable world sitting for five or ten billion years around another star, it was inevitable that some sort of life would form, Dr Boss said. If you had a planet with the right temperature and water for billions of years, you were bound to get life. Comets carrying the organic building blocks of life regularly bombard planets, he said.

If Kepler, and a European planet-finder called Corot, do find Earth-like worlds, the next step will be to launch space-based telescopes to study them. “If we find the signature of oxygen, that would be pretty strong proof that not only are they habitable, but they are inhabited,” Dr Boss said.
[...]
It was likely that some planets had produced intelligent organisms and civilisations, though our chances of locating one were very remote, Dr Boss said. “Maybe we haven’t found them yet because we haven’t looked long and hard enough in the galaxy, and maybe there are intelligent civilisations which could have formed and lasted 100,000 years, but maybe they happened 100 million years ago, and so we’re just out of phase with them.”
[...]

I see you've changed your tune.

In post #16 above, you seemed to be playing along with Petar's nonsense that all claims about probability of life on other planets are impossible until someone actually investigates so many other planets, and induces that probability from the bottom up. Now, you're at least willing to entertain the much more sensible idea that a deductive approach to such questions is possible.

But even in that article, terms like "earth like planets" and "good candidates for life" are suspiciously flexible. If a good candidate for life is one where the probability of it being able to sustain life is as high as 1 in 10^100 (in other words, much, much higher than average), but there are only 10^22 such planets. We're still left with a practical statistical impossibility of any of them actually being able to sustain life.
 
I'm not sure if you have ever personally seen this thing called a "telescope", but I can assure you that they do in fact exist.

I also heard that "astronomers" often "use" them in order to "investigate" "stars".

I also have a feeling that if your numbers were in any way legitimate, then it is possible that a telescope may have been used at some point, in order to provide "evidence" for them.

What exactly do you have in mind as a method here?

Some astronomer uses a telescope and looks at one planet after another to see how many have life and how many don't, so that he can calculate the percentage of those with life when he's looked at a large enough sample?

Because that's what it sounds like you've been trying to say so far, and I'm trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have a more sophisticated understanding of things.

Now, as for your last point, yes, of course, I'm sure telescopes were used in acquiring the evidence for the hundreds of numbers from which that probability was calculated. I'm sure that if you looked through all the articles and conference papers cited in that link to check each number, you'll find some information about which ones relied on data collected from telescopes and which didn't. I don't really care to sift through it looking for that. It seems like a pretty trivial point to me.
 
Last edited:
Also, I'd take your profane intellectual critiques more seriously if you could even get the name of the Looney Tunes character correct, "Arvin."

It seems the laugher has become the laughed-at.

I couldn't remember the name of the Disney martian character, but thought it started with a M, typed in a guess and image search and came up empty. Made some adjustments to search terms (added martian) and consenents and google suggested "arvin". Searchng that, I got the character I was looking for, so I figured my memory of the name starting with a M was faulty and ran with it. In retrospect, it looks like whoever titled the images (bunch of diff ppl) all truncated the M in the cut and paste operation.

OOPS! - shit happens.

-t
 
Back
Top