Posted on 01/23/2011 9:38:58 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Howard Smith, a senior astrophysicist at Harvard, made the claim that we are alone in the universe after an analysis of the 500 planets discovered so far showed all were hostile to life.
Dr Smith said the extreme conditions found so far on planets discovered outside out Solar System are likely to be the norm, and that the hospitable conditions on Earth could be unique.
“We have found that most other planets and solar systems are wildly different from our own. They are very hostile to life as we know it,” he said.
He pointed to stars such as HD10180, which sparked great excitement when it was found to be orbited by a planet of similar size and appearance to Earth.
But the similarities turned out to be superficial. The planet lies less than two million miles from its sun, meaning it is roasting hot, stripped of its atmosphere and blasted by radiation.
Many of the other planets have highly elliptical orbits which cause huge variations in temperature which prevent water remaining liquid, thus making it impossible for life to develop.
A separate team of scientists recently declared the chance of aliens existing on a newly discovered Earth-like planet “100 per cent”.
Professor Steven Vogt , of the Carnegie institution in Washington, said he had “no doubt” extraterrestrial life would be found on a small, rocky planet found orbiting the red dwarf star Gliese 581 last September.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
So you think the savior of mankind is also the savior of alien races? LOL Really? Are those races fallen? Do they need a savior? LOL... you’re probably kiddin aren’t you?
If evolution is factual, then the scientific evidence here on earth indicates that the chance of life existing on any other planet is practically nil.
Furthermore, if evolution is factual, the scientific evidence of life here on earth also indicates that if there is any kind of life existing on another planet, the odds that there would advanced, intelligent life on that planet would be exceptionally small.
Evolution is a belief. It’s believed that amino acids and lightening or whatever created “life”. That dead things became alive. And that they organized themselves in a manner to reproduce. LOL.... and some people really believe it.
So you think you invisible magic friend created all life from nothing? LOL Really? Adam was made from dust and a breath? Your invisible magic friend needed to perform surgery the make him a companion, presumably because unlike for all the other living things he simply forgot to make Adam a companion? Apparently your invisible magic friend couldn’t remember how to make her out of dust, either. LOL... you’re probably kiddin aren’t you?
Yeah... I think God created it. I don’t think it created itself from dead stuff.
You’re absolutely correct. His analysis was nonsensical.
Two belief systems. One is that a creator (God) created life. The other is that dead things got together and life was created from it. I can’t reproduce what God did. I believe it to be true. Scientists can’t reproduce what they say happened. They just believe it.
From the Determinist outlook alone, the astrophysicist’s conclusion in ludicrous. No sample of star systems - all of them in one spiral arm of one galaxy (and we now know there to be more observable galaxies than there are stars in this one galaxy alone) can be large enough to reach such a conclusion - even if Earth is the only planet with life in the Milky Way, or even in the Local Group (and perhaps even in the Virgo Super Cluster).
Agreed ... they are two belief systems. I guess in theory Science should have the ability to reproduce what they believe happened. To “make the dream” a reality. To put up or shut up. I don’t have that luxury. I just believe through faith.
OTOH, scientist have created a virus from published gene sequences and a bunch of simple molecules.
One could argue that viruses aren’t strictly speaking alive.
Not to worry, once an unquestionably living thing is created in the lab, you still have an out - they didn’t “bring their own dirt”
I envy you.
Not really. The point that I'm arguing, is that in a universe as vast as ours, the possibility that conditions exist on other planets that are capable of supporting life in some form, are endless.
I'm saying that life is capable of arising under an immense range of physical conditions, and that we shouldn't narrow our analysis of the odds for life to only those conditions and life forms found here.
"The possibilities are endless."
In one's imagination they are endless, but in terms of the table of elements and, within those elements, those that could plausibly serve in place of carbon, they are very limited.
I'm not arguing for the existence of non-carbon based lifeforms (although they might exist). I'm saying that even within the scope of conditions that life is known to inhabit on this planet, there are endless possibilities.
Expand that out to postulate that a planet that couldn't support animal life as we know it, could support life forms we're familiar with, which thrive in conditions that are hostile to us.
Who's to say that a planet that falls outside of our "Goldilocks Zone" couldn't support an ecosystem that thrives in some of the harsh conditions we observe on our own planet?
You know you thought about it!
Cheers!
I think the difference is that I’m honest about my belief through faith. Most scientists claim their belief is something other than, well just that, a belief system. A system based on faith. Faith (or hope) that the fundies of the world are wrong. :)
I never said how life begins, just that it does.
If you want to use Earth to figure out the possibilities of life arising on other planets, then you've got to assume that the universe is crawling with life.
Lifeforms have managed to inhabit nearly every niche imaginable on this planet. Using that observation as your starting point for hypothesis, you have to conclude that the same thing has happened throughout the cosmos.
So is creationism, so where does that leave us?
I don't feel faith (although I will often act as if I do.)
Compare to "blind sight" where someone can navigate a crowded room without collisions, yet not be able to consciously see anything in it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.