It's a minority theory, but there was plenty of evidence for it, like the magnetism of rocks. Rocks have a magnetism that is set when they are formed...poles aligned with the line from the center of the Earth to that point on the surface. That allows scientists to determine the origins of rocks. There is a great deal of rock found around the world, all the way to thr tropics, that originated at the Earth's poles. The best explanation of how all of this rock arrived there is that it was carried by glacial advance. There were other things, which I'm forgetting off-hand.
no scientist has ever said that. they might however say the combination of what we know about our own evolutionary biology, and the size of the universe is evidence that supports the theory that life is probable elsewhere, which is certainly valid science. we can and are testing things like the probability of agiogensis and the size of the universe.
if you ever come accross a link for that i'd be interested. couldn't find one with a quick check. still even if ice sheets did extend to the tropics at one time, the grand canyon doesn't really fit the geological profile of something carved by glaciers.
There's just as much probability of there being God, yet nobody's wasting big govt. grants looking for him. Or are they? I'm a big fan of NASA's science missions (robots). I am not a fan of manned space missions (expensive, risky, and don't give us much of anything in return). I'm no fan of SETI, which is a waste of time and money, since there is no life elsewhere (prove there is!). "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - is a belief system, the mantra of SETI, and could be just as easily said about God. There are numerous sites on the internet with web forms you can try out Drake's equation. I put in my own pessimistic values and come up with .00001 likely civilizations. This would indicate that by some very lucky set of circumstances, life arose here and only here. I feel vindicated that SETI can find nothing, when there's ~100+ light years worth of neighborhood that we should be able to detect right now (or that should detect us).
that can't be what we're talking about obviously. the grand canyon is relatively recent geologically speaking, no more than 20 million years old.
Yeah. I don't think directly related to that. Just that ice has covered more of the world than previously believed. I really don't know a lot about geology. I had a vague impression that a current belief was that the Grand Canyon was glacially created, but not anything I'm willing to argue, as I'm not informed on the subject. If the consensus is the Colorado River formed it, that's fine.
there is evidence life might exist elsewhere (life exists on earth, other earth-like planets exist). there is no evidence god exists. kind of hard to draw a parallel. and i'm sure there are at least a few biologists out there looking for "god" with government money : ) but you'd agree impractical science is still science. you're the one making the certain assertion. prove there isn't anyway astrobiology has little to do with SETI. two different subjects.
Isn't that exactly what SETI is trying to do? You want them to provide the proof in order to justify searching for the proof? Or about anything else, prior to the discovery of evidence for it. barfo
More like they're disproving "god" Impractical "science" is something else labeled as "science." Can't prove a negative. The impetus should be to disprove there isn't a "god" eh? [/quote] Two examples of something else masquerading as "science." Not that much different from ghost hunting, which uses all kinds of scientific devices. I don't believe the vast sums of money spent on it are fruitful, nor is it science. If "there's billions and billions of stars therefore there's life" is the basis, then you'd turn on a radio receiver and have a hard time not finding all kinds of transmissions. After all, we have far more evidence that once life takes hold anywhere, it adapts over millions of years through evolution to whatever the climate is and there's not only billions of variations of life forms but intelligent ones, too. In fact, there's zero doubt of this.
Religion's totally fun to talk about. Except for that it always ends in either a bunch of repeated "I'm right, you're wrong" posts or an agreeing to disagree. There's only so much discussion (or rather debate since that's what we really do here) that can happen when you have opposing beliefs that you're not going to change. But what you really wanna talk about, and this is a fun one, is religion's impact on politics. The point of freedom of religion, as it was conceived in the first amendment, is that we're all free to choose what ever religion we want. The current right wing christian movement, which continually props up their beliefs as being the best way to live for the populous is a big threat to that. A good example is the rumors about Barak Obama being Muslim and if he were it would be a reason not to vote for him. Same goes for all the sentiment against Mitt Romney for being Mormon. It seems to be at the point where if you're not a Christian you can't get elected President. Kind of seems to me that if that's the case we're not all really FREE to practice what ever religion we see fit. No. Global Warming is a fact. The globe is, in fact, warming. Saying you don't believe in Global Warming is like saying you don't believe in math.
People often mistakenly say "global warming is a myth" when they mean "man made global warming is a hoax"
ok. not worth arguing nonsense. you mean like "since there is no life elsewhere"? another nonsensical comparison. we know life exists in at least one place in the universe. can't say that about ghosts. most working astrobiologists are actually involved in looking for microorganisms.
The existence of life elsewhere CAN be proven it just has to be found. Since there's zero observation to prove there is, you have to assume there isn't. I take issue with Science when it asserts there is life elsewhere based on nothing.
the default starting point is "we don't have enough information to know." i would too, but science doesn't do that.
I worded that incorrectly. People have a belief in those theories, and that belief reflects a faith in the scientific process (forming hypotheses from empirical evidence and always leaving the door open for better hypotheses).
You must assume that there is life in order to justify searching for it. The rest is just speculation based on probabilities and likelihoods, given computer models and a whole host of variables about the creation of other planets and what needs to be present for life to form.
If one accepts the grandiosity of the universe, one must also accept the probability of intelligent life existing somewhere besides Earth. I can respect no man's view of reality with this aspect so dismissed.
