Response to Saukko31's response to my "Rare Earth" video

[zzyzx0788]

As for the complex things, its hard for me to explain, but it just makes more sense to for complex things to be from natural process then designed process. Humans took thousands of years just to do things we can do now, and its still nothing compared to how complex the world or universe can be on its own. Take Fully grown trees, DNA replication, snowflakes, stars formation, galaxies. Incredibly complex, yet happen naturally all the time.

Idk its hard for me to put into words

[spacenie]

Sure. I guess it's the same for me, but in a different way. : )

Yes, it's taken people a long time to get to where we are technologically, but at the same time, people are still people.

The Bible, written 2,000 years (and longer) ago, describes people as if it was writing about people living in modern day New York City. I'm referring to how people behave, our struggles and fears, questions about God and life. All of those basic areas of our existence are universal and dont change.

[Orkaney]

spacenie: We haven't explored earth-like planets yet because we don't have the technology in place, thus, it will still be speculation.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a successful species here on earth, I predict, we're so successful that if we don't stop ourselves, we'll obliterate ourselves. Because we're so successful, we won't evolve until something happens to our habitat. Hmm...

[spacenie]

In our lifetimes, we will not be able to explore all of the universe. Still, we can see all of the many factors which are needed for life to exist in our solar system and presently on earth.

There are many and if any are barely tweaked, then life as we know it would not exist.

[Orkaney]

spacenie: Life already exists on Earth, there's no need to tweak anything. We exist as we are because of the present conditions on earth. We have adapted to these conditions, if they change, some of us will die, those of us who fit the changes will survive. Imagine yourself travelling down a street you've never been before, at 200km/h, trying to find an address. Adapt or perish.

[bil1yjoe]

zzyzx0788, criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation should not be used to draw firm conclusions. Pierre Lecomte du Nouy (1883-1947) wrote a book titled Human Destiny (1947) that helps put a practical perspective on the huge numbers used in calculating random events over time.

[bil1yjoe]

zzyzx0788, the great numbers game basically boils down to what we chose to believe. The paradox of evolution takes more time then our solar system has been around, while the creationists need a much younger earth. Who is right? The numbers cannot tell us which is true because we play with them to support our beliefs.

[zzyzx0788]

The Drake equation was basically used to predict the probably of intelligent life being elsewhere in the universe *right now*, not so much the chances of intelligent life spontaneously coming to be in the universe throughout the course of time.

[zzyzx0788]

I like both your videos and the fact that you guys aren't mud-slinging at each other.

However I have a problem with your theory that intelligent life on earth is near (if not completely) impossible. There's one factor you fail to take into consideration: time

Even if something has incredibly rare odds of happening, given an infinite amount of chances/time (assuming time is infinite which to our understanding it is) it will happen spontaneously.

[spacenie]

No need for mudslinging. And I find Saukko31 to be pretty cool. Weve even been to the same town in Finland!

Perhaps, but the universe is not infinitely old, is it?

And some things are impossible- at least statically so. And complex, intelligent life arising from atoms flying around randomly is one of those things.

[zzyzx0788]

Hm, interesting.

But anyway, the universe could very well be infinitely old. No real way to prove that. But i do believe it to be true.

And you'd be suprised the crazy things that can come from atoms randomly flying around. Like massive stars. Complex things are completely capable of happening without a designer (in fact i think it logically make more sense for something to be natural if its complex)

[spacenie]

If you believe that the universe is infinitely old, what do you make of the Big Bang?

A strong conclusion from the Big Bang (and the 2nd law of thermodynamics) is that the universe did have a beginning and will have a definite end.

It seems more correct to say that the more complex and ordered a system is, the more likelihood it had a Designer.

[zzyzx0788]

What do I make of the Big Bang? Frankly, I just don't know, but so far I'm supportive of the idea of the Big Bang/Big Crunch idea. There's a billion explanations, and frankly I just don't know. I'm not about to start completely guessing though. A designer? What does it look like, how did it do it, why did it do it? That brings more questions then answers.

[bil1yjoe]

Saukko31, Science is a 100% what? That's a real generalization, which field of science is that? There are types of agnosticism just as there are different fields of science. Pull your head out of the clouds and have a look at microbiology. No scientist has created a single living cell in its own right. They can only steal parts from other cells and clone new or different things but they have made nothing from just using the raw materials. If you want to see life its not through a telescope.

[zzyzx0788]

"Science is a 100% what? That's a real generalization, which field of science is that?"

He was talking about the most tecnhical definition of agnosticism, which isnt "i dont believe that either there is or isnt a god" but "I don't know if there is a god", which technically nobody on this planet KNOWS if there is a god, many just believe there is.

[Saukko31]

Of course, unintelligent life is probably much more common than intelligent life, but life can recover. Life on Earth has experienced multiple mass extinctions (and sadly, it looks like we are experiencing one right now, but now humans are the cause), and it has always recovered and diversified after that.

[Saukko31]

Thanks, and you can attach this video to mine as a reply.

There is no atheistic or theistic viewpoint in science, you could say that science is 100% agnostic, it can not make comment on supernatural.

Problem is that we don't know how essential (or what values) are the variables in the equation for intelligent life to evolve. Plus some of those variables are linked, for example planet formation, rocky planets and metal-rich stars, observations have shown this.