Ship of Fools: Is there life from other planets?

Thread: Is there life from other planets? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026081

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Sheffield University think so, having sent a probe 16 miles up into the stratosphere they have detected small organisms which are too large to have risen from the ground. "We can only assume that they originated from space," says Professor Milton Wainwright. "life almost certainly did not originate here," he added.

It looks like alien invaders are not little green men from Mars, big eyes beans from Venus or grays from Alpha Centauri, but something much smaller, if less photogenic than ET.

Story here.

Are the Yorkshire boffins right? and if so how does that impact on the belief that God created the Earth?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Why would it change anything at all in that regard?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

So let's review the evidence. Part of a known, identifiable terrestrial lifeform is discovered 27km up in the atmosphere. A mechanism to get the fragment (some 10 microns long) up to that altitude is known and provable.

Therefore, aliens!

[Roll Eyes]

I despair of my alma mater.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Not being a molecular biologist, I'm in no position to judge the claims made by Dr. Wainwright.

As to your second question...what cliffdweller said.

[ 20. September 2013, 14:05: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

What struck me was the short time frame for the acceptance of the paper. If you click the link from the Metro site, you get straight to the paper. The header states that it was accepted for publication on the 9th of August, yet the atmospheric sampling took place on the 31st of July.

This means that the analysis of the samples, the write-up of the paper and the peer review process all took place in little over a week. That sounds most peculiar to me.

So, look up the Journal of Cosmology and what do we find? This: It's not a real scientific journal.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

As a brewing hobbyist, I spend a lot of time obsessing over yeast and other single cell organisms that do good or bad things to beer (and you thought you had no life.) What you quickly learn is that there are single cell organisms all over- the old passover tradition of removing the yeast from your house is impossible. Based on that, and given contemporary scientific views of evolution and life, I would consider it pretty much a no brainer that, at the very least, singe cell organisms exist on other planets. Space is huge. For me, it is much harder to believe that the rest of the universe is completely devoid of any form of life than to believe that there might be something resembling yeast on another planet. It seems that this study isn't the one to prove that it does exist, but I think it is a good reminder of what astrobiologists are looking for- anything that might count as life. If you accept evolution as some part of how we came to be (dead horse territory, I know, which is why I phrased it that way and why I do not invite any comment one way or another on that "if,") I think it would take quite a creative stretch of the imagination to then state that there is probably not life on other planets.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
balaam: Are the Yorkshire boffins right?

No. I understand that some very sloppy science has been done here. I don't believe their claim.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

These days, when reading a scientific paper, I always begin with the hypothesis that the scientist is going to make a funding application in the near future. Then I wait to be disproved.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

balaam:

quote:
Are the Yorkshire boffins right?

Well, they might be. But if so, as Doc Tor has already pointed out, it is entirely by accident. This 'proof' that life originated on other planets is no such thing. Quite apart from anything else, the stratosphere has been polluted many times by the passage of space vehicles (and at least one completely mad skydiver). I find it difficult to believe that all of them were clinically sterile.

I wonder if Professor Wainwright would like to buy a bridge.

quote:
...and if so how does that impact on the belief that God created the Earth?

Like a meteorite that makes a 'near-Earth' pass over in the next solar system. In other words, not at all.

[Snore]

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
These days, when reading a scientific paper, I always begin with the hypothesis that the scientist is going to make a funding application in the near future. Then I wait to be disproved.

Why do you think my profile says "works in finance"? Publish or perish - that's the motto of the modern scientist.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

Let's be pedantic, 'cos it's fun. Even if the researcher's claims are 100% accurate (which is looking unlikely, vide ultra), that doesn't necessarily mean life on other planets. Just cells in space. Not the same thing.

But, I really hope there is life on other planets because I'm looking forward to meeting all those weird life forms in Heaven.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Remember, though, that if they get there before you, you may be the one who's "weird."

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Remember, though, that if they get there before you, you may be the one who's "weird."

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Let me be as scientific as the paper. The date of first contact with alien lifeforms is known to be 05 April 2063, the day of the first trial of warp drive, which attracts the attention of the Vulcans. They get introduced to R&B music initially.

We don't know all the details yet, because it is in the future. I suspect they like organ music a lot better, and spend a lot of time attending evensong. Unfortunately later we meet other aliens who introduce us to things like Klingon opera, but that's another story from the future.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Lord Jestocost: But, I really hope there is life on other planets because I'm looking forward to meeting all those weird life forms in Heaven.

I heard they have a really good Martian bartender there.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I suspect they like organ music a lot better, and spend a lot of time attending evensong.

Surely aliens would be more in David Bowie?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

no prophet:

quote:
Unfortunately later we meet other aliens who introduce us to things like Klingon opera, but that's another story from the future.

Narn opera, on the other hand, has a small but devoted fan club.

The human story takes an unexpected twist in 2613, when a delegation of cetaceans persuades the Intergalactic Court of Sentient Rights to turn Earth over to them...

[ 20. September 2013, 16:16: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
balaam: Are the Yorkshire boffins right?
No. I understand that some very sloppy science has been done here. I don't believe their claim.

I'd agree. To have any proof they'd need to do a control reading, say send up a baloon before a comet comes along, then show there was a significant increase in the number of organisms.

Then repeat the experiment, many times. The problem being that there are not enough comets coming close enough. It could take some time.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I suspect they like organ music a lot better, and spend a lot of time attending evensong.

Surely aliens would be more in David Bowie?

Or Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band I see my mention of Big eyed beans from Venus in the OP was missed.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

As far as I know, meteorite strikes, volcanoes, and atom bombs are all capable of knocking little things into the upper atmosphere.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Wouldn't the easiest explanation would be "Earth-source, carried up on the skins of the many rockets"?

Surely anything we've sent into space has carried many tiny biological hitchhikers?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
So, look up the Journal of Cosmology and what do we find? This: It's not a real scientific journal.

Not only that, but according a post quoted by the same source, it is

quote:
obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
As a brewing hobbyist, I spend a lot of time obsessing over yeast and other single cell organisms that do good or bad things to beer (and you thought you had no life.) What you quickly learn is that there are single cell organisms all over

I was recently working at a lab in Yorkshire with some University of Sheffield scientists. There was also an astro-biology project running there (though, I don't think any Sheffield scientists were involved). One of the things that project was doing was studying microorganisms found in the rock surrounding the lab - 1.1km underground in salts deposited 200M years ago. As microorganisms can live in dry salt, and that life persist for 100s of millions of years, then you're going to find microorganisms anywhere ... even the very upper reaches of the atmosphere.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
... little green men from Mars...

You leave us out of this. [Paranoid]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
... little green men from Mars...
You leave us out of this.

Thought you were blue!

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Thought you were blue!

I think that's just the effect of the red Martian atmosphere - the red light makes colours appear different to Marvin.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

The present scientific consensus is that all life on earth comes from a single organism. If alien life is floating up there in the stratosphere, and arrives all the time, as Wainwright suggests, why has none of it ever reproduced on earth? The 27k that he talks of is considerably lower that modern aeroplanes fly at, so there are all sorts of ways it could get up there. Due to the vastness of the universe, it's highly probable, IMO, that there is life elsewhere. But the earth is a very unusual place. We have an oversize moon that raises huge tides, which was once much closer. We have a tilt which creates seasons, and tectonic plates which move continents around. These factors drive evolution.

Ever since I was at school, more than 40 years ago, scientists have created primordial soups full of proteins and other building blocks of life and zapped them with electric charges, subjected them to extreme heat and cold ans anything else they could think of in order to create self-replicating DNA. It hasn't proved possible up to now. Even if organisms do exist elsewhere, there's no reason why they should form complex life forms or acquire intelligence, as these are totally unnecessary for survival. My faith wouldn't be shattered if ever we find life elsewhere, but I seriously doubt that we are being bombarded with alien organisms, and the genetic make up of these things in the atratosphere should be quite easy to determine.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
PaulTH*: The 27k that he talks of is considerably lower that modern aeroplanes fly at

Er... 27km = 88,500 feet. Most commercial planes cruise around 32,000 feet. There might be experimental planes that go higher, but 88,500 is really high.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Aircraft like the U2 spy plane will go above 25km. Weather balloons will go that high, and higher. And, as has been said, rocket launches into earth orbit by default go higher. There aren't that many aircraft, balloons and rockets at 25+ km though.

But, we know of several ways for stuff from the surface of the earth to get to very high altitudes. The above list of human devices, plus major volcanic eruptions. I don't know if there's been much work on whether material at lower altitudes can be carried higher by airflow in the upper atmosphere ... but even a very low rate of moving material upwards from the altitude of commercial airliners will move considerable amounts of stuff into the higher atmosphere.

And, then there's the question of once it's there how long it stays there. If residence times for micro-organisms carried into the upper atmosphere averages months then there won't be much there, if those residence times are measured in years then there almost has to be stuff up there from the worlds major volcanism and human high altitude flights etc.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I can't skim this thread title without ending up at

quote:
...then I'm sure that he should know,

for he's been there once already,

and has died to save their sooohh-oh-oh-ohls...

RIP LN.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, then there's the question of once it's there how long it stays there. If residence times for micro-organisms carried into the upper atmosphere averages months then there won't be much there, if those residence times are measured in years then there almost has to be stuff up there from the worlds major volcanism and human high altitude flights etc.

Yep, and that seems to me to be somewhat more likely that lifeforms arising somewhere else in our solar system or beyond and somehow travelling to our atmosphere and somehow surviving the journey.

alienfromzog.
[Biased]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
alienfromzog: Yep, and that seems to me to be somewhat more likely that lifeforms arising somewhere else in our solar system or beyond and somehow travelling to our atmosphere and somehow surviving the journey.

To be honest, it is this part that I have less doubts about. If we imagine that primitive life has arisen on Mars or Titan (which isn't impossible), it isn't such a stretch that it could have travelled to Earth. Our planet receives a lot of material for Mars each year, for example. And already here on Earth, there are lifeforms who could survive the vacuum and the radiation of Space (for example in a dormant state). This scenario is far from impossible.

What I do have serious doubts about, is whether the Sheffield results are proof that such a scenario has happened. The science of it is just too sloppy. It isn't even clear if what they discovered is really a lifeform, nor if it originated from Space.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
alienfromzog: Yep, and that seems to me to be somewhat more likely that lifeforms arising somewhere else in our solar system or beyond and somehow travelling to our atmosphere and somehow surviving the journey.

)

Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on :

quote:
no prophet:

quote: Unfortunately later we meet other aliens who introduce us to things like Klingon opera, but that's another story from the future.

Narn opera, on the other hand, has a small but devoted fan club.

Why is no one mentioning Vogon poetry?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trickydicky:
Why is no one mentioning Vogon poetry?

Because it's the third worst in the universe.

Obviously.

AFZ

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

Ted 100,000 feet up. Maybe this is what they found.

http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en-GB&q=first+teddy+bear+in+space&gbv=2&rlz=1R2SUNC_enGB364&sa=X&oi=image_result_gro up&ei=ay4_UsC9A8q60wXusID4DQ&ved=0CCYQsAQ

[Edit: fixed link - RuthW, Temp host]

[ 23. September 2013, 03:18: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

How absolutely pathetic. Utterly third rate.

By materialism, of course there is. By Fermi, Shklovskii and the absence of oxygen or water on all extrasolar planets so far ... there isn't. Not that it would make any difference, no. It would just stretch conservative theologies a tad.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: By materialism, of course there is. By Fermi, Shklovskii and the absence of oxygen or water on all extrasolar planets so far ... there isn't.

I'll put my bet on materialism [Smile]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Don't we all. Despite the ever more astounding ... absence.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

BTW Where do you get the idea from that there's an absence of oxygen and water on extrasolar planets? Oxygen has already been observed on HD 209458b.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's trace, non-biogenic. Unless one would argue that its at the very beginning of an oxygen crisis, which is of course, absurd.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Especially with a surface temperature of 1130 K +/- 150.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: It's trace, non-biogenic. Unless one would argue that its at the very beginning of an oxygen crisis, which is of course, absurd.

Oh, it's non-biogenic for sure. This planet is so close to its star that it's literally boiling its atmosphere away (so an oxygen crisis would be the least of its worries). But the fact is: oxygen is there.

Oxygen and water are relatively simple chemical substances: it's just hydrogen and oxygen atoms, both of which are abundantly present in stars. We already know that these atoms put together can be found on several planetary (and other) bodies inside of our own Solar System.

The fact that we can discover oxygen on extrasolar planets is by no means trivial, yet we've already found oxygen on a planet that's 905,288,971,000,000 miles away!

It's rather safe to assume that it is present on other planets as well.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
... a planet that's 905,288,971,000,000 miles away!

[PEDANTRY]
At what time of year? [Razz]

That looks like a few too many significant digits because that kind of precision would locate said planet to within a distance that is 1/100th of the distance between us and the sun!
[/PEDANTRY]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Sigh, it's not biogenic.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Our planet receives a lot of material for Mars each year, for example. And already here on Earth, there are lifeforms who could survive the vacuum and the radiation of Space (for example in a dormant state). This scenario is far from impossible.

Though that material from Mars gets into space in the first place because of collisions on the surface - which generate quite a lot of heat, which is another thing that any life form would have to survive.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
and if so how does that impact on the belief that God created the Earth?

See CS Lewis' science fiction trilogy and the Poul Anderson story The Problem of Pain for just 2 possible aspects of the answer. Our writers have been addressing the question without waiting for the scientists.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Sigh, it's not biogenic.

Sigh, that's true [Biased]

quote:
W Hyatt: [PEDANTRY]
At what time of year? That looks like a few too many significant digits because that kind of precision would locate said planet to within a distance that is 1/100th of the distance between us and the sun!
[/PEDANTRY]

At a Thursday evening on a leap year [Biased]

quote:
chris stiles: Though that material from Mars gets into space in the first place because of collisions on the surface - which generate quite a lot of heat, which is another thing that any life form would have to survive.

Well, I think that there are life forms that can.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Science fiction writers seem to belong to two schools of thought: extra-planetary life forms generally evolve into or at least resemble creatures virtually indistinguishable from ourselves (except for leaving out all our best qualities), or, alternatively, they're so different from us that inter-species communication is impossible beyond the level of trying to wipe each other out.

From the content of these boards, there's no shortage of Shipmates who are apparently going with the first theory. How many time have you read "What planet are you from?"

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

This is a much more interesting hypothesis. The thought is that, as PaulTH says, primeval earth-conditions wouldn't have produced the complex molecules necessary for life, but there are reasons to believe that early Mars-conditions might have. Meteorite impacts then knock Martian rocks into space, many land on earth, some carry these molecules and whoosh... off evolution goes.

My thought was that, as has been mentioned here, there's a lot of high-energy stuff going on during that trip, not least the heat of entering Earth's atmosphere, so how would these molecules survive that?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

James Blish "A Case of Conscience". In the Wikipedia article on the book - I haven't opened it to check - there is reference to Catholic teaching on dealing with extra-terrestrials.

[ 23. September 2013, 12:22: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
argona: My thought was that, as has been mentioned here, there's a lot of high-energy stuff going on during that trip, not least the heat of entering Earth's atmosphere, so how would these molecules survive that?

We already know that there are lifeforms on Earth that can pull that off. An example is Deinococcus radiodurans (which didn't get its scientific name for nothing).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

They are claiming to have found a piece of a diatom. Diatoms are not bacteria, they are large, complex, creeatures OK, they may not look very large to you but in the great sceme of things they are much nearer to elephqants than to E. coli

Diatoms are not going to be able to survive in space, absolutely not at all whatsoever. Maybe there are bacteria that can, these things aren't bacteria.

Also they are claiming that its not only a diatom but a kind of diatom already known on Earth. I can feel William of Occam sharpening his razor...

Bear in mind that bits of dead diatom shell are really common. Really, really common. There are huge heaps of the stuff all over the world, some of it hundreds of mllions of years old. Millions of tons of it. There are deposits tens of mettres deep. People quarry it. Its cheap enough to mak into cat litter.

That said the idea that some other kinds of life, of a nondiatomaceous sort, might be transported between plantets, or between planets and comets, byt natural processes seems very plausible to me. But not diatoms.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Here are some excerpts of the Sheffield article:

"On one stub was discovered part of a diatom which, we assume, is clear enough for experts on diatom taxonomy to precisely identify."

"In the absence of a mechanism by which large particles like these can be transported to the stratosphere we can only conclude that the biological entities originated from space."

Like I said, sloppy science.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

LeRoc baby, and yeah I do love you too, oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe so it would be spooky if none were detected. It's the proportion in the atmosphere along with water vapour that will knock my vitalism in to a cocked hat.

Until then it is increasingly startling that there is no evidence of extra-terrestrial life. None. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Not a nano-sausage. Despite the slightly less pathetic claims about contaminated Antarctic Martian meteorite ALH 84001.

So let's assume that the smile on the Cheshire ET of the gaps is real. What difference does it make theologically?

It means by analogy with the proliferation of life that the incarnation cannot be unique.

That Jesus is not the firstborn. He's the infinitest hypostatic union. Not just the ten to one hundred millionth in our galaxy alone. Or the therefore 10^17th in the universe. But halfway between two infinities of incarnations.

That's what it means.

[ 23. September 2013, 19:44: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

I can't believe we're the only life in such a vast cosmos, but it does seem life may be much, much rarer than some would hope.

Just take the points we've been throwing around here. It's not enough to be a 'Goldilocks' planet. You need an untypically large moon for a planet your size, to give rising and falling tides - essential, it seems, to early stages of shoreline evolution - and also, I read, to stabilise your orbit to give a sufficiently constant climate. Which large moon resulted from a chance early collision with another planetary body, conveniently intersecting with our orbit. Knock up the 'odds against' accordingly.

And then, there's the argument of the piece I quoted, to the effect that early-earth couldn't kick life off, albeit a good location for life subsequently to develop. If that's so, you need a converse neighbour like Mars, which can start the process even though it couldn't sustain it. And the random vagaries of bits of rock falling through space with their organic cargo intact.

Long ago, I think I was still on dialup, I downloaded a SETI screensaver which meant when I wasn't using it, they could use my PC to process data in their Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence. To date, they haven't found anything. It might be a long, long wait.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Until then it is increasingly startling that there is no evidence of extra-terrestrial life. None. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Not a nano-sausage.

Well, the Universe is a big place.

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: That Jesus is not the firstborn. He's the infinitest hypostatic union. Not just the ten to one hundred millionth in our galaxy alone. Or the therefore 10^17th in the universe. But halfway between two infinities of incarnations.

That's what it means.

Go on like that, and I'll end up believing that the only way to find Him is by listening to Funkadelic on a lazy evening [Biased]

quote:
argona: You need an untypically large moon for a planet your size, to give rising and falling tides - essential, it seems, to early stages of shoreline evolution - and also, I read, to stabilise your orbit to give a sufficiently constant climate.

This idea used to be quite common some 20 years ago, but there isn't scientific consensus about this anymore. I'm not convinced that having a big moon is necessary.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Until then it is increasingly startling that there is no evidence of extra-terrestrial life. None. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Not a nano-sausage. Despite the slightly less pathetic claims about contaminated Antarctic Martian meteorite ALH 84001.

Given that a journey to the nearest star is about 10,000 years one way (even if we get good at such travel and shave this by a third or a half, that's still a mighty long time and requires either a multigenerational ship, say of 400 generations, or some sort of Methuselah human being) and the speed which ever fainter electrical/radio signals travel is only 300,000 km/sec, we have barely the slightest possibility of our signals thus far going any where anyone (any being) would notice. First they have to have the technology, then they have to be listening for signals in the right part of the sky. And they have to care.

Further if our colonial history is any guide, we might need to expect an Independence Day or War of the Worlds visitation, where unhappily we're exterminated with some form of human-toxic DDT.

But let's get real here. We know it is only by coincidence that the Vulcans will be surveying near our solar system when we try warp drive for the first time. Otherwise that future history won't actually happen. That is, of course, if the filming of the move First Contact hasn't irreparably altered the timeline, and we're now living in some bad the alternate bad universe of the evil Star Trek Kirk etc.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
no prophet: Given that a journey to the nearest star is about 10,000 years one way

That's a tad pessimistic. Already, techniques like nuclear pulse propulsion have been theorized that could reduce the voyage to about 100 years. There are a number of problems with this technique, even theoretically, and it might not work at all, but it isn't unthinkable that some technique will be found that could reduce the voyage to this kind of timespan.

Having said that, 100 years is still a long time, and Proxima is just one star.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
argona: You need an untypically large moon for a planet your size, to give rising and falling tides - essential, it seems, to early stages of shoreline evolution - and also, I read, to stabilise your orbit to give a sufficiently constant climate.

I know nothing about scientific consensus, but isn't this presupposing a good deal more than simply "life?"

Life, after all, can be one-celled organisms. Evolution, whether there are shorelines or tides or not, takes us down a whole 'nuther road.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
chris stiles: Though that material from Mars gets into space in the first place because of collisions on the surface - which generate quite a lot of heat, which is another thing that any life form would have to survive.
Well, I think that there are life forms that can.

Thread.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mousethief: Thread.

I'm not sure what 'thread' means? I already mentioned Deinococcus radiodurans, a bacterium that can survive extreme levels of radiation, temperature and dehydration. I'm sure there are others like it.

(PS I just found out that this one is nicknamed 'Conan the Bacterium', which I find rather funny.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
mousethief: Thread.
I'm not sure what 'thread' means?

Thread

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Here are some excerpts of the Sheffield article:

"On one stub was discovered part of a diatom which, we assume, is clear enough for experts on diatom taxonomy to precisely identify."

"We assume"? It didn't occur to them to ask any experts? That's a pretty remarkable lack of curiosity.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Go on like that, and I'll end up believing that the only way to find Him is by listening to Funkadelic on a lazy evening

Now that is a god I could get into.
Jesus to the Pharisees:
If anybody gets funked up, if anybody gets funked up, it's gonna be you.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
argona: You need an untypically large moon for a planet your size, to give rising and falling tides - essential, it seems, to early stages of shoreline evolution - and also, I read, to stabilise your orbit to give a sufficiently constant climate.
I know nothing about scientific consensus, but isn't this presupposing a good deal more than simply "life?"

Life, after all, can be one-celled organisms. Evolution, whether there are shorelines or tides or not, takes us down a whole 'nuther road.

Granted, simple life might be more common, but really what we're most interested in when we speak of extra-terrestial life is higher forms, and - most excitingly - 'people like us'. Trouble is, any civilisation that's passed through our phase would have transmitted an expanding bubble of intelligible radio and so far, any search for that has found deafening silence.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
mousethief: Thread.
I'm not sure what 'thread' means? I already mentioned Deinococcus radiodurans, a bacterium that can survive extreme levels of radiation, temperature and dehydration. I'm sure there are others like it.

(PS I just found out that this one is nicknamed 'Conan the Bacterium', which I find rather funny.)

Yes but that's a functioning organism that has evolved survival mechanisms in extremis. All the mars-origin hypothesis is talking about, as I understand it, is the synthesis on Mars of complex molecules which, seeded into the Earth environment, could form the basis of such evolution. And they would be vulnerable. Though in other respects, I found that article very convincing.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Question though... what's the temperature at the core of a meteorite falling through the atmosphere? The surface might be an incinerator, but could, say, a protein-like molecule survive in the core?

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

As someone said, the polarisation of these molecules in living matter shows that all life on Earth comes from one source. Just one rare survivor is all that's needed.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

With millions of concurrent civilizations - wherever it's rained - in the half a trillion planets and other satellites in the galaxy, the distance to a neighbour is less than a thousand light years. Easy haling distance with existing technology. 10^23 W/cm^2 lasers. And we're average. There are 2-sigma civs, Kardashev type I, in that range. 3-sigma in 10,000. 1000 4-sigma - Kardashev type II - within the galaxy. Maybe 1 type III.

Reasonably. Perfectly reasonably. Rare earth hypothesis is NOT reasonable by comparison.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

We've no idea yet, whether life started spontaneously on earth, came in some form of suspended animation from a dead system many millions of years old, or generated on the molbdenum rich martian surface and got flung into space. What we do know is that it has only flourished on earth once, as all earth life is related. If life forms were arriving all the time, we could expect a diversity of origins on a planet such as ours which can obviously sustain and grow life. There's no such thing.

Hawking has expressed doubts that life forms could survive the radiation of space, and it's only the earth's iron core which allows our magnetic field to protect us from cosmic radiation. To me, the most likely scenario is that life started on earth, when the earth became able to sustain it. It could have happened by chance, but as theists, we're more likely to see it as part of God's plan. We can't know if His plan includes life forms in other parts of the cosmos, perhaps so, and given the immense size of the known universe, not even including things so far away that their light can't reach us, it seems likely that life exists elsewhere.

I would guess that intelligence sufficient for self-awareness will be a rare commodity even in a universe of this size. We've only been sending messages for 50 years, so they won't have got very far yet in terms of the sizes we're dealing with, but we've detected nothing out there that could be trying to communicate. I'm quite agnostic about whether life exists elsewhere. If it does, it's part of God's plan, and I'm sure He has His own arrangements with the inhabitants. If not, perhaps we are the goldilocks in which He is fulfilling His purposes. I don't lose any sleep over it.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Talking about the earth is way too small minded. God made the whole universe. And then had fun playing tiddlywinks.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Talking about the earth is way too small minded.

So is talking about life as we know it. All the talk about Earth being remarkably perfect for life presupposes that the type of life that exists on Earth is the only type that can possibly exist anywhere in the universe, but we can't know that for sure.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
We've only been sending messages for 50 years, so they won't have got very far yet in terms of the sizes we're dealing with

To be precise, we've been leaking radio signals for 50 years. There hasn't been any serious attempt to send signals specifically designed to make a "we are here!" declaration.

The radio signals that have leaked from earth were a) not very strong to start with, b) isotropic and so weaken with a 1/r2 relationship and c) over a range of different frequencies, signal coding methods (AM, FM) and are messages in a range of visual and audio languages - and many (eg: radar) that aren't a form of communication to start with.

An ET civilisation may have radioastronomy capability to notice a non-natural source in our star system. But, it would actually need to be a far more sensitive radio-astronomy capability than we have to notice a very weak signal against the radiofrequency radiation produced naturally within the solar system. For us to know that, they would need to send a very strong, focussed beam signal back to earth and for us to have a telescope pointing in the right direction. And, they'd need to be within 25 light years of (unless they have faster than light capability).

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The other hand claps a million times louder.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Why would anyone want to get in touch with us? Surely the evidence of peoples coming up against more technological civilizations is a record of disaster and tragedy. Perhaps you could also say that about our own encounter which kicked off the "modern" era.

I would have thought that any civilization that is more advanced than us (however you want to assess that) would want to keep quiet about their existence?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Why? We don't and we won't. It can do no harm whatsoever. It'll cost, what, a trillion over a century - ten years lipstick - to look for water and biogenetic oxygen on a million worlds. All that will prove to materialists, is that no matter how absurd, the rare Earth hypothesis is true. The Cheshire ET of the gaps will keep on smiling. But not for single hypostatic union vitalists.

When a sigma-2, Kardashev type I signal finally gets here we'll be able to reply starting a 1000 year conversation about our incarnations.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Well, we're not going to shut up, I agree - but you seem to disagree with my observation that contact with more technologically advanced peoples has been a pretty mixed blessing. Can you argue against that?

The point here being that any other civilization out there - being more advanced 'n'all - would recognise that and cloak their existence. Unless, of course, they mean us no good.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I would have thought that any civilization that is more advanced than us (however you want to assess that) would want to keep quiet about their existence?

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why? We don't and we won't.

The thing is, as I said, we do keep quiet about our existance. We don't go to any great steps to reduce the noise of our existance, but we don't go to any length to advertise our existance either - with the exception of some disks bolted onto space probes that won't get anywhere for millenia and will be inert specks in space long before they get near another system which will only be found by the most enormous stroke of luck.

We're like children playing Scalectrix beside a motorway. Listen really carefully, and find some way to filter the noise of electric motors from the greater noise of internal combustion engines, and you someone may hear our little cars whizz around the track. If we want to declare to the galaxy (or, at least the small number of star systems within reasonable distance from us) that we are here then we'll need to do something much more deliberate. We'll need to generate signals with much greater power, and for power over distance that means a focussed beam targetting a star system where we think there might be someone capable of listening. And, we'll need to make that signal something that is distinctly different from the noise around us, something that is distinctly not-natural and something an alien civilisation would immediately recognise as not natural. The sort of signal SETI is looking for (and, they're not looking for the sounds of electric cars against the motorway noise either).

Horton needed the whole of Whoville to join in making noise so they could be heard. It'll take an effort not much smaller for a declaration "we are here!" to be heard across the vastness of the galaxy.

[ 26. September 2013, 06:42: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Why would anyone want to get in touch with us? Surely the evidence of peoples coming up against more technological civilizations is a record of disaster and tragedy. Perhaps you could also say that about our own encounter which kicked off the "modern" era.

I would have thought that any civilization that is more advanced than us (however you want to assess that) would want to keep quiet about their existence?

Perhaps the fact that no saner race has bombed us to hell -- as prophylaxis for an otherwise healthy universe -- is proof that we're alone.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Maybe, MT. Or perhaps any race that could contemplate reducing us to a pile of rubble would be alarmingly like us. And therefore wouldn't have survived developing that ability without turning it on themselves. Amounts to much the same thing I think.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
argona: Question though... what's the temperature at the core of a meteorite falling through the atmosphere? The surface might be an incinerator, but could, say, a protein-like molecule survive in the core?

I think it could. I understand that Earth receives around 1000 lb of material from Mars every year. Surely there are some rocks in there big enough so that only the outside will incinerate, but in the interior such molecules (or even more complex structures) could survive. Especially if they are already temperature and radiation resistant.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Aye Alan. But it won't take much more effort than we're doing now to prove that there are civilizations out there, all we gotta do is detect biogenic ... NOT biogenetic, sigh ... oxygen. That's got to happen - if it can - by 2100.

Admittedly we'd need to detect a million worlds with biogenic oxygen (2200) to catch a civilization to start conversing with (3000).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: It'll cost, what, a trillion over a century - ten years lipstick - to look for water and biogenetic oxygen on a million worlds.

Why? We already discovered oxygen on one extrasolar planet. Granted, it was a planet which has its atmosphere blasted away by its star and that's why we could detect this element in the first place. Being able to detect it on other planets will be more difficult, but I don't see it as impossible.

The trick is: wait for the planet to pass in front of its star and search for oxygen lines in the spectrum. They will be weak, but maybe one day we'll have instruments strong enough to detect them.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Kurt Vonnegut had the first aliens visit being a ship whose captain noticed a house on fire. They stopped to tell the people that their house was on fire, communicating as they normally did, by farting and tap dancing. The couple mistook them for insects and killed them, subsequently dying the fire.

I conclude that the aliens have already been killed if they've showed up thus far, or, if they are yet to show up, the decision on whether we kill them or they kill us is pending.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Because, LeRoc baby, non-biogenic oxygen is nowt. For vitalism and theology as we know it to be overturned it HAS to be biogenic oxygen.

[ 26. September 2013, 17:54: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Because, LeRoc baby, non-biogenic oxygen is nowt. For vitalism and theology as we know it to be overturned it HAS to be biogenic oxygen.

So, what exactly do you mean by 'biogenic oxygen'? Oxygen that has been produced by respiratory sistems of living organisms? I grant that if we do find oxygen, it will be hard to prove that it was produced in this way.

But finding oxygen by itself will already be a step forward. I would gather that finding oxygen on a Goldilocks planet will be a major breakthrough. And it isn't unthinkable that our instruments will be able to do so somewhere in the next decades.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It won't be hard at all. Without biology there is no atmospheric free oxygen. With there's eventually 20%

[ 26. September 2013, 21:41: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: It won't be hard at all. Without biology there is no atmospheric free oxygen. With there's eventually 20%

That's not entirely true. Atmospheric oxygen has been found on Saturn for example, with no indications of life. And on HD 209458b.

But I'll agree with you that without life it is hard to have large concentrations of oxygen. It binds itself very quickly to other atoms, so there most be something going on if it is floating freely. If we would find a Goldilocks planet with oxygen, then it would be an obvious candidate to go looking for other signs of life.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

No it's entirely true.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No it's entirely true.

So what of LeRoc's assertion re Saturn and HD whatsit? Is he just wrong there?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Of course he is. Osiris. HD wotsit (the Hebrew for which is?). There is no mention of oxygen in the composition of Saturn let alone it's atmosphere. It must have oxygen in its core, so what? Osiris too. 1% free atmospheric oxygen means life, means civilization elsewhere, means our theology has to change.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: 1% free atmospheric oxygen means life

Not necessarily. One simple process for producing oxygen is water ice being bombarded by cosmic rays. They split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen escapes because it's lighter, and the oxygens stays. You can get well above 1% in this way. It happens on several of Saturn's moons.

I'll agree with you that free oxygen is a strong indicator for life —so let's look for that oxygen— but it isn't proof.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

20% is. Dione doesn't have an atmosphere.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Interesting that everybody here assumes that there is only kind of biochemistry. It is a theory, perhaps even a correct one, but has it been "proven" beyond reasonable scientific doubt? Perhaps alien life requires liquid water and can be detected by an abundance of free oxygen. Perhaps not.

It is also curious that classical theology, which defines humans simply as "rational animals", will have no trouble whatsoever with intelligent aliens. They will just be another species of humans! There is no more necessary reason that any such aliens would have their own Incarnation than for example the Chinese. It merely will have taken a longer time to get the gospel to the unknowing alien humans than to the unknowing Chinese humans.

However, Martin's ideas about interstellar communication are just wrong, whereas Allen's are spot on. It is not for nothing that the head of SETI dreams of post-biological intelligent machines that he will discover with his programme. Biological lifeforms like us will not produce the sort of signal SETI will find, one needs to postulate super-beings (and super-beings for materialists are Skynet-type of computing systems). And no, we are nowhere near to being able to produce that sort of intergalactic communication signal. Perhaps the combined effort of all humanity over decades could shout loud enough to one particular star system nearby, but certainly humanity could not maintain a galaxy-wide broadcast that could find listening aliens we do not know about. And the chances of such an effort are of course anyhow zilch.

Personally, I continue to doubt the existence of any life apart from earth (and wherever earth may have exported life to in the near vicinity), much less of any intelligent life. The only reasonable argument for that is "we are not special". Well, I say we are.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Interesting that everybody here assumes that there is only kind of biochemistry.

Not everybody.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: Interesting that everybody here assumes that there is only kind of biochemistry.

Not me. I believe —and I think Martin agrees— that if we'd find a planet with a 20% oxygen atmosphere, then it would be a good idea to look for other signs that might indicate that there is life there.

This doesn't mean that there can't be other kinds of life that don't produce oxygen. You're confusing the 'sufficient' and the 'necessary' parts of the proposition here.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Interesting that you assume that IngoB.

Our biochemistry is average.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

Nothing would surprise me about complex phenomena elsewhere - although I doubt there's too much within shouting distance.

If I had to guess, I say that there are analogues of microbial life every 25 light years or so and analogues of multicellular life every 250 light years or so (and cultures vaguely analogous to us about one a galaxy).

The biochemistry, if any, is interesting. It is the case that carbon chemistry is universal, but it is so potentially diverse that it's hard to say whether anything like our set of compounds would appear. The simpler amino acids have been detected and polypeptides are very versatile; but genotypes could, I'm told, be built out of many structures other than our DNA/RNA.

Of course there may, or may not, be complexities based on other chemistries or non-chemical physics. At which point we can confidently say that we know nothing.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is also curious that classical theology, which defines humans simply as "rational animals", will have no trouble whatsoever with intelligent aliens. They will just be another species of humans! There is no more necessary reason that any such aliens would have their own Incarnation than for example the Chinese. It merely will have taken a longer time to get the gospel to the unknowing alien humans than to the unknowing Chinese humans.

Personally, I continue to doubt the existence of any life apart from earth (and wherever earth may have exported life to in the near vicinity), much less of any intelligent life. The only reasonable argument for that is "we are not special". Well, I say we are.

They are both interesting points. I know that first paragraph I've quoted sets out the standard and long-accepted theology, but that was developed at a time when the immensity if the universe was not appreciated as it is now. It encapsulates the belief (which I accept) that the Incarnation involves the reconciliation of the Creator and His creation. Is it now time to revisit the formulation of that theology and ask if it did so for this portion of the creation, and that there may be other incarnations of other portions?

As to the second quoted paragraph, you obviously know more in this area than I, but even accepting the statistics referred to upthread, that leaves somewhere around 100 million planets similar to ours, where some form of life may have developed. Probability suggests to me that a life like ours developed on some of these planets.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Is it now time to revisit the formulation of that theology and ask if it did so for this portion of the creation, and that there may be other incarnations of other portions?

I do not think that these questions are necessarily related. That is to say, I can imagine that there is only one Incarnation even if alien beings cannot be considered the same as humans, and I can imagine that there are multiple incarnations even if alien beings can be considered the same. The Incarnation is anyhow not necessary, but only fitting. However, considered on its own, I find this definition "rational animal" very refreshing. After all, it cuts through all the racism of our past and present, and it would cut through all specism against aliens in a possible future. According to this definition, human rights, Geneva convention, etc. would be immediately extended to the aliens and their civilisation.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to the second quoted paragraph, you obviously know more in this area than I, but even accepting the statistics referred to upthread, that leaves somewhere around 100 million planets similar to ours, where some form of life may have developed. Probability suggests to me that a life like ours developed on some of these planets.

I'm not a specialist in this area. However, I do believe that the chance for the natural development of intelligent life is exactly zero. Not some very small number, precisely zero. Hence I do not particularly care how many planets there might be. Any number multiplied by zero remains zero. Intelligent life needs Divine intervention, and I do not mean just once: every human being is specially created at the point of the infusion of a human soul, and no natural process can take over for that. Of course, God could choose to put intelligent life on more planets. But to me that choice of His does not really depend on numbers either. I do not think that a Creator would have the same hangups about "waste" as a creature. If what you want to be just is, then making a billion planets is just the same as making two. If we are trying to guess God's mind there, we have to be more sophisticated than just counting. In particular, I see at least three features of God's creation to be considered here. There's God's tendency to natural abundance, which speaks for aliens. There's God's tendency to particularity in salvation history, which speaks against aliens. And there is our role as "hinge" between the created orders of animals and spirits, respectively, which is hard to evaluate but in my opinion important. Since scripture gives no indication for aliens but is more difficult to interpret if there are some, I'm guessing against aliens for the time being.

It is more difficult to say whether life in general - rather than intelligent life - needs Divine intervention (at least once). To some degree our failure to find any life out there is hence evidence for me that it does.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Whereas I'd prefer to say that our failure to find signs of life out there is an indication on our limited abilities.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

And I'd say that the fact that we haven't detected intelligent life is compatible with a range of possibilities:

There isn't any

It's just too far away

It's hiding

It's not doing anything we could detect

We haven't invented anything that could detect it

and I'm relatively agnostic about which of these (or something I haven't thought of) is the case - although I concede some are more likely than others.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

If you're right IngoB, then you're right. But if you, we, are wrong, then we're wrong. The theology of the single hypostatic union is overturned by a single planet with biogenic oxygen.

Because strong uniformitarianism reasonably rules.

And I simply do not believe that we do not have the technological capability right now to signal star systems within a thousand light years with a transceiver array a hundred million miles in radius to match theirs if we so desired. We just don't want to enough. Like nuclear fusion. It has to be BIG. I suspect ITER is barely big enough.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
And I'd say that the fact that we haven't detected intelligent life is compatible with a range of possibilities:

There isn't any

It's just too far away

It's hiding

It's not doing anything we could detect

We haven't invented anything that could detect it

and I'm relatively agnostic about which of these (or something I haven't thought of) is the case - although I concede some are more likely than others.

A combination of 2 and 5 would make contact any time soon unlikely.

In an infinite universe the probability of there being intelligent life out there is high, but the probability of finding it small.

Before the invention of the elecro-magnet the chance of finding a needle in a haystack was very small. As yet we don't have the equivalent technology for finding ET. Unless we know how they would try to contact us we don't know what to look for.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Intelligent life needs Divine intervention, and I do not mean just once: every human being is specially created at the point of the infusion of a human soul, and no natural process can take over for that.

When would you say God started doing that, IngoB?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The theology of the single hypostatic union is overturned by a single planet with biogenic oxygen.

Not in the slightest. The only thing that could overturn this theology are believable reports of one or more additional Incarnations. Even the existence of intelligent aliens, fallen or not, would not allow us to make any clear conclusions concerning the number of additional Incarnations.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
When would you say God started doing that, IngoB?

With "Adam", obviously. And no, I am not denying a role of evolution in the creation of the first rational animal, namely precisely as far as the animal part is concerned (this includes animal cognitive abilities). I do not have any clear idea when the first rational animal walked the earth. Mostly because I'm not sure to what extent tool creation / use and appearance of culture could be based on pre-rational animal cognition. "Adam" may have lived 2 million years ago, or 200,000 years ago, who knows...

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

It's clear that God can create and attach souls to sufficiently complex self reflexive entities as and when God chooses - and indeed ordain that there are automatic conditions which when satisfied will result in the creation and attachment of a soul.

I'm curious as to whether there are sufficient grounds in any particular traditions for claiming some knowledge of the Divine strategy in this process.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Not for you IngoB, but for everyone else here including myself - paradigms would have to stretch. The cultural limitations of John's and Paul's rhetoric would be found wanting.

And even you. You would be shaken in your certainties. Should be. Or there'd be no room for faith would there?

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
It's clear that God can create and attach souls to sufficiently complex self reflexive entities as and when God chooses

That would make the entity the real person/alien and not the soul, which is attached. But that would make the soul not the real person, and that doesn't wash with me.

On the other hand the opposite, soul is the real person and the reflexive entity isn't smacks of gnosticism, and won't do either.

The entity and soul have to be inseparable.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

IngoB, what do you consider as evidence of being intelligent and having a soul? Neanderthals made tools and buried their dead, yet were a different species than us. So it seems that God created at least two intelligent species right here on earth. Who's to say what he did on different planets?

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
When would you say God started doing that, IngoB?
With "Adam", obviously. And no, I am not denying a role of evolution in the creation of the first rational animal, namely precisely as far as the animal part is concerned (this includes animal cognitive abilities). I do not have any clear idea when the first rational animal walked the earth. Mostly because I'm not sure to what extent tool creation / use and appearance of culture could be based on pre-rational animal cognition. "Adam" may have lived 2 million years ago, or 200,000 years ago, who knows...

Fair enough.

In times past (it is my impression) RC clergy were fairly strongly represented among scientific researchers; I don't know to what extent that holds true today, but I'd imagine that any paleontologists with strong RC affiliations would have had to give these sorts of questions at least some thought. Would you happen to have any specific suggestions about where one might look for current teachings on such matters?

[ 29. September 2013, 22:22: Message edited by: Dave W. ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Neanderthals made tools and buried their dead, yet were a different species than us.

The concept of a species is a bit problematic. But current thinking (to be revised no doubt in five years time) seems to be that many of us have a bit of neanderthal DNA in us, so that there was some interbreeding. That would make neanderthals part of the same species by the usual definition of species.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Not for you IngoB, but for everyone else here including myself - paradigms would have to stretch. The cultural limitations of John's and Paul's rhetoric would be found wanting. And even you. You would be shaken in your certainties. Should be. Or there'd be no room for faith would there?

I have already considered all the various possibilities (no other life, alien life, alien intelligent life, alien life fallen or non-fallen, additional Incarnations or not) with regards to my faith. Not in tremendous detail, but sufficiently to know that I could cope just fine. It is more the possibility of genuinely novel and unexpected input from intelligent aliens that could provide a serious challenge to my faith. But since I cannot guess at what will take me by surprise, I see no particular point in worrying about this.

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
IngoB, what do you consider as evidence of being intelligent and having a soul? Neanderthals made tools and buried their dead, yet were a different species than us. So it seems that God created at least two intelligent species right here on earth. Who's to say what he did on different planets?

First, classically speaking every living being has a soul. A plant has a vegetative soul. An animal has a sentient soul, that includes vegetative aspects. A human has a sapient soul, that includes sentient and vegetative aspects. Second, intelligence is difficult to define and evaluate. Clearly, even today's animals can display "intelligent behaviour" by some loose definition of intelligence. What I mean when I talk about a "rational soul" is the ability to abstract to, and operate on, universals. For example, you know what a triangle is, in a way that goes beyond any real triangle that we might draw. You can know that the interior angles of a (Euclidean) triangle add up to 180 degrees, even though in fact this is not precisely true for any drawn triangle (because of the inherent limitations of any penmanship). You can also argue in your head that the minimal way you can make a stable chair is by having it triangle shaped (with three legs), because to define a plane in 3D space you need three points which are not degenerate (are not all on top of each other, or where the third one is not on the line defined by the first two), and three such points always form a triangle. The latter is something different from simply having tried out various shapes in practice and having memorised the experience that a triangle shape is minimal, even if in effect both may lead to using a triangle chair.

It is unclear to me to what degree we can prove the existence of such "access to universals" from artefacts of activity. Hence I'm not sure how to judge the artefacts left from earlier humanoids, like the Neanderthals. The time range I offered to Dave W. includes not only Neanderthals, but even homo erectus. So I am allowing potentially for an "Adam" way before the Neanderthals even. However, I think it is confusing biological "species" and philosophical "species" if one then concluded that God created more than one "rational animal". As long as "Adam" (who may be a mythical representation for one individual or many) was the ancestor to all rational animals, there only would have been one species of human God created. The Neanderthals for example would have been just one particular "tribe" of these "philosophically human" beings that happens to have died out. Hence I do not think that our human ancestry can challenge the concept of "one species". It would be different if we came to realise that whales are "rational animals", because we would then be sure that our common ancestor is non-rational and could not be a single "Adam". That would be truly similar to discovering intelligent aliens.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In times past (it is my impression) RC clergy were fairly strongly represented among scientific researchers; I don't know to what extent that holds true today, but I'd imagine that any paleontologists with strong RC affiliations would have had to give these sorts of questions at least some thought. Would you happen to have any specific suggestions about where one might look for current teachings on such matters?

I have no idea, but it would be opinion rather than teaching which you may get from those kind of sources.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In times past (it is my impression) RC clergy were fairly strongly represented among scientific researchers; I don't know to what extent that holds true today, but I'd imagine that any paleontologists with strong RC affiliations would have had to give these sorts of questions at least some thought. Would you happen to have any specific suggestions about where one might look for current teachings on such matters?
I have no idea, but it would be opinion rather than teaching which you may get from those kind of sources.

I don't follow you. You have no idea where to look for sources of current teaching, but if you did, they'd only give me opinion and not teaching?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't follow you. You have no idea where to look for sources of current teaching, but if you did, they'd only give me opinion and not teaching?

A clash of technical terms, perhaps... RC teaching comes from the RC magisterium, all else is opinion - no matter how learned or holy. I'm fairly sure that the RC magisterium has not spoken on the question what historical biological entity is best called "Adam". So if you get a comment on this from some RC priest-paleontologist, you should not consider that as "what the RCC teaches" but as "what this RC opines". The same is true for any other RC pontificating, including of course yours truly.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

No, I get the difference between opinion and teaching. I wasn't suggesting that one could just ring up a devout RC paleontologist and treat his speculations as official church teaching, just that historic links between clergy and research offered the possibility that such questions had prompted more formal consideration, and that you might know where to look for such things.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I realise, IngoB, that the gift of faith easily survives anything, including its complete loss, long dark tea times of the soul, dementia, all manner of error in the recipient, whatever.

But the narrative of a single hypostatic union could not possibly survive another planet with biogenic oxygen. It would mean that the universe teems with civilizations, all 'fallen', and has done for millions of years. And each of them would have to have had an incarnation of God. A Messiah-Christ. A saviour. It would mean that orthodoxy is necessarily more rhetorical than it currently needs to be.

It would also mean that there is no reason for there not to be an infinite, eternal multiverse.

In God.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But the narrative of a single hypostatic union could not possibly survive another planet with biogenic oxygen. It would mean that the universe teems with civilizations, all 'fallen', and has done for millions of years. And each of them would have to have had an incarnation of God. A Messiah-Christ. A saviour. It would mean that orthodoxy is necessarily more rhetorical than it currently needs to be.

You've got that all wrong. There's no more necessity for a Messiah to the Sagittarians than there is for a Messiah to the Chinese. The Chinese had a great civilization long before Christ walked the cultural backwater of Palestine. Yet no Christ for them even when He finally did appear on earth. Indeed, no Christ for many of them even to this day, two millennia later, though this is finally changing. And it is not changing by the coming of a Chinese Messiah now, it is changing by us bringing the good news of that one Messiah to them.

The only reason why there might be a Messiah to the Sagittarians is that this accommodation may be more fitting than the unity of just one Messiah. It could be that it is asking too much of Sagittarians to seek salvation through an alien creature, through a human. But I'm not so sure about that, frankly. I have the suspicion that the Sagittarians will understand the cross all too easily... I think it would be very consistent with salvation history, in fact, if we had to bring the good news to the Sagittarians.

No, it is not the Messiah, Christ, who would be primarily in question. Rather, it would be "Adam" that would become the real challenge to orthodoxy. For presumably there would be nothing that could biologically link a human ancestor to a Sagittarian.

However, I've thought already - just on the strength of what we know about earth - that "Adam" might not be of this universe. That this is in some sense "universe mark II", created in response to the fall of "Adam" in "universe mark I", and brought to an end one day to make room for "universe mark III". So "Adam" may indeed be the direct ancestor of all rational animals, humans and Sagittarians, albeit not in a sperm and egg sort of way. If you think this is crazy talk, then I just say that we do talk about God here, before whom a universe is nothing more than speaking a Word.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

There was no Messiah to Rome either.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

No, it is not the Messiah, Christ, who would be primarily in question. Rather, it would be "Adam" that would become the real challenge to orthodoxy. For presumably there would be nothing that could biologically link a human ancestor to a Sagittarian.

Given that it is tenuous to posit a literal Adam, not seeing how the metaphorical concept is truly streched by including other planets.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

However, I've thought already - just on the strength of what we know about earth - that "Adam" might not be of this universe. That this is in some sense "universe mark II", created in response to the fall of "Adam" in "universe mark I", and brought to an end one day to make room for "universe mark III".

If at first you don't succeed; try, try again? Quite the radical thinker, IngoB.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Given that it is tenuous to posit a literal Adam, not seeing how the metaphorical concept is truly streched by including other planets.

This may not be a challenge to a metaphorical interpretation, but it is a challenge to the more literal (though not literalistic) understanding of the orthodoxy that I care about. And I assume that Martin was addressing me concerning that.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If at first you don't succeed; try, try again? Quite the radical thinker, IngoB.

Maybe. Who became Cain's wife? Why did worship of God start in Enosh's time? Who were the Nephilim? Why is the end of longevity mentioned before a flood that kills all but Noah (and family), who himself lived long? Maybe these are meaningless inaccuracies, maybe the early chapters of Genesis are what you get when a crazy "science fiction story" full with strange creatures, parallel universes, gene modifications etc. is told to us through a bronze age mind (either as ancient memory retold, or by Divine revelation through a vision).

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :

Jesus talked to the dead about the gospel in Matthew so presumably the plan never was to reach all of mankind during their earthly existence, but to achieve something on earth that would have influence over mankind in the world to come.

The Bible talks a lot about aliens, just calls them angels instead.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

When did He do that?

On the contrary IngoB, they are meaningful inaccuracies. The trick is to find meaning without resorting to fantasy, proliferating entities. Something I was lost in for nearly 30 years.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
On the contrary IngoB, they are meaningful inaccuracies. The trick is to find meaning without resorting to fantasy, proliferating entities. Something I was lost in for nearly 30 years.

Seems to me that all manner of reading meaning into such things is speculative, and that parsimony is in the eye of the beholder. I do not obsess about this at all, but the early part of Genesis requires some fantasy to be taken literally.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

There's no parsimony in speculating that Cain's wife wasn't his sister or niece or a degree of cousin. If we're not pursuing the imparsimony of symbolism.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There's no parsimony in speculating that Cain's wife wasn't his sister or niece or a degree of cousin. If we're not pursuing the imparsimony of symbolism.

How could there be a cousin in the first generation after Adam and Eve? A niece would have to be a child of Abel, and whom could Abel have married but an unnamed sister? So either Cain or Abel would have had to commit incest with a mysterious sister, or perhaps with their mother. Even if we swallow that, there is the strangeness of Cain being afraid of being slain and God giving him a mark to protect him. Abel was dead, so who was left but Adam and Eve and perhaps unnamed sisters? But the verses sound very much like Cain is afraid of others, not of his immediate family.

Face it, the obvious literal sense of the text here is a surrounding culture of other humans. Then there is neither an issue with Cain finding a wife, nor with him being afraid of being hunted down as a murderer by non-family. That is "parsimonious", but it does not fit with Adam and Eve. Likewise, the start of the worship of the Lord in Enosh's time make perfect literal sense as representation of a beginning of monotheism. But again this does not make sense at all if Enosh was the grandson of Adam and Eve, who walked with God in the garden of Eden. It is unthinkable that Adam and Eve, and hence Seth, did not call upon the name of the Lord.

The story has de facto transited from Adam and Eve to a description of early tribal culture, and not in a way that would allow the claimed blood relations to hold true in a biological sense. The simplest interpretation is of course a textual fudge by which two separate stories were spliced together, leaving at best a "mythical" connection, not a biological one. If you want anything more out of this text, then you need to get creative.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0