1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

20,000,000,000 habitable planets in the galaxy - So where is everyone?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by NeilFawcett, Nov 6, 2013.

  1. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,679

    Like i said assumption, we beg to differ, pointless debates, better get back on topic or neilfawcett's head will pop.
     
  2. tbyeah

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 6, 2013

    Posts: 2,429

    Location: Bristol

    Nil assumption. They are there. They have been dated.
     
  3. hola_adios

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 13, 2005

    Posts: 1,887

    Location: On the road

    You might want to differ as much as you want little boy, facts are facts, it does matter little - much more nothing at all - what you think, as long as you present no facts (although I still think you are the biggest troll these forums have seen, and you are derailing yet another thread).

    Back on topic opposite to popular believe that other civilisations could pick up the electromagnetic radiation we have sent outward it is just a myth, the attenuation of the signals after just a few light years is such that it will be almost impossible to distinguish from the background noise (or extremely difficult). The obvious conclusion is that it will be equally difficult for us to detect even the closest civilisations.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2014
  4. NeilFawcett

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 15, 2003

    Posts: 13,282

    Location: Marlow

    We once thought it would be impossible to detect, or even see, planets around other stars. But seemingly not now...
     
  5. Spook187

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jan 16, 2010

    Posts: 8,055

    Location: Cumbria

    Come off it Kedge, we all know fossil recording is correct even if we are tens of thousands of years out it still hold up against you incorrect view of how old fossils are, the proof is right there in front of you why don't you get it.
     
  6. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,679

    One day a group of people go digging up the earth, they find a fossil, as they carefully scrape away the earth covering it and expose it more to the eye they can see it has four legs, they can see it has a long spinal column, tailbone and a long skull. When they dug up the earth and exposed this animal/creature did it come complete with a birth cirtificate telling you of its lineage giving you direct decent from a particular ancestor?, no, was there a label attached to it stating exactly where it came from in the first place?, no. Did any human beings see this creature alive and wondering this earth or its territory?, no, did any human beings see this creature/animal die in the place you found it?, no. Based on all of this i think it is fair to say that human beings know absolutely nothing about this creature/animal. People observe one thing and then assume another.
     
  7. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,679

    It's just that there is no significant life to be found yet, in time perhaps?.
     
  8. tbyeah

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 6, 2013

    Posts: 2,429

    Location: Bristol

    It does in fact have its lineage; we can still often look at its genome. When we compare this to other fossils, we can see how they are related. We can also date it through various methods.

    You seem to think they find it, and say "It has four legs and a tail! Maybe its the common ancestor of a cat and dog! Hmmmm how old is it? Dave pick a number!"

    "55"

    "55 million years it is!"
     
  9. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,237

    I'm actually surprised we haven't yet seen better quality images of the closest stars than the one for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri which afaik is the most detailed we have so far.
     
  10. tbyeah

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 6, 2013

    Posts: 2,429

    Location: Bristol

    4.24 light years is still obviously a huge distance though.
     
  11. Skunkworks

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 3, 2005

    Posts: 6,349

    Kedge?
     
  12. d_brennen

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 30, 2009

    Posts: 15,370

    Location: Aquilonem Londinensi

    You expect a serious answer Skunkworks? See tbhyeah's sig :p
     
  13. Skunkworks

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 3, 2005

    Posts: 6,349

    The definition of "kinds" seems to be rather elastic.
     
  14. tbyeah

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 6, 2013

    Posts: 2,429

    Location: Bristol

    Apparently it's a species, it's two animals that can mate, and it's the (impossibly recent) common ancestor of dogs and wolves.
     
  15. Skunkworks

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 3, 2005

    Posts: 6,349

    This is what I'd like Kedge to confirm or deny, that the definition is thsoe which can produce offspring.
     
  16. edscdk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 17, 2008

    Posts: 6,668

    How come the people writing these books knew what to write and how do we know they did not just make it up? That's more of a question for I want answered.
     
  17. tbyeah

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 6, 2013

    Posts: 2,429

    Location: Bristol

    We don't.

    kedge'a argument is essentially "The Bible is a blind assumption, so is evolution. Your views are just as unfounded as mine!"

    Unfortunately, only about a third of that sentence isn't utter ********. The first 6 words.
     
  18. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,237

    Given the level of detail got on stuff that is >10bn light years away I'm surprised by the relative limited detail of stuff a lot closer.
     
  19. tbyeah

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 6, 2013

    Posts: 2,429

    Location: Bristol

    Perhaps the radiation or light intensity is an issue, combined with the distance?

    I haven't really looked into it, sorry.
     
  20. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Because there are plenty of examples in the Bible which are supported both historically and through other source materials...this doesn't presume the Truth of the presumption of a God however, but it does mean that the context of many of the Biblical Scriptures has some grounding in the time in which it was written.