Do you think life exists elsewhere in the universe?

[QUOTE=step_back]Predictable and lame:sleeping

You can try to squirm your way out of it all you want but I'll give you another shot though because I believe in second chances. What can you teach me or anyone else about life that we don't know?

P.S I know this is futile, but it's funny to watch you continue to dig yourself a hole.[/QUOTE]



[IMG]http://i.minus.com/ixbw5UOj74pZa.gif[/IMG]




Just because I toy with you before addressing you, does not mean I am evading.



The answer to your question is there is nothing I can [I]teach[/I] you. I can just give you information for you to compute on your own. Just like Steven Hawkins can. Just like your computer does not [I]put[/I] images into your head, it just displays crystalized pixels of light. Your mind is what conceptualizes them. Stephan Hawkins can offer to you his best mathematical approximation of how big the universe is. He can't tell you if there is life over there. If you are looking to him for that answer, you are asking the wrong question. That is not the information he is providing you.

Others don't teach us. They just transfer information to us, the accuracy of which varies. We teach ourselves, based on those transmissions. But what we teach ourselves is hardly fact. For even the slightest bit of newly acquired information can alter what we already believed to be fact. Nobody has all the information in the universe. So how can you presume to know a fact? It's logically incomplete. FACT.

Even principles we are 99.9999% certain of, such as "OP's a f[COLOR="Black"]a[/COLOR]ggot", can not be validated without the composite confirmation of all bits of universal knowledge. If there is even just one missing bit, we do not know that that's not the bit that changes the puzzle.

You have not acquired as much information as I have about the measurements of atoms and the possibilities of reality. If you had, you'd be confused, as I am. Only in light does the ambiguous concept of "direction" take shape. When it is dark, everything looks the same.

So now you can't actually teach me anything. :rolleyes:

If you claim to know more about me, then the least you can do is have proof rather than just your word. Otherwise don't make an outrageous claim. It sounds like all you have to base this on is The Universe Box set which features a particular scientist you like. Neil Tyson. This is me speculating however, you might have actually studied at University however I find that doubtful. Also the link below adds some evidence to what I just said.

[URL="http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=327878"]http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=327878[/URL]

All you've posted about me is pure speculation. This is because you consistently dig yourself a hole and resort to belligerence as a tactic for debating. It gets you no where and continually makes you look stupid. Not that you should care because honestly you shouldn't. Just worth a thought that's all.:cheers:

[QUOTE=step_back]So now you can't actually teach me anything. :rolleyes:

If you claim to know more about me, then the least you can do is have proof rather than just your word. Otherwise don't make an outrageous claim. It sounds like all you have to base this on is The Universe Box set which features a particular scientist you like. Neil Tyson. This is me speculating however, you might have actually studied at University however I find that doubtful. Also the link below adds some evidence to what I just said.

[URL="http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=327878"]http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=327878[/URL]

All you've posted about me is pure speculation. This is because you consistently dig yourself a hole and resort to belligerence as a tactic for debating. It gets you no where and continually makes you look stupid. Not that you should care because honestly you shouldn't. Just worth a thought that's all.:cheers:[/QUOTE]


:biggums:



This made



[IMG]http://www.theawl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/literally-headlines-e1343916120474.jpg[/IMG]


no sense whatsoever.

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]Come one, Rose. What a straw man. I was raised religious and still am (i'm catholic) and no one ever forbid me of questioning anything. There lots of debates in my religion classes in my catholic school. And, please, there's no child abuse. Most of us were raised religious and we are just fine. We were not abused in anyway. I hate that sectarianism of some atheists. We should just get along and respect our worldviews. I understand the dislike for the fundamentalists that reject science and try to impose their worldview on all (even those who don't follow their religion), but a lot of religious people are not that at all.

And even if the rare earth hypotesis is wrong. Where is the evidence of intelligent life? I mean. There can be billion of planets like earth. Odds would be that at least a few of them could develop civilizations with the tecnologoy to travel here or at least send some kind of message. That's where the fermi paradox enters. If it is so likely to be intelligent life, where's the evidence?

Cheers.[/QUOTE]Teaching a child religious principles may not in itself be a form of child abuse, but forcing a child to conform to such principles, and doing so with the threat of eternal damnation if they do not follow the rule book is certainly a form of emotional abuse. And this is something religious people have been doing for centuries (and which many continue to do). It is the same as if i demanded my child do what i say with the threat of beating him within an inch of his life if he does not follow my instructions and constantly illustrating the plethora of torments lying in wait for him if he dares to contravene my law. It is also emotional abuse to teach children to feel guilt and shame over what are natural human impulses (usually sexual).

As for your final paragraph: odds are there wouldn't be any evidence even if there was intelligent life elsewhere due to the vast distances involved. Even if a species 10x more intelligent than humans existed somewhere, the likelihood is that they would be millions of light years away, which is a distance that even such increased intelligence couldn't possibly overcome.

[QUOTE=Dresta]Teaching a child religious principles may not in itself be a form of child abuse, but forcing a child to conform to such principles, and doing so with the threat of eternal damnation if they do not follow the rule book is certainly a form of emotional abuse. And this is something religious people have been doing for centuries (and which many continue to do). It is the same as if i demanded my child do what i say with the threat of beating him within an inch of his life if he does not follow my instructions and constantly illustrating the plethora of torments lying in wait for him if he dares to contravene my law. It is also emotional abuse to teach children to feel guilt and shame over what are natural human impulses (usually sexual).

As for your final paragraph: odds are there wouldn't be any evidence even if there was intelligent life elsewhere due to the vast distances involved. Even if a species 10x more intelligent than humans existed somewhere, the likelihood is that they would be millions of light years away, which is a distance that even such increased intelligence couldn't possibly overcome.[/QUOTE]

Well said :applause:

[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]The secular crowd tends to support the "its so big, there has to be!" argument.

Then they deride creationists who believe earth/life is too intricate to have happened by chance. And usually in an arrogant manner, like "omgz ever heard of science, redneck? hahahah"


The "its so big, it has to!" So-called 'theory' has the same amount of empirical validity and logical reasonin as creationism.

Just remember that, you silly lil hypocrites.[/QUOTE]

The problem with your analogy is many parts of creationism and the bible are already provably false.

We haven't even researched what 90% or more of our own waters.

[QUOTE=Dresta]Teaching a child religious principles may not in itself be a form of child abuse, but forcing a child to conform to such principles, and doing so with the threat of eternal damnation if they do not follow the rule book is certainly a form of emotional abuse. And this is something religious people have been doing for centuries (and which many continue to do). It is the same as if i demanded my child do what i say with the threat of beating him within an inch of his life if he does not follow my instructions and constantly illustrating the plethora of torments lying in wait for him if he dares to contravene my law. It is also emotional abuse to teach children to feel guilt and shame over what are natural human impulses (usually sexual).

As for your final paragraph: odds are there wouldn't be any evidence even if there was intelligent life elsewhere due to the vast distances involved. Even if a species 10x more intelligent than humans existed somewhere, the likelihood is that they would be millions of light years away, which is a distance that even such increased intelligence couldn't possibly overcome.[/QUOTE]




get over yourself dude. Equating raising a kid with religion in his/her life is not child abuse. It's what the individual parents make of it. Your gimmick sucks and you just sound stupid.

[QUOTE=Dresta]Teaching a child religious principles may not in itself be a form of child abuse, but forcing a child to conform to such principles, and doing so with the threat of eternal damnation if they do not follow the rule book is certainly a form of emotional abuse. And this is something religious people have been doing for centuries (and which many continue to do). It is the same as if i demanded my child do what i say with the threat of beating him within an inch of his life if he does not follow my instructions and constantly illustrating the plethora of torments lying in wait for him if he dares to contravene my law. It is also emotional abuse to teach children to feel guilt and shame over what are natural human impulses (usually sexual). [/QUOTE]

I see, Dresta. Thanks for the reply. But I think that's more of a critique of religious fundamentalism. I certanly was never taught that non christians or those who don't literally follow the Bible are going to suffer eternal damnation.

If we make those kind of assumptions. One can argue that it may cause great harm for a child to be taught by their parents that their grandpa is now nothing but worm food and that he just does not exist anymore and no one will ever see him again or even "feel his presence". Wouldn't that be an abuse as well? Is that a straw man version of the story? I admit it is. But so is your view of how a child is raised to be religious... You can have religious stupid parents, just as you can have stupid atheist parents. No Child abuse just by being raised religious at all...



[QUOTE=Dresta]
As for your final paragraph: odds are there wouldn't be any evidence even if there was intelligent life elsewhere due to the vast distances involved. Even if a species 10x more intelligent than humans existed somewhere, the likelihood is that they would be millions of light years away, which is a distance that even such increased intelligence couldn't possibly overcome.[/QUOTE]

The likehood? How do you measure that? How can you tell if a different kind of tecnology could not exist to allow moving such vast distances? Maybe one civilization out of billions could develop that. In the end, I think you will agree that we can't know for sure...

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]The problem with your analogy is many parts of creationism and the bible are already provably false.[/QUOTE]

But it still has a point when talking about religion. The same people who reject faith (because it is just believing without evidence) still claim to be sure that there's alien life...

Same with muLtiverse in my opinion. How the hell could you even prove that other universes exist? It's a non scientific claim. And some atheists, who claim to reject faith, still believe in multiverse without any evidence? A kind of hypocrisy there IMHO.

Like the great physicist Paul Davies says:
[B]
"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."[/B]

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]I see, Dresta. Thanks for the reply. But I think that's more of a critique of religious fundamentalism. I certanly was never taught that non christians or those who don't literally follow the Bible are going to suffer eternal damnation.

If we make those kind of assumptions. One can argue that it may cause great harm for a child to be taught by their parents that their grandpa is now nothing but worm food and that he just does not exist anymore and no one will ever see him again or even "feel his presence". Wouldn't that be an abuse as well? Is that a straw man version of the story? I admit it is. But so is your view of how a child is raised to be religious... You can have religious stupid parents, just as you can have stupid atheist parents. No Child abuse just by being raised religious at all...

The likehood? How do you measure that? How can you tell if a different kind of tecnology could not exist to allow moving such vast distances? Maybe one civilization out of billions could develop that. In the end, I think you will agree that we can't know for sure...[/QUOTE]
[I]You[/I] weren't, but many people are, and it was standard practice for centuries. Look, i don't have a problem with people teaching religious principles to their kids, provided they don't force their acceptance through coercion, physical or psychological. I lived with a guy at uni who said if his kids weren't muslim he'd disown them - holding something like that over your kids is a form of psychological abuse, as is telling them they better believe lest they burn in hell. You can have bad religious parents and bad irreligious parents, i agree, but that has nothing to do with what i said.

I do agree we can't know for sure, but i also think the chances of a species from another planet (if they did exist) finding our spec of rock in a vast universe is pretty infinitesimal.

[QUOTE=DukeDelonte13]get over yourself dude. Equating raising a kid with religion in his/her life is not child abuse. It's what the individual parents make of it. Your gimmick sucks and you just sound stupid.[/QUOTE]
Learn to read dipshit.

I said it does not necessarily equate to child abuse, but telling a child they are going to burn in hell if they *********e or have sex or think unclean thoughts is child abuse. So of course it is dependant on the individual parents, i never said otherwise.

I don't have a 'gimmick' but what's yours? Being an illiterate retard?

[QUOTE=Dresta] Look, i don't have a problem with people teaching religious principles to their kids, provided they don't force their acceptance through coercion, physical or psychological. I lived with a guy at uni who said if his kids weren't muslim he'd disown them - holding something like that over your kids is a form of psychological abuse, as is telling them they better believe lest they burn in hell. You can have bad religious parents and bad irreligious parents, i agree, but that has nothing to do with what i said.

[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on that one. I certainly reject all that as well.

[SIZE="5"][B]You have watched a documentary or two on the size of space and digested it as gospel.[/B][/SIZE]

:oldlol:

But no, "I guarantee we are not alone!"





:roll: This foolish, try-hard intellectual dweeb. Keep polishing up your "Thats racist!" political talking points and your "I know teh science, man!" intellectual affirmation crutch. You are literally the perfect liberal. You think you know everything, [B][SIZE="5"]while somewhere (perhaps) Socrates is laughing at your stupid ass.
[/SIZE][/B]

Socrates and Sir Isaac Newton. Maybe even Einstein too since he was passionately open to the possibility of there being a Creator behind the universe's design. He referenced God, Creator, etc hundreds if not thousands of times in his work.

Einstein has a birthday coming up too - March 14th!

We still can't say for sure there's [I]any[/I] intelligent life in this universe, including us. Below is concrete scientific proof.

:lol

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG3kKMiG78Y"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG3kKMiG78Y[/URL]

This is the future. At some point or another there'll be zero [I]intelligent[/I] life on this planet, much less there "maybe" being other so-called intelligent life out there on some distant planet we don't even know for sure life exists on or not.

[QUOTE=RoseCity07] All our metals on this planet were created in our Sun. The gold and silver. The iron in our blood.
.[/QUOTE]



All your metals are belong to us!



:lol :lol :lol :lol :facepalm