Oh I knew that ...

I have already packed my luggage and my flight will leave in about um...a few decades. :D

I suspect there are billions of planets in the universe that have water. We earthlins are probably not alone.

I suspect there are billions of planets in the universe that have water. We earthlins are probably not alone.

I suspect you are correct. But consider this; if the universe is spatially infinite and (on large distance scales) of uniform density, intuition suggests that there are an infinite number of other stars and planets out there. Probability theory suggests that if one travelled far enough from Earth they would eventually reach a region of space with "exactly" the same configuration of matter and energy as our solar system. In other words a replica Earth (with a replica Dani of course). There would actually be an infinite number of identical Earths if you follow this argument to it's logical conclusion.

Steven.

I suspect you are correct. But consider this; if the universe is spatially infinite and (on large distance scales) of uniform density, intuition suggests that there are an infinite number of other stars and planets out there. Probability theory suggests that if one travelled far enough from Earth they would eventually reach a region of space with "exactly" the same configuration of matter and energy as our solar system. In other words a replica Earth (with a replica Dani of course). There would actually be an infinite number of identical Earths if you follow this argument to it's logical conclusion.

Steven.

Probability seems to say this, yes. But does not probability (in a basic sense) state that there are equal chances in a random event for the result to be "1" and equally probable for it to be "0"? So, for every exact replica of our planet, there would be an inverted replica, exactly alike in every way but in reverse. This concept is intriguing but surely not true. If the laws of physics holds true in every micron of the universe (as we believe at this point) then an anti-Earth would possess nothing but anti-physics. How could this exist in the same time and space of what we know? It might be torn apart by our standard gravity the moment of its inception (due to its properties of anti-gravity), it may never be even able to be created via the accretion process (requiring gravity and velocity), and possibly if it did manage to be created, the nano-second it did indeed exist it might instantly act as a black hole of unspeakable and unmeasurable size ripping the threads of time and space completely apart hence destroying itself and everything around it. Or, an anti-Black Hole, spewing every ounce of its internal matter out (including anti-light) destroying everything in its beam's path until it ran out of material and vaporized through itself and dissapeared in a whimper?

Then, there are Strings to consider :surprised ;)

Regards,
sharky_machine

*note to self:

"DAMN I love this stuff"*

:cheesy:

Has anyone actually considered why water on Mars is so important, besides the fact that water could inhabit other human life? Hasn't everyone seen "The Day After Tomorrow"?

Has anyone actually considered why water on Mars is so important, besides the fact that water could inhabit other human life? Hasn't everyone seen "The Day After Tomorrow"?

First off, let's get out of the way that DAT is quite fictional across the board. Nearly all of the events they describe wouldn't happen.

Secondly, realize that if there was life on Mars, it would have evolved to the extreme climates there, and thus that problem wouldn't exist.

Thirdly, water on Mars is important because most scientists regard water as critical to life.

First off, let's get out of the way that DAT is quite fictional across the board. Nearly all of the events they describe wouldn't happen.

Secondly, realize that if there was life on Mars, it would have evolved to the extreme climates there, and thus that problem wouldn't exist.

Thirdly, water on Mars is important because most scientists regard water as critical to life.

It is true that we should find many planets that have water on them but it is unlikely that all of them will have life. Water alone does not garantee life. There are multitude of factors that go into building a DNA. I have discussed this with Steve Hawking when i was a teenager thru emails. He felt that our universe exists under what is called a Unified force or substance. with one constant being energy and how it is connected throughout our universe from beginning to end. Time and Space is only Temporary substance and we must understand the existance without this concept to fully understand our existance and our fate and how it is connceted with multiple other universes. But then how can we? We are bound by this Space and time dimention and we may never figure out the ultimate answer........:-|

i agree

they found water on europa too i think

aliens exist..:mrgreen:

aliens exist..:mrgreen:

Definitely, especially when we play the odds. :)

yes theres bound to be if the universe is so big and we managed to evolve so i tiink other planets should be able to support life

Of course aliens exist.
1) Just look at the Cantina scene in Star Wars!
2) Lots of them work in fast food all over the city! Many are even illegal.

they found water on europa too i think

True. I drink it every day:lol:

2) Lots of them work in fast food all over the city! Many are even illegal.

:D

yes theres bound to be if the universe is so big and we managed to evolve so i tiink other planets should be able to support life

Only if you accept evolutionary theory. Frankly, given the odds on that one, and the misscience that's gone into backing it, I seriously doubt it's even close to being a reasonable option. (Note: This has little to do with the 'other viable planets' option; I'm of the opinion it's possible, but that they're too far away to do us any good.)

its more likely than the god theory though

On what grounds?

The only reason evolution is considered more likely than special creation is because of a blind spot in science: Science is, by its very nature, limited to the material world. As a result, it cannot understand or make clear anything not purely rooted in the material. Evolution could, theoretically, be purely material, if it were real. Special creation, by definition, cannot be purely material. That is the only reason that evolution is considered to be more valid than special creation. On any of the rest of the evidence, evolution breaks.

It could be very possible that neither evolution nor creationists theory are correct. Neither can be fully proven because its impossible for us to see back to the beginning of time. Its all nothing more than speculation. But I'm more likely to believe evolution then the creationists theory. There have been several films on TV about this and the Big Bang theory in recent weeks. All theories and good special effects in the films, but no observable facts.

On any of the rest of the evidence, evolution breaks.

That's quite an overstatement.

I will be personally refraining from stating my views here, as I can see this thread soon becoming a firebrand, but I want to mention one thing.

The only reason evolution is considered more likely than special creation is because of a blind spot in science

That is the only reason that evolution is considered to be more valid than special creation. On any of the rest of the evidence, evolution breaks.

Please keep wide generalizations to yourself. Do not bash Evolution because you yourself don't believe in it.

Likewise, I won't be bashing Creationism, even though I am a believer in evolution. Heck, I'm even an evolution-believing Catholic. ;)

So in short, keep personal opinions that bash other beliefs to yourself.

Thanks.

It could be very possible that neither evolution nor creationists theory are correct. Neither can be fully proven because its impossible for us to see back to the beginning of time. Its all nothing more than speculation. But I'm more likely to believe evolution then the creationists theory. There have been several films on TV about this and the Big Bang theory in recent weeks. All theories and good special effects in the films, but no observable facts.

I remember a quote by Carl Sagan, "it is almost as though the universe is alive and is trying to understand itself by creating these thinking intelligent beings" And i am a firm believer in a unified force theory, that there is one unifying force that connects all forces in the universe both known and unknown. It is impossible for us see back to time 0 of the big bang. this is where all time and space ceases to exist. So we typically think of this as a vacume but it is really not a vacume. There was a force or material or whatever that was there to start the big bang. Is this God ? Is this the Unifying force ? And is the Universe a live complex being ? At current time, it is impossible for us to understand the forces prior to big bang mainly cause we cannot see it and even if we could see it, we definitely cannot apply any of our known theorms or theories based on mathematics and physics equations we know. But good news is that we are beginning to take baby steps to understanding. such as we are making significant advancements into understanding of the Black holes thru quantum mechanics and theorms. Of course, inside of the black hole, all time and space stops and whole new physics takes over. Dr. Hawking has been working on complex mathematics and quantum theories to explain much of this but the problem with him is that he really cannot prove any of it with objective evidence, no matter how sound the theories are, at the end of the day, it is just a theory, unless you have facts to back them up. But most physicists do agree that Dr. Hawking's work is the forefront of what we are trying to understand about Ultimate truth about our universe. we are all pulling for you, Dr. Hawking for the next Nobel prize for your work.

'Stein, where is your proof? Show me some real proof of evolution, not theory, not 'it might have happened this way,' but real proof. Show me something that only evolution, in the original Darwinian sense, could explain, and you'll have a case. I've researched the topic some...admittedly, I'm not an expert...and I have yet to see anything that fits that description. All I've seen is stuff validating the concept of 'change over time', which isn't evolution.

'Stein, where is your proof? Show me some real proof of evolution, not theory, not 'it might have happened this way,' but real proof. Show me something that only evolution, in the original Darwinian sense, could explain, and you'll have a case. I've researched the topic some...admittedly, I'm not an expert...and I have yet to see anything that fits that description. All I've seen is stuff validating the concept of 'change over time', which isn't evolution.

EnderX, where is your proof? Show me some real proof of creationism, not theory, not Bible quotes, but real proof. Show me something that only creationism, in the Biblical sense, could explain, and you'll have a case. I've researched the topic some, too...admittedly, I'm not an expert either...but I have never seen anything that justifies creationism. All I've seen is Bible-quoting believers claiming "the hand of God", which doesn't prove it happened.

And why does it have to be in the Darwinian sense? Can't it be an updated, more enlightened theory? Or do you want to just disprove Darwin, but not evolution? ;)

Of course aliens exist.
1) Just look at the Cantina scene in Star Wars!
2) Lots of them work in fast food all over the city! Many are even illegal.

haha, nice one!

I don't have to prove anything, 'Stein. You're the one with the new theory; the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. All I have to do is verify whether or not what you come up with matches against the historical and technical data.

Darwinian evolution is evolution, but the term has become so PC-laden these days that it can be used to mean almost anything to almost anyone. Darwinism is the foundation; therefore, it is what needs to be proven. A solid foundation can bear having a shakey structure built on it; a broken foundation can support nothing.

And finally, a bone...although you'll claim it can be proven by evolution, even though it flies in the face of the basic theory: Go look up data on the Cambrian Explosion.

I don't have to prove anything, 'Stein.

First off, don't get me and WaltP confused. ;) (I havn't responded to you yet).

You're the one with the new theory; the burden of proof rests on your shoulders.

WHY ARE WE PROVING ANYTHING?? Everyone here is not out to prove the other one wrong. REREAD what I said.

Darwinian evolution is evolution

That's just flat out wrong. The original word 'evolution' evolved long before Darwinian Evolution was thought out.

Darwinism is the foundation; therefore, it is what needs to be proven.

Darwinism is one viewpoint of the whole issue. Not everything Evolution-based has to arise from it.
__________________________________

although you'll claim it can be proven by evolution, even though it flies in the face of the basic theory: Go look up data on the Cambrian Explosion.

How does that fly in the face of Darwinism? All it shows to me is that live began at that point. It points to no means of achieving life.

Likewise, I would recommend taking a look at the Miller Experiment, originally hosted at University of Chicago. Although I am not saying this is proof of Evolution, it sets the stage for life on earth.
______________________________________
EnderX, I will say it again, we are not out to disprove your theory. Likewise, we ask that you follow in suit.

he guys -- no point getting all worked up over proof because it simply doesn't exist. There is just no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt any of the theories ==> afterall that's why they are called theories. However, at evolution, at least, has withstood thousands of scirentific studies, while chreationism has not withstood even one.

From Q&A
2. Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?
In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

I don't have to prove anything, 'Stein. You're the one with the new theory; the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. All I have to do is verify whether or not what you come up with matches against the historical and technical data.

Darwinian evolution is evolution, but the term has become so PC-laden these days that it can be used to mean almost anything to almost anyone. Darwinism is the foundation; therefore, it is what needs to be proven. A solid foundation can bear having a shakey structure built on it; a broken foundation can support nothing.

And finally, a bone...although you'll claim it can be proven by evolution, even though it flies in the face of the basic theory: Go look up data on the Cambrian Explosion.

It is not a fly in the face of evolution theory. Evolutionist theories have flaws in them because we are still learning about the evolutionary process everyday, there are still many missing facts but that does not mean the entire evolutionary theory is irrelevent. If your God theory is correct, we certainly will never prove it, that is for sure. because of that same story of how we cannot see past time 0. Even einstein made many blunders in his theories including the theories of reletivity. But he always left room for corrections just as the evolutionists are doing. Theory is not perfect but we are building more sound theory on in as we learn more facts. Have you considered that you both maybe right. meaning there is a creator who is using evolutionary forces to mold the universe ??;)

Have you considered that you both maybe right. meaning there is a creator who is using evolutionary forces to mold the universe ??

That's more or less my current belief, actually. :)

Or moreover, that God created everything, and let things evolve.