Life outside of Earth

NoMoreGames · #1 Mar 30, '10, 7:47 am

Given the size of the universe, potential for planets capable of supporting life, and whether you believe the probability of life on other planets is large or small, I think is is unlikely anyone would say it is totally impossible. If life were to exit on other planets, would there be a human like species (that is, they have a soul) or would all life comparable to the animals of this world (that is, part of creation, but little more)?

The universe is just so huge, I believe there probably is be some form of life on some other capable plant, though it would probably not be life as we recognize. However, I can't seem to decide what I believe about the question I asked. Is there any sort of Church teaching (I'm guessing not)?

Feel free to add your own opinion on the extraterrestrial!

ricmat · #2 Mar 30, '10, 8:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

Given the size of the universe, potential for planets capable of supporting life, and whether you believe the probability of life on other planets is large or small, I think is is unlikely anyone would say it is totally impossible. If life were to exit on other planets, would there be a human like species (that is, they have a soul) or would all life comparable to the animals of this world (that is, part of creation, but little more)?

The universe is just so huge, I believe there probably is be some form of life on some other capable plant, though it would probably not be life as we recognize. However, I can't seem to decide what I believe about the question I asked. Is there any sort of Church teaching (I'm guessing not)?

Feel free to add your own opinion on the extraterrestrial!

First off, I don't think the Church takes a position on extraterrestrials.

Second, I recommend that you read 2 books. The first is Privileged Planet. The second is Signature in the Cell.

The first book points to the uniqueness of this universe, and this earth in terms of it's ability to support life (extremely extremely unlikely). The second talks about the formation of life and how likely THAT is. Again, the odds against it are about 10 to the power of 40,000.

Our uniqueness, both in having this universe and earth, and in being alive is not easily explained without resorting to God. For this reason, non-believers push the idea of an infinite number of universes, of which one (this one) just happened to have the right stuff for us to appear. Of course, that begs the question - "And where did all those multi-verses come from?"

**edwest2** · #3 Mar 30, '10, 9:28 am

Actually, a statement has been made:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...tronomer_says/

I agree with what this man had to say. It is possible there is life out there because we have life here. However, there is zero evidence for a multiverse. It is simply another accounting trick to make the 10 to the 40,000th power accident of life more likely to some.

God bless,
Ed

--------------------------

Choose Jesus.

NoMoreGames · #4 Mar 30, '10, 12:44 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricmat

First off, I don't think the Church takes a position on extraterrestrials.

Second, I recommend that you read 2 books. The first is Privileged Planet. The second is Signature in the Cell.

Thank you, I'll look into them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricmat

The first book points to the uniqueness of this universe, and this earth in terms of it's ability to support life (extremely extremely unlikely). The second talks about the formation of life and how likely THAT is. Again, the odds against it are about 10 to the power of 40,000.

Our uniqueness, both in having this universe and earth, and in being alive is not easily explained without resorting to God. For this reason, non-believers push the idea of an infinite number of universes, of which one (this one) just happened to have the right stuff for us to appear. Of course, that begs the question - "And where did all those multi-verses come from?"

Keep in mind that the theory of multiple universes is just that, a theory. Not all in the scientific community believe it, nor is there overwhelming evidence for it.

As for an Earth-like planet being rare, many potential planets have been discovered. And it may be even more rare that it has the same conditions as Earth, but why does life have to be essentially water based? That's why I said we probably won't even recognize it as life. Chances are, DNA would not be the central molecule. Perhaps that is addressed in the books you suggested (from the preview it seems as if the assumption that all life must be like Earth life is made).

Thank you both for your input!

ricmat · #5 Mar 30, '10, 1:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

Thank you, I'll look into them.

Keep in mind that the theory of multiple universes is just that, a theory. Not all in the scientific community believe it, nor is there overwhelming evidence for it.

There is NO evidence for it. Some think that it is not ruled out by mathematical models, but that is not exactly having evidence that they exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

As for an Earth-like planet being rare, many potential planets have been discovered. And it may be even more rare that it has the same conditions as Earth, but why does life have to be essentially water based? That's why I said we probably won't even recognize it as life. Chances are, DNA would not be the central molecule. Perhaps that is addressed in the books you suggested (from the preview it seems as if the assumption that all life must be like Earth life is made).

Thank you both for your input!

Yes, those books go into that in great detail.

Water is actually very unique as a compound (in terms of its properties). And carbon chains are what enable the hardware structure of DNA to exist.

Being a trekkie from TOS times, my illusions that we would go into space and encounter advanced life on every other planet have been totally shattered

NoMoreGames · #6 Mar 30, '10, 1:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricmat

Water is actually very unique as a compound (in terms of its properties). And carbon chains are what enable the hardware structure of DNA to exist.

That is my point. Why must life be water based and contain DNA as we do?

By the way, the company behind the first book is looking frighteningly biased.

ricmat · #7 Mar 30, '10, 1:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

That is my point. Why must life be water based and contain DNA as we do?

Well, God is great and he created non-physical life in terms of angels. And If he wanted to he could create non-water based, non-DNA based life.

So in theory there could be other life forms. I think Privileged Planet goes into those aspects (water, DNA), but I don't recall for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

By the way, the company behind the first book is looking frighteningly biased.

What? And you never read books from "biased" companies? How do you judge "biased?" And what difference does it really make?

Both books are good from the pure science perspective. They are loaded with details and references. The content of the books can be fairly judged on the content alone.

No doubt, the authors have sinned also. So if you only read books written by non-sinners, I guess I have none to recommend

NoMoreGames · #8 Mar 30, '10, 4:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricmat

What? And you never read books from "biased" companies? How do you judge "biased?" And what difference does it really make?

Both books are good from the pure science perspective. They are loaded with details and references. The content of the books can be fairly judged on the content alone.

No doubt, the authors have sinned also. So if you only read books written by non-sinners, I guess I have none to recommend

I think you took that the wrong way. One must always be careful with bias in written works. It just made me uneasy that a company who put out a trilogy on why evolution is most likely wrong is also publishing a book/documentary on another topic, claiming it is science. It very well could be, I'm not saying it isn't, just that one must be careful.

As far as judging on content alone, that's not usually a god idea. The sources may not be reliable. Again, I'm not saying they are, just that one ALWAYS has to be aware of the possibility, no matter what you read. But I am curious as to how you turned bias into sin

But I digressed...

ricmat · #9 Mar 30, '10, 6:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

I think you took that the wrong way. One must always be careful with bias in written works. It just made me uneasy that a company who put out a trilogy on why evolution is most likely wrong is also publishing a book/documentary on another topic, claiming it is science. It very well could be, I'm not saying it isn't, just that one must be careful.

So if the above makes you uneasy, would it make you uneasy to read a book from a company that puts out a trilogy on why evolution is most likely correct claiming it is science?

If not, why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

As far as judging on content alone, that's not usually a god idea. The sources may not be reliable.

But that's why the references are listed. So you can look them up too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

But I am curious as to how you turned bias into sin

That's sort of a leap to finding the "perfect" book. As in totally unbiased. It seems to me that the only place to find that would be in a place with no sin. Hey, this is a religious forum after all

NoMoreGames · #10 Apr 1, '10, 9:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricmat

So if the above makes you uneasy, would it make you uneasy to read a book from a company that puts out a trilogy on why evolution is most likely correct claiming it is science?

If not, why not?

I'm uneasy reading anything but fiction, but the more evidence an idea has, the less uneasy I am. This company's view is essentially, "There are missing fossils therefore evolution can't be true." There is a lot of evidence is support the contrary.

Point being, I'm always uneasy when reading ideas that are new to me, regardless of their nature, but evidence eases the unease.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricmat

But that's why the references are listed. So you can look them up too.

That's sort of a leap to finding the "perfect" book. As in totally unbiased. It seems to me that the only place to find that would be in a place with no sin. Hey, this is a religious forum after all

I intend to, when I get to time to read it. My point was that references are not automatically proof. Bias is not sin, therefore one can be biased without necessarily sinning because of it.

ricmat · #11 Apr 1, '10, 10:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

I'm uneasy reading anything but fiction, but the more evidence an idea has, the less uneasy I am. This company's view is essentially, "There are missing fossils therefore evolution can't be true." There is a lot of evidence is support the contrary.

I missed that statement on their site. Can you provide a link?

NoMoreGames · #12 Apr 1, '10, 10:33 am

http://www.illustramedia.com/ddinfo.htm

Nozzferrahhtoo · #13 Mar 31, '10, 2:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricmat

Again, the odds against it are about 10 to the power of 40,000.

I would be very wary about the honesty of any book that puts numbers on the probability of life arising for one simple reason: We do not know how it happened yet.

If I were to present to you a deck of cards you could not tell me the chances of drawing an Ace from that deck if you did not know:

1) How many cards are in the deck
2) How many of those cards are Aces.

Without this knowledge a probabilistic judgement on the chances of achieving the result is quite literally impossible.

However with the formation of life we are lacking a hell of a lot more than 2 simple numbers. There are whole aspects of the rise of life we do not understand. We are not just missing many many numbers but we do not even know how the cards went about being drawn from the deck!

On top of all this the books are falling for another fallacy the "Two card game" fallacy by assuming our type of life is the only type possible. This is simply data we do not have. We just do not know what other kinds of life are possible. So any assumptions on the probability of life arising are doing so on the wholesale assumption that the type of life we are aware of is the only type there can be.

Anyone therefore who presumes to put a figure on the probability of life arising is just lying to you, plain and simple.

Thing · #14 Mar 31, '10, 3:26 am

About as much chance as finding new life created in a forgotten pot of water, carbon, sulpher, and hydrogen.

ricmat · #15 Mar 31, '10, 2:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I would be very wary about the honesty of any book that puts numbers on the probability of life arising for one simple reason: We do not know how it happened yet.

If I buy a lottery ticket I know that the probability of me winning is inversely proportional to the total number of tickets sold. And I know that before the winning ticket is drawn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

If I were to present to you a deck of cards you could not tell me the chances of drawing an Ace from that deck if you did not know:

1) How many cards are in the deck
2) How many of those cards are Aces.

Without this knowledge a probabilistic judgement on the chances of achieving the result is quite literally impossible.

You're right, we don't know those things. So as a starting point, lets take the "worst case" which at least puts boundaries on the problem

We know the total number of particles in the universe (as I recall, about 10 to the 80th power).

We know that the fastest that any of these particles can "react" with each other is limited by the speed of light.

We can assume for the purposes of illustration that all the particles of the universe, since the beginning of time 14 billion years ago have been doing nothing but reacting with each other full time.

And you still come up 39,000+ orders of magnitude short of even simple proteins forming by chance. And yes, I know that it's not strictly chance since only certain things may combine with other certain things, etc.

So we can't say exactly what the probabilities are, but we know for certain that we are 10s of thousands of orders of magnitude short on particles and time for this to happen naturally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

However with the formation of life we are lacking a hell of a lot more than 2 simple numbers. There are whole aspects of the rise of life we do not understand. We are not just missing many many numbers but we do not even know how the cards went about being drawn from the deck!

On top of all this the books are falling for another fallacy the "Two card game" fallacy by assuming our type of life is the only type possible. This is simply data we do not have. We just do not know what other kinds of life are possible. So any assumptions on the probability of life arising are doing so on the wholesale assumption that the type of life we are aware of is the only type there can be.

Anyone therefore who presumes to put a figure on the probability of life arising is just lying to you, plain and simple.

Please read Signature in the Cell, and tell me where the lies are. I'll listen.