NASA to Hold News Conference on Astrobiology Discovery

[Jefe]

Jesus Christ, kaelia or w/e.

Why are you talking about evolution? It has nothing to do with the issue I pointed out. Before talking about advanced lifeform,you have to talk about the probability of life emerging out of the organics soup. We know the worst case scenario (10^-300), and a biologist could probably improve this number, but as long we have no evidence that life is in fact a common thing, we can't say shit about the odds of seeing life, advanced civilisation or not.

For the last time, I'm NOT talking about life emerging, I'm talking about the probability of w/e caused life to REPEAT ITSELF. Do you get that? Cannot you see the difference between those?

Why are you using 10^-300? Elaborate (I know what it is).

[Max™]

Asteroids impact are boring shit. If we are going out in a bang, I want something surprising and unexpected

Asteroid impact =/= shit stomped back to pond scum.

I mean like barren, sterile, lifeless except for a couple of vents on the bottom of the fucking ocean type events.

Gamma ray bursts, supernovas, active galactic nuclei, and uh... rogue black holes, just for fun?

[Xno Kappa]

EVERYBODY HOLD ON! I'M GOING TO USE THE DRAKE EQUATION LIKE IT IS NEW AND RELEVANT SCIENCE!

DID YOU KNOW DRAKE STANDS FOR DO RIGHT AND KILL EVERYTHING!?

[Kaylia]

Jesus Christ, kaelia or w/e.

For the last time, I'm NOT talking about life emerging, I'm talking about the probability of w/e caused life to REPEAT ITSELF. Do you get that? Cannot you see the difference between those?

Why are you using 10^-300? Elaborate (I know what it is).

I disagree with everything you posted BECAUSE you're not talking about life emerging. Your conclusion, "we don't seem to be alone", implies that life had to emerge. However, you don't consider it anywhere in your argument. If you want to convince me that you don't have to, you will have to do a better job than this.

Your conclusion is most likely right, but for the wrong reason. When I replied at first, I was simply testing the water to see if you omitted this important aspect accidently (drake equation is bullshit detector). Not only did you not answer my question, but you're insisting that the "life experiment" is all you need to reach that conclusion. Your only attempt at giving me an answer was this very poor use of statistics (don't feel too bad about it, it's a common mistake people make).

Anyway, I gave you plenty of opportunity to explain us why you think life is likely...hell, I would have been fine with any metaphysics arguments (universe isotropy, evolution of organics matter on a molecular level), but you never did anything like this.

The number 10^-300 is something you will occasionally see that refer to odds of random organics components forming a self replicating DNA. The real odds is much higher, but how high exactly is still not known. We know molecules evolves on a very basic level, but many paths could lead to dead ends instead of forming a primitive lifeform. That's why I talked about chaos earlier...

There is a very interesting articles about the odds of seeing life. It doesnt give any answer, but it's nice to see how evolution works on a molecular level.
http://www.science20.com/stars_plane...d_begin_chance

Asteroid impact =/= shit stomped back to pond scum.

I mean like barren, sterile, lifeless except for a couple of vents on the bottom of the fucking ocean type events.

Gamma ray bursts, supernovas, active galactic nuclei, and uh... rogue black holes, just for fun?

A rogue black hole wouldn't be bad, but there is bonus point if we made it ourselves.

However, my #1 wish is to see the universe death. Big crunch, heat death, sudden collapse (my favorite!)....anything is fine. If we are going down, might as well bring everyone with us.

[Max™]

Sounds like you should read some Baxter novels, you'll probably enjoy them.

Check out Manifold: Time, Ring, Vacuum Diagrams, and Manifold: Space.

[Jefe]

Since you keep dragging my conclusion, "It doesn't seem like we are alone, folks," it leaves room for the probability of a not. We may or may not. Call them bullshit semantics two can play that game, but you keep insisting that I, with utmost certainty, declared that life emerged, when in fact you couldn't be further from the truth. I told you a hundred times already. Sure, if the whole assumption is wrong then we are fucked, there's nothing to look for w/ our current models.

For the last time: I used the partial equation to try to quantify the number of earth-like planets. Am I wrong, so shoot me. Can you find another method to try to quantify them? We can't? Ok then! Why I kept insisting on time i.e. evolution? Because like I said a million times, that's the equations biggest flaw!

The number 10^-300 is something you will occasionally see that refer to odds of random organics components forming a self replicating DNA. The real odds is much higher, but how high exactly is still not known. We know molecules evolves on a very basic level, but many paths could lead to dead ends instead of forming a primitive lifeform. That's why I talked about chaos earlier...

That's assuming all forms of "life" have the same behaviour, composition, etc. everywhere, and in under different circumstances. Does evolution tend toward any fixed form or state?

Let's talk about another subject I know little about: alternate universes!

[Deadgye]

I liked when we took his obviously lighthearted statement and imposed upon it such a factual interpretation, pretending that it was the crux of his argument. Next time he'll know better to reference ET so that kaylia doesn't get his panties in a bunch.

[Silenka]

Pff, everyone knows that the way life originates on other planets is by being seeded by already-existing lifeforms.

[Max™]

Pff, everyone knows that the way life originates on other planets is by being seeded by already-existing lifeforms.

Timeloop ahoy!

[Mizango]

Asteroids impact are boring shit. If we are going out in a bang, I want something surprising and unexpected

Death by Betelgeuse would be my preferred method to go. Getting stomped out by the wrath of Orion would be a huge ego boost, even in death.

[Mizango]

I liked when we took his obviously lighthearted statement and imposed upon it such a factual interpretation, pretending that it was the crux of his argument. Next time he'll know better to reference ET so that kaylia doesn't get his panties in a bunch.

What's this "we" shit? Saddle up cock soldier, at dawn you ride!

[Xno Kappa]

What's this "we" shit? Saddle up cock soldier, at dawn you ride!

Lol, I'm gonna have to borrow that one Miz.

[Kaylia]

I liked when we took his obviously lighthearted statement and imposed upon it such a factual interpretation, pretending that it was the crux of his argument. Next time he'll know better to reference ET so that kaylia doesn't get his panties in a bunch.

Light hearted, but wrong.

That was fine until he decided to justify his wrong conclusion with serious statement (and insult).

[Kaylia]

Since you keep dragging my conclusion, "It doesn't seem like we are alone, folks," it leaves room for the probability of a not. We may or may not. Call them bullshit semantics two can play that game, but you keep insisting that I, with utmost certainty, declared that life emerged, when in fact you couldn't be further from the truth. I told you a hundred times already. Sure, if the whole assumption is wrong then we are fucked, there's nothing to look for w/ our current models.

For the last time: I used the partial equation to try to quantify the number of earth-like planets. Am I wrong, so shoot me. Can you find another method to try to quantify them? We can't? Ok then! Why I kept insisting on time i.e. evolution? Because like I said a million times, that's the equations biggest flaw!

What the fuck is wrong with you? To conclude that something "seem like", you have to evaluate the odds of that something. If the odd is low, it doesn't "seem like". The end.

While my english is poor, I'm pretty sure there is no other way to interpret seem like, unless you want to admit this conclusion is based on your poor understanding of the problems.


There is nothing wrong with your partial equation. There is something missing between the conclusion and that partial equation. This is the problem.


"2+2=4, so it seem like God exists" .
Do you disagree that 2+2=4? Do you see any other solution to 2+2?
I DID NOT PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS, I SAID "SEEM LIKE". MAYBE IT DOESNT EXIST.

If you can detect the fallacy here, you should be able to see it in your last argument.

That's assuming all forms of "life" have the same behaviour, composition, etc. everywhere, and in under different circumstances. Does evolution tend toward any fixed form or state?

My argument is that we don't know the odds, not that there is no way to increase it. How many stable life form is there? 1,2,5,10, or 100? 10^-300 *100= 10^-298.

To be meaningful, the odds need to be important. We know it can be improved, but we don't know by how much and we don't know if the end result is extremely likely or still need a fluke.

[Jefe]

Hey kaelia, what is your fucking point? And what "waters" are you fucking testing and for what purpose? About something I heard in my biology class when I was in high school? Really you fucking asswipe? What exactly are you trying to do, are you trying to discredit me in front of my fellow theoretical scientists here? Are you trying to make them drop their fucking monocles or something by snatching my credentials? And then you have the fucking audacity to stand there with your arms crossed and tell me that comments such as mine do not belong in a 'scientific thread' when the vast majority ridicule said article, mention dicks, ET, etc., and the shit. Really you fucking hypocrite? Who the fuck are you, with what authority did you declare this a 'science thread;' that all fucking opinions should be proven and receive serious scrutiny? This is not the fucking American Scientist forum, the most popular threads here are for random images and fuck or duck threads. You're acting like if I was some sort of authority in the field, smashed the fucking door down trying to prove something. I didn't, and it doesn't take a fucking genius to figure that out. Want a semi-serious thread, try the LHC thread. I've read parts of it, it seems like a serious discussion, as far as bg is concerned. Do you seem waltzing in there and shit on the thread? Of course not, I have some respect and know it probably wouldn't be the place to make shitty jokes.

Second, I'm trying to convince you of what? I'm trying to get through your fucking thick head that you're over-analyzing some simple shit I happened to remember from long ago. So what, what if it's fucking wrong lol? You're talking to me about a subject that it's as interesting to me as women is to you. Really, I don't care too much about it, not to read articles and dwell into it and shit. You know what I like? Cars, and I'm not talking about the movie. Talk to me about oldschool Porsche, to pony cars, to muscle cars and their 420+6 hemi engines. I find it fascinating, thats mathematics and physics slapping you right in the ass.

In short, take that head our of your small intestine. Any questions, retard? I had fun.

[Jefe]

Double. But I seriously had fun writing it lol ;o

[Kuya]

lol

[BerenTebogo]

Real_meteora

[Kaylia]

You're acting like if I was some sort of authority in the field

Please look more into 'the life' experiment.

No u.

[edit]
No but really, if you want to use numbers and follow up with with this kind of attack, I have every right to expect a minimum of knowledge from you (without being an authority in the field).

[edit2]
And I'm fine with your last post. Seeing you admit that you're ignorant is all I wanted.

[Woozie]

Kaylia and kaelia are two different people.