They Do Exist

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: They Do Exist
Joseph Stalin Infiltrator Member # 5991	written Wednesday, December 28 2005 19:03 Profile Homepage #0 Along with the biochemical basis of extraterrestrial life, there remains a broader consideration of evolution and morphology. What might an alien look like? Science fiction has long shown a bias towards humanoid or (often in the case of villains) reptilian forms. The classical alien is light green or grey skinned, with an enormous head, small body, and the typical four limb and two to five digit structure—i.e., it is fundamentally humanoid with a large brain to indicate great intelligence. Other subjects from our animal mythos (felines, insects) have also featured strongly in fictional representations of aliens. While such bias is predictable, it is also curiously unimaginative and almost certain to be proven wrong should human beings encounter extraterrestrials. In considering the subject more seriously, a useful division has been suggested between universal and parochial characteristics. Universals are features which have evolved independently more than once on Earth (and thus presumably are not difficult to develop) and are so intrinsically useful that species will inevitably tend towards them. These include flight, sight, photosynthesis and limbs, all of which have evolved several times here on Earth with differing materialization. There are a huge variety of eyes, for example, many of which have radically different working schematics as well as different visual foci: the visual spectrum, infrared, polarity and echolocation. Parochials, by contrast, are essentially arbitrary evolutionary forms which often serve little utility (or at least have a function which can be equally served by dissimilar morphology) and probably will not be replicated. Parochials include the five digits of mammals, the genitalia and sexual mechanics of animals, as well as the curious and often fatal conjunction of the feeding and breathing passages found within many animals. A consideration of which features are ultimately parochial challenges many taken for granted notions about morphological necessity. Skeletons, in some form, are likely to be replicated elsewhere, yet the vertebrate spine—while a profound development on Earth—is just as likely to be unique. Similarly, it is reasonable to expect some type of egg laying amongst off-Earth creatures but the mammary glands which set apart mammals may be a singular case. The assumption of radical diversity amongst putative extraterrestrials is by no means settled. While many exobiologists do stress that the enormously heterogeneous nature of Earth life foregrounds even greater variety in space, others point out that convergent evolution dictates substantial similarities between Earth and off-Earth life. These two schools of thought are called "divergionism" and "convergionism", respectively [1]. Belief in extraterrestrial life may have been present in ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Sumer, although in these societies, cosmology was fundamentally supernatural and the notion of aliens is difficult to distinguish from that of gods, demons, and such. The first important Western thinkers to argue systematically for a universe full of other planets and, therefore, possible extraterrestrial life were the ancient Greek writers Thales and his student Anaximander in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C.E. The atomists of Greece took up the idea, arguing that an infinite universe ought to have an infinity of populated worlds. Ancient Greek cosmology worked against the idea of extraterrestrial life in one critical respect, however: the geocentric universe, championed by Aristotle and codified by Ptolemy, privileged the Earth and Earth-life (Aristotle denied there could be a plurality of worlds) and seemingly rendered extraterrestrial life impossible. Giordano Bruno, De l'Infinito, Univirso e Mondi, 1584Ancient Jewish sources also considered extraterrestrial life. The Talmud suggests that there are at least 18,000 other worlds, but provides little elaboration. The book Sefer Habrit (Book of the Covenant) writes that extraterrestrial creatures exist but that they have no free will (and are thus equivalent to animal life). It adds that human beings should not expect creatures from another world to resemble earthly life, any more than sea creatures resemble land animals. [2] [3] When Christianity spread through the West the Ptolemaic system became dogma and although the Church never issued any formal pronouncement on the question of alien life [4], at least tacitly the idea was heretical. In 1277 the Bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier did overturn Aristotle on one point: God could have created more than one world (given His omnipotence) yet we know by revelation he only made one. To take a further step and argue that aliens actually existed remained dangerous. The best known early-modern proponent of extra-solar planets and widespread life off Earth was Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for this and other unorthodox ideas in 1600. The Church, however, could not contain the storm that accompanied the invention of the telescope and the Copernican assault on geocentric cosmology. Once it became clear that the Earth was merely one planet amongst countless bodies in the universe the extraterrestrial idea moved towards the scientific mainstream. In the early 17th century the Czech astronomer Anton Maria Schyrleus of Rheita mused that "if Jupiter has…inhabitants…they must be larger and more beautiful than the inhabitants of the Earth, in proportion to the [size] of the two spheres;" he did not dare to confirm the existence of Jovian beings due to potential theological difficulties. Later, this bold step would be taken. William Herschel, the discoverer of Uranus, was one of many 18th-19th century astronomers convinced that our Solar System, and perhaps others, would be well populated by alien life. Other luminaries of the period who championed "cosmic pluralism" included Immanuel Kant and Benjamin Franklin. At the height of the Enlightenment even the Sun and Moon were considered candidates for hosting aliens. The Christian attitude towards extraterrestrials turned from denial to ambivalence. Theological criticisms had been partially stalemated by a critical counter-argument that had remained in the background since the pronouncements of 1277: God's omnipotence not only allowed for other worlds and other life, on some level it necessitated them. This enthusiasm towards the possibility of alien life continued well into the 20th century. Indeed, the roughly three centuries from the Scientific Revolution through the beginning of the modern era of solar system probes were essentially the highpoint for belief in extraterrestrials in the West: many astronomers and other secular thinkers, at least some religious thinkers, and much of the general public were largely satisfied that aliens were a reality. This trend was finally tempered as actual probes visited potential alien abodes in the solar system. The moon was decisively ruled out as a possibility, while Venus and Mars—long the two main candidates for extraterrestrials—showed no obvious evidence of current life. The other large moons of our system which have been visited appear similarly lifeless, though interesting geothermic forces observed (Io's volcanism, Europa's ocean, Titan's thick atmosphere) has underscored how broad the range of potentially habitable environments may be. Finally, the failure of NASA's SETI program to detect anything resembling an intelligent radio signal after four decades of effort has partially dimmed the optimism that prevailed at the beginning of the space age and emboldened critics who view the search for extraterrestrials as unscientific. [5] Thus, the three decades preceding the turn of the second millenium saw a crossroads reached in beliefs in alien life. The prospect of ubiquitous, intelligent, space-faring civilizations in our solar system appears increasingly dubious to many scientists ("All we know for sure is that the sky is not littered with powerful microwave transmitters" in the words of SETI's Frank Drake). At the same time, the data returned by space probes and giant strides in detection methods have allowed science to begin delineating habitability criteria on other worlds and to confirm that, at least, other planets are plentiful though aliens remain a question mark. Amongst the general public belief and interest in extraterrestrials remains high and skepticism towards galaxy-exploring alien civilizations is not shared by many individuals. At present, some enthusiasts in the topic believe that extraterrestrial beings regularly visit or have visited the Earth. Some think that unidentified flying objects observed in the skies are in fact sightings of the spacecraft of intelligent extraterrestrials, and even claim to have met such beings. Crop circle patterns have also been attributed to the actions of extraterrestrials, although many were later found to be hoaxes. While at least one recent scientific paper published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal has urged a re-evaluation of the UFO phenomenon (Deardorff et al., 2005) [6], as of this time mainstream scientific opinion holds that such claims are unsupportable by the evidence currently available and unlikely to be true. The possible existence of primitive (microbial) life outside of Earth is much less controversial to mainstream scientists although at present no direct evidence of such life has been found. Indirect evidence has been offered for the current existence of primitive life on the planet Mars; however, the conclusions that should be drawn from such evidence remain in debate -From Wikipedia -------------------- George Bush is a Nazi - Eric Cartmen I'm not as think you stoned I am Visit the RIFQ Forums Posts: 462 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 21 2005 07:00
*i The Establishment Member # 6	written Wednesday, December 28 2005 20:01 Profile #1 Ummmm...cool, I guess? The point of this topic is a discussion of extraterrestrial life I take it? -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Wednesday, December 28 2005 20:13 Profile Homepage #2 The assumptions behind parochial and universal evolution could use another look. Specifically, the "universal" adaptations are only applicable if life requires certain elements present on Earth and thus shares certain characteristics of environment with Earth. Since we have a sample size of one planet to formulate our hypotheses, scientists could be very wrong about this. I can't think of any forms of life utterly unlike those on Earth, but I think that's an experience bias rather than a truth of how the universe must operate. —Alorael, who wouldn't rule out inability to identify alien life precisely because it's so alien. Is there even a clear definition of what life means in a context other than Earth? Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Kingy Lifecrafter Member # 3171	written Wednesday, December 28 2005 20:37 Profile Homepage #3 A different species could easily have developed for a different environment. And is it not possible for marine life to exist on neptune? I mean, if it is all water then surely there has to be something. I also remember hearing that mars has a layer of dust on top of ice, but couldn't marine life exist closer to the core, where the ice would be melted? Posts: 776 \| Registered: Friday, July 4 2003 07:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Wednesday, December 28 2005 22:54 Profile Homepage #4 Neptune isn't all water. It is, to the best of my knowledge, all gas, and most of that gas isn't water vapor. If life adapts to hydrogen gas storms, maybe. Water on Mars and life on Mars are hotly debated, and I should leave them to someone who knows better. My limited understanding is that there are some patches of ice on Mars but no large areas of water anywhere we've been able to examine. —Alorael, who has also heard at various times that all the ice on Mars is carbon dioxide and that the ice below the surface of Mars would, if moved to the surface and melted, cover the entire planet in oceans. Pick your favorite theory. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Wednesday, December 28 2005 23:30 Profile #5 Fuzzily remembered from last year's astronomy course: The giant planets are mostly gaseous, but are thought to have solid cores. In a sense they have liquid layers, but no ocean surfaces: at the high temperatures and pressures deep within these planets, vapor just gradually thickens into liquid, without any sharp transition, as pressure rises further. One should probably speak simply of 'fluid', without specifying liquid or gas. No significant amounts of water ice have been found on Mars's surface. The visible ice caps are mostly solid CO2. But there are lots of geological features on the surface that look just like features on Earth that are caused by water erosion, and some of these features can be plausibly dated as not all that old, geologically speaking. So there is speculation that Mars has had copious flowing surface water recently enough that significant amounts of Martian water might still remain in underground reservoirs. I'm not really sure how serious this speculation is, though. For all I know, it might be based largely on NASA engineers' regret that the Rovers can't drill. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
SNM Shock Trooper Member # 4239	written Thursday, December 29 2005 06:14 Profile #6 quote: Originally written by Secular Right: —Alorael, who wouldn't rule out inability to identify alien life precisely because it's so alien. Is there even a clear definition of what life means in a context other than Earth? The general definition one learns in high school involving reproduction and consumption of energy isn't at all Earth-specific, so far as I can tell. quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: The giant planets are mostly gaseous, but are thought to have solid cores. In a sense they have liquid layers, but no ocean surfaces: at the high temperatures and pressures deep within these planets, vapor just gradually thickens into liquid, without any sharp transition, as pressure rises further. One should probably speak simply of 'fluid', without specifying liquid or gas. Supercritical fluids! Supercritical fluids! ;) -------------------- There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were. Posts: 322 \| Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00
*i The Establishment Member # 6	written Thursday, December 29 2005 08:04 Profile #7 The problem with speculating about life formation through other mechanisms of chemistry than on Earth is that for all intensive purposes our sample size is 1. This is insufficient to really make too many leaps as our knowledge of complex biochemistry is impressive but driven entirely by the systems here on Earth. Until we can rule out a process as not being possible from a chemistry standpoint, it is difficult to rule it out. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Thursday, December 29 2005 11:55 Profile Homepage #8 Are solar-powered machines designed to collect materials and construct copies of themselves alive? By your definition, yes. By common consent, no; even sophisticated programming is considered mechanical. But if we found self-replicating machines on another planet, would they be alive, artifacts of other intelligent life, or a coincidence? For that matter, is fire alive? It consumes energy and reproduces. —Alorael, who can't imagine life that can exist without in some way consuming and transforming energy. He can think of quite a number of hypothetical means of reproduction that wouldn't be anything like what happens on Earth. Manufacturing, for example, to stick with "natural intelligence" in machine-like life. Or the spreading of an amorphous mass like fire. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
SNM Shock Trooper Member # 4239	written Thursday, December 29 2005 15:50 Profile #9 quote: Originally written by Secular Right: Are solar-powered machines designed to collect materials and construct copies of themselves alive? By your definition, yes. By common consent, no; even sophisticated programming is considered mechanical. But if we found self-replicating machines on another planet, would they be alive, artifacts of other intelligent life, or a coincidence? For that matter, is fire alive? It consumes energy and reproduces. Sorry, guess I should have put the whole thing out there. Also required is growth and internal organization. Thus self-replicating machines are not alive, and neither is fire. However, a computer that could slowly increase, say, its memory capacity would be alive. If one were truly worried about artificial life forms (I've been watching a lot of The Next Generation lately ;) ), you could also include a clause requiring that you can't turn off the life form and then turn it back on without causing damage. -------------------- There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were. Posts: 322 \| Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00
demonslay3r Guardian Member # 2238	written Thursday, December 29 2005 16:24 Profile Homepage #10 I've always said that Alien and Starcraft have got a pretty good guess at what some types of extraterrestrials could be. The whole semi-insectoid, hyper-breeding, all-consuming thing seems so... real. And perhaps other planets formed remarkably similar to Earth, bearing lifeforms remarkably similar to us. There is a favorite theory of mine out there, which I love using to scare my girlfriend: the whole thing about us actually being from Mars, but destroying the ozone layer due to careless industry (or whatever) led to the charring of the world (hence the red, rust-like surface). Those smart enough escaped before the 'big boom'. That or DooM 3 was right. -------------------- DEMON PLAY, DEMON OUT! Posts: 1582 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 13 2002 08:00
*i The Establishment Member # 6	written Thursday, December 29 2005 17:23 Profile #11 quote: Originally written by demonslaeyr: I've always said that Alien and Starcraft have got a pretty good guess at what some types of extraterrestrials could be. The whole semi-insectoid, hyper-breeding, all-consuming thing seems so... real. And perhaps other planets formed remarkably similar to Earth, bearing lifeforms remarkably similar to us. There is a favorite theory of mine out there, which I love using to scare my girlfriend: the whole thing about us actually being from Mars, but destroying the ozone layer due to careless industry (or whatever) led to the charring of the world (hence the red, rust-like surface). Those smart enough escaped before the 'big boom'. That or DooM 3 was right. Is this post serious? In case someone takes this seriously, I should respond: 1) The suggestion that Alien or Starcraft is a "pretty good guess" should be rephrased as "a wild guess". As I said before, the sample size for a large scale evolution of intelligent life experiment is exactly 1, far too few to know how likely any specific kind of life might form. 2) It is quite probable that planets like ours exist. How probable it is that life like ours evolved depends on the laws of chemistry that are far beyond our ability to understand. 3) The "theory" about Mars you suggest is not a theory in a scientific sense, it is a hypothesis; a theory is something supported by a wide body of scientific evidence. Ozone has little to do with temperature control of a planet, ozone serves to absorb certain frequencies of light, namely ultraviolet. Massive amounts of ultraviolet would not cause massive oxidation on a planet. That and there would be no 'big boom' due to that. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Dikiyoba Councilor Member # 6600	written Thursday, December 29 2005 17:29 Profile Homepage #12 Originally by The Forgotten: quote: Science fiction has long shown a bias towards humanoid or (often in the case of villains) reptilian forms. The classical alien is light green or grey skinned, with an enormous head, small body, and the typical four limb and two to five digit structure—i.e., it is fundamentally humanoid with a large brain to indicate great intelligence. Sounds an awful like the Vahnatai... quote: While such bias is predictable, it is also curiously unimaginative and almost certain to be proven wrong should human beings encounter extraterrestrials. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's most imaginative alien: an intelligent shade of blue. Originally by Aloreal: quote: —Alorael, who wouldn't rule out inability to identify alien life precisely because it's so alien. Is there even a clear definition of what life means in a context other than Earth? Ah, cells. The biggest factor concerning whether something is alive or not is if it is composed of a cell (most of life on Earth)or multiple cells. Under this definition, viruses technically aren't alive. Whether alien lifeforms are composed of cells or not is unknowm. The task is made harder by the fact that some crystal formations can look like fossilized cells. Fossilized cells proving life on Mars and a second example of life beginning on Earth had to be thrown out because they were later proven to be crystals. Dikiyoba feels outnumbered by all the little single-celled life forms just in Dikiyoba's house. Good thing most of them are friendly or harmless. Posts: 4346 \| Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
Kingy Lifecrafter Member # 3171	written Thursday, December 29 2005 17:29 Profile Homepage #13 quote: Originally written by demonslaeyr: the whole thing about us actually being from Mars, but destroying the ozone layer due to careless industry (or whatever) led to the charring of the world (hence the red, rust-like surface). Those smart enough escaped before the 'big boom'. I remember a friend of mine telling me ages ago that the bible says something about us destroying our old world and then god making a new heaven and earth. He was very keen on the idea that the world we had destroyed was mars. Posts: 776 \| Registered: Friday, July 4 2003 07:00
Joseph Stalin Infiltrator Member # 5991	written Thursday, December 29 2005 17:56 Profile Homepage #14 Mars only gets all this attention for being the closest planet to us and having a chance to support life (not necessarily human). On a completely different subject has anyone else been receiving an error 500 on port 80 due to server failure message when trying to come to the forums today? -------------------- George Bush is a Nazi - Eric Cartmen I'm not as think you stoned I am Visit the RIFQ Forums Posts: 462 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 21 2005 07:00
Toenail Returns Agent Member # 3349	written Thursday, December 29 2005 18:24 Profile Homepage #15 Better get mah shotgun ready... -------------------- And everybody say....Yatta! Posts: 1287 \| Registered: Thursday, August 14 2003 07:00
demonslay3r Guardian Member # 2238	written Thursday, December 29 2005 19:21 Profile Homepage #16 quote: Originally written by i: Is this post serious? In case someone takes this seriously, I should respond: 1) The suggestion that Alien or Starcraft is a "pretty good guess" should be rephrased as "a wild guess". As I said before, the sample size for a large scale evolution of intelligent life experiment is exactly 1, far too few to know how likely any specific kind of life might form. 2) It is quite probable that planets like ours exist. How probable it is that life like ours evolved depends on the laws of chemistry that are far beyond our ability to understand. 3) The "theory" about Mars you suggest is not a theory in a scientific sense, it is a hypothesis; a theory is something supported by a wide body of scientific evidence. Ozone has little to do with temperature control of a planet, ozone serves to absorb certain frequencies of light, namely ultraviolet. Massive amounts of ultraviolet would not cause massive oxidation on a planet. That and there would be no 'big boom' due to that. Oh lord, Stareye... 1) In case anyone ELSE reads this like I'm trying to make a scientific study out of it: I'm merely pondering possibilites. Sorry... I didn't mean to have an imagination. 2) Again, I never said it was "probable". I simply stated it's a "possibility". 3) I won't go into how uptight you're being about this, but I will say this: O3=flammable, yes? Light a match in a room full of O3. You'll get a 'big boom'. (If not, then here, I'm sorry I took a shot). If you thought I was referring to the* Big Boom, then shame on you. And besides, I didn't come up with it. -------------------- DEMON PLAY, DEMON OUT! Posts: 1582 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 13 2002 08:00
Tyranicus Law Bringer Member # 6489	written Thursday, December 29 2005 19:28 Profile Homepage #17 quote: Originally written by Kingy: I remember a friend of mine telling me ages ago that the bible says something about us destroying our old world and then god making a new heaven and earth. He was very keen on the idea that the world we had destroyed was mars. I'm not sure where your friend got that idea, but as far as I know that is not in the Bible. "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." -Genesis 1:1-2, New Revised Standard Version. Your friend could be referring to this passage: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." -Revelation 21:1, New Revised Standard Version. This passage refers to the end of time, depicting the destruction of this world, not some previous world that we inhabited in the past. [ Thursday, December 29, 2005 22:49: Message edited by: Tyranicus ] -------------------- "You're drinking liquor because you're thirsty? How nasty is your freaking water?" —Lazarus Spiderweb Chat Room Avernum RP • Summaries • OoC • Roster Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things. Posts: 1556 \| Registered: Sunday, November 20 2005 08:00
Synergy Shaper Member # 6292	written Thursday, December 29 2005 19:45 Profile #18 Moreover, if you take the first verse of the Revelation seriously, which says the vision is "put into signs", then it is not the literal physical heaven or literal physical earth the prophecy is discussing. Prophetic symbology speaks to three realms of heaven, earth, and sea as a microcosm inside a man too. But heavens in general are the realm of rulership, and the earth is what is ruled. The prophecy can be seen to be talking about the old rulership over man and the old man himself is recreated anew. -------------------- A4 Items List A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List G4 Insidious Infiltrator NR Items List Posts: 2009 \| Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Thursday, December 29 2005 21:14 Profile Homepage #19 quote: Originally written by Synergy: Moreover, if you take the first verse of the Revelation seriously, which says the vision is "put into signs" Whenever someone says something like this, I feel the urge to look it up, and WOW, the Greek of the Revelation is weird. I've only looked at it once before, and that only briefly, and I was struck by it before, but wow. In any case, I assume you're referring to the verb "sêmainô," which literally means that the god showed by a sign. This is one of those weird ambiguous Greek words that gives interpreters terrible headaches. I think — and I stress the word think, as Revelation is very hard to interpret — that the sentence could indicate that the message of what was going to happen was carried by a messenger rather than delivered directly. "Sêmainô" can mean showing by a very obvious sign — the example in the LSJ is to give the signal to attack — and it could be used to contrast with the form of didômi shortly before, saying that the god gave the revelation directly to Jesus, but he had to use a messenger — an "angel" — to deliver the revelation to John. Then again, the word is also used of oracles, which could sometimes be extremely ambiguous, so I think it could carry the meaning suggested by Synergy, too. Context would dictate what it actually meant, but context (as often in the Bible) is extremely ambiguous. By the way, does it surprise anyone to learn that the word that is traditionally translated "servant" in the KJV and just about every other Bible ever is normally translated "slave" in all other texts? Revelation casts us all as the slaves of the god. (And I keep saying "the god," not "God," because that's how the Greek reads. And I have my doubts that even that renders the Greek faithfully.) Uh, but as to the topic, life on other planets somewhere in the universe is highly probable, if you're talking about something on the bacterial level. But intelligent life was by no means a certainty even on this planet — it took several mass extinctions to create what we've got now — so I doubt it's all that likely anywhere nearby. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Thursday, December 29 2005 21:54 Profile Homepage #20 If being able to turn off and on without damage is incompatible with life, do we stop being alive if cryogenics ever become feasible? Why exactly is growth necessary for life? On Earth it's because there are advantages to size and complexity that can't be present at birth, but who's to say that other mechanisms for reproduction (i.e. the aforementioned manufacturing) can't produce fully grown lifeforms? Internal organization seems pretty necessary, but cells don't. Cells are as much a product of evolution as the rest of life, and if life elsewhere could come up with another arrangement, that would work too. There's no scientific consensus on whether viruses are alive or not, although it's more of a semantic argument than a scientific one. The fossilized life from a Martian rock is also still debated, although I think the majority say that the "fossils" aren't. Mars isn't red because it's charred, and lighting a match in our very own atmosphere, which contains both ozone and oxygen, results in one small flame. There are better explosive pollutants available, but none of them seem to be part of Mars' very thin atmosphere. —Alorael, who thinks the universe is large enough that intelligent life appearing once seems like even more of a staggering coincidence than intelligent life appearing multiple times. The universe is also large enough that encounters between intelligent species could easily fail to occur. Or maybe not; with a sample size of 1, the standard error of all guesses is infinite, so who knows? Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Synergy Shaper Member # 6292	written Thursday, December 29 2005 22:10 Profile #21 It's always good to hear from you, Kel, when we hit the ol' Greek of the New Testament. Interesting possibilities the one word alone presents. Some versions translate it as "signified" in English, which means what I was stating, "put into signs" or "communicated by signs." The reason I would readily see it this way is that so much of the vision is clearly not literal to begin with, the language of prophecy all through the Bible is in signs and symbols, and Jesus also spoke continually in allegory/story/symbol to present spiritual ideas in ways people could get the point. Even though I do believe there is spiritual truth to be found in scriptures, I don't fear any literal end to the physical planet, especially with so much other unfulfilled prophecy about the destiny of humankind. I find it quite likely there is life (intelligent and otherwise) and all kinds of strange and wonderful things out there in the vast universe. I find it quite unikely that any of them has ever found or visited planet earth, and therefore find the UFO/alien visitation conspiracy theories rather laughable and wishful thinking at best. Similarly to what Alo was just pointing toward, the odds of any one intelligent species finding and being able to travel to or communicate with another are, um, astronomical. [ Thursday, December 29, 2005 22:40: Message edited by: Synergy ] -------------------- A4 Items List A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List G4 Insidious Infiltrator NR Items List Posts: 2009 \| Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
gnoll Apprentice Member # 6565	written Friday, December 30 2005 04:49 Profile #22 I once came across some Raëlian articles which somehow connected [mostly Abrahamic] religions with extraterrestrials, claiming the prophets were actually their messengers and men are result of their cloning (so for human being "created in the image of God"). I suspect their ideology is to morally prepare people for their human cloning projects though. Posts: 12 \| Registered: Friday, December 16 2005 08:00
Archmage Alex Skip to My Lou Member # 40	written Friday, December 30 2005 08:37 Profile Homepage #23 -------------------- Take the Personality Test! Deep down, you wish you were a stick figure. Posts: 1629 \| Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
*i The Establishment Member # 6	written Friday, December 30 2005 09:06 Profile #24 quote: Originally written by demonslaeyr: quote: Originally written by i: Is this post serious? In case someone takes this seriously, I should respond: 1) The suggestion that Alien or Starcraft is a "pretty good guess" should be rephrased as "a wild guess". As I said before, the sample size for a large scale evolution of intelligent life experiment is exactly 1, far too few to know how likely any specific kind of life might form. 2) It is quite probable that planets like ours exist. How probable it is that life like ours evolved depends on the laws of chemistry that are far beyond our ability to understand. 3) The "theory" about Mars you suggest is not a theory in a scientific sense, it is a hypothesis; a theory is something supported by a wide body of scientific evidence. Ozone has little to do with temperature control of a planet, ozone serves to absorb certain frequencies of light, namely ultraviolet. Massive amounts of ultraviolet would not cause massive oxidation on a planet. That and there would be no 'big boom' due to that. Oh lord, Stareye... 1) In case anyone ELSE reads this like I'm trying to make a scientific study out of it: I'm merely pondering possibilites. Sorry... I didn't mean to have an imagination. 2) Again, I never said it was "probable". I simply stated it's a "possibility". 3) I won't go into how uptight you're being about this, but I will say this: O3=flammable, yes? Light a match in a room full of O3. You'll get a 'big boom'. (If not, then here, I'm sorry I took a shot). If you thought I was referring to the* Big Boom, then shame on you. And besides, I didn't come up with it. The problem is there are plenty of people who WOULD actually take such things seriously. Consult the late night radio talk show Coast to Coast AM, it's full of all sorts of drivel way more radical and unbelievable than this. However, people still tend to believe it. Imagination is a good thing, but it is not the end all to human inquiry. I know plenty of people with good imagination, but do not go anywhere because their ideas stay wild ideas. Uptight, perhaps, but it is my job as a scientist to fight misconception and ignorance about the universe. I do not mean to quash your imagination, but I do mean to put a disclaimer and present the truth on relevant issues. Misuse of the word "theory" is also a bit of agitation to me as there is a large misconception of what a theory is in a scientific sense. From that you get the "it's only a theory!" junk arguments that are pervasive in the fight to preserve scientific integrity in American classrooms. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00