Oh boy, throwing punches already!
You didnt give me the opportunity to tell you how I envy your intellectual capacity
More seriously, there is no need to turn the matter personal frankly, particularly over these questions
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Do you believe in life elsewhere?
- Thread starter pica
- Start date
You didnt give me the opportunity to tell you how I envy your intellectual capacity
More seriously, there is no need to turn the matter personal frankly, particularly over these questions
Having a precise definition about a phenomenon though a necessary step in inquiry (scientific or not), doesn't mean that definition encompasses all there is to know about that particular reality. New findings may force a redefining of terms and a new consensus.
As you see (I think), science is dynamic not static!
Of course, science is open ended like that.
But to assume that what we currently know, is wrong, because there might be something more to it, isn't a sensible approach either. Science is very rarely completelly wrong (rarely, not never), and new findings tend to elaborate on previous ones, correcting by refinement as opposed to outright disproval.
I don't think there is anything more to life than a chemical reaction, there isn't any sort of mystic spark to it. Consciousness, on the other hand, is something I find quite interesting, defining the source of intellect is an interesting challenge.
But to assume that what we currently know, is wrong, because there might be something more to it, isn't a sensible approach either. Science is very rarely completelly wrong (rarely, not never), and new findings tend to elaborate on previous ones, correcting by refinement as opposed to outright disproval.
I don't think there is anything more to life than a chemical reaction, there isn't any sort of mystic spark to it. Consciousness, on the other hand, is something I find quite interesting, defining the source of intellect is an interesting challenge.
I'm pretty sure there's some kind of an intelligent life form watching us right now and saying "hah, look at them..." just like we do when we watch apes.
I know people who watch "Big Brother".
They are not what I would refer to as intelligent life.
Nor, would I consider anything siting on some cosmic sofa, watching us, to be intelligent life
They are not what I would refer to as intelligent life.
Nor, would I consider anything siting on some cosmic sofa, watching us, to be intelligent life
I'm pretty sure there's some kind of an intelligent life form watching us right now and saying "hah, look at them..." just like we do when we watch apes.
The developmental distance between other great apes and humans is negligible in the grand scheme, human ego notwithstanding. Extraterrestrials which have advanced sufficiently to travel to Earth may not see us a much different than ants.
Gaius46 said:
No one yet has explained how they moved blocks of stone that large up and into place, no theory yet builds them with the technology they possessed. Earth ramp? Nope, serpentine ramp? How to make the turns in a diminishing radius? Find the explanation that works with the tech they had...
Wotcha mean? We ARE apes.I'm pretty sure there's some kind of an intelligent life form watching us right now and saying "hah, look at them..." just like we do when we watch apes.
No idea for life elsewhere
but there are damn well documented ways to built pyramid once you get the wheel and pulley down without invoking outside technology. Egyptians did have a rather long low season in agriculture, working on pavement for the Man in exchange of something to eat just made sense.
but there are damn well documented ways to built pyramid once you get the wheel and pulley down without invoking outside technology. Egyptians did have a rather long low season in agriculture, working on pavement for the Man in exchange of something to eat just made sense.
Oh boy, throwing punches already!
You didn’t give me the opportunity to tell you how I envy your intellectual capacity
More seriously, there is no need to turn the matter personal frankly, particularly over these questions…
I wasn't making the matter personal, nor was I trying to insult you, nor was I trying to claim superiority in any way. I was serious; if you want to discuss life, then you should educate yourself on what scientists consider life to be. It's quite simple.
Etienned said:
Yes, but they didn't have the pulley. Ramp & rollers were the extent of their machines.
The nearest star to the Sun is Alpha Centauri, which is just under 4.5 light years away. It took the Earth roughly 4.5 billion years to have a species that could create things like radio waves. Taking that into consideration, these radio waves have only been emanating from the Earth for the last 100 years or so. Beyond that, we've only been sending out signals that might have the strength to get past our solar system and solar winds and other radiation for maybe the last few years, if that.
Add to all that that our ability to detect signals from other planets that would probably be just as faint, if not more so, have only been around for a matter of decades, maybe, and I'm not at all surprised we haven't found other forms of life, especially when the only planets we've identified as being like Earth, that exist in that "comfort zone" are very far away and we don't know to look for any type of life other than what we know here on earth (which now includes arsenic as a potential fundamental element, which is way cool).
