WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
One point I would like to make is that the assumption seems to always be made that there are much older civilizations in the Universe and we are relative newcomers. It would seem highly improbable that you would have multiple civilizations beginning virtually simultaneously throughout the cosmos. That means that there should be a single civilization that is "The First Ones".
So why is it automatically assumed that we are NOT the first ones? I mean, it IS a possibility. Sure it is a small chance, but is possible.
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
True. Possible. Our sun is estimated to be a third-generation star in our galaxy. This might be how long is required to accumulate enough organic molecules to eventually develop into us. We may be one of the older civililzations in our galaxy. And I have no doubt there are both younger and older galaxies out there. Maybe a bigger galaxy would accumulate heavier elements faster because there are more suns blowing up.
Man it would be lonely to be the first. On the flipside, think of all the unclaimed territory out there...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: And an airless planet would be better for observing the universe.
Yes, but somewhat less conducive to anyone being there to observe anything.
And one of the points they discuss is the fact that all locations in the galaxy are not equal in terms of observing the cosmos. IIRC, in some locations the stars in our own galaxy would block our ability to see anything outside of the Milky Way.
quote:Originally posted by Sean: Awesome. I don't understand those who think we could be the only intelligent life in the galaxy, or even the universe.
Just like I don't understand those who think all of this could have happened by accident or chance and not by an intelligent designer.
quote:I have a friend who goes to school at a Bible college which promotes Young Earth Creationism...
Shudders... so often Christendom's churches and universities try to scientifically explain Creation and all they end up doing is muddying the waters and making a mockery of things.
The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Yet, when it does touch on science and the physical universe, it is completely accurate. Sadly most of the churches don't understand or fail to present it as such.
I believe in God. I believe we were created by God. However, the teaching that God made the Earth in 6 literal days and that the planet is only a few thousand years old is inaccurate and misleading. That's not what the Bible says.
quote:Your friend seems to want to limit God's power, while thinking he knows God's plan, and place human kind on a pedestal of some biblical sort.
I got the impression it was the guy Daniel's friend was shouting at/with that had this conclusion.
quote:So why is it automatically assumed that we are NOT the first ones?
LOL! I've said the same thing. It's become quite a SciFi stereotype that there are "Old Ones" out there and Humanity ISN'T it.
quote:Man it would be lonely to be the first. On the flipside, think of all the unclaimed territory out there...
Would these "Old Ones" have these same arguments? From their standpoint the universe would still be vast and capable of supporting other civilizations. Would they be arguing that "there's got to be other, older life out there"?
After all, someone has to be first.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the idea that we're probably not the first one is born out of the fact that there seams to be much older stars and galaxies out there than are own and by extension older planets that may or may not have gotten life started billions of years before our sun was even born. Sure someone had to be first, but odds are it probably wasn't us.
Just take our own planet's history for example, if it weren't for the Chicxulub impact, it's possible some Cretaceous species could have beaten us to the sapient punch by tens of millions of years...who knows, maybe some did and we just don't know it. Indeed (if memory serves) it's debatable whether the Neanderthal pre-date us or not, or even at which point dose a species become truly "intelligent" or sapient.
My main problem with people trying to use the Bible as the basis for the origin of all creation is that it's not a book, it's a collection of disparate texts that have been edited, translated several time and even their inclusion voted on by politically motivated church members. Even then, most of those texts were written by people (ie humans, not God) who spent allot of time out in the desert eating mushrooms an cactus juice...not the most reliable combination.
posted
Well, no. At best, it's an inspired collection of writings. At worst it was written by cactus-juiced nomads.
Here's the thing though... most of what creation accounts in the Bible say are probably consistent with what people who don't believe the Bible is reliable think about the creation of the universe.
1. The physical universe had a start. 2. That start took ALOT of energy. 3. The universe and the earth itself has been around for a looooong time.
Various accounts also touch on things like the Earth's orbit and the differing sizes of stars.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Just take our own planet's history for example, if it weren't for the Chicxulub impact, it's possible some Cretaceous species could have beaten us to the sapient punch by tens of millions of years...
So then Earth would be home to the Mon Calimari? Oh, wait, you said Cretaceous, not crustacean.
posted
And it's also just as presumptuous to assume that we'll be able to recognize life as intelligent, or even alive; their form or methods of communication might be totally different from what we expect.
Who knows? There could be a hyper-intelligent shade or twelve of the color blue out there.
-------------------- "Don't fight forces; use them." --R. Buckminster Fuller
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Well, no. At best, it's an inspired collection of writings. At worst it was written by cactus-juiced nomads.
Sorry, I meant in the context of a document of the universe as a physical reality, not the spiritual aspects. I should have been more precise.
Not that this or other works of creation myth are totally without merit. As I recall the ancient Greek creation myth read as being surprisingly close to some of the early universe/big bang type theories. If you can put the anthropomorphising aspects out of your mind. Though to me it just lends credence to the idea that some ancient civilisations were more advances in terms of astronomy and mathematics than we might think and fragments of that lost knowledge was passed on through stories and myth, though not always in the original context. Not that I'd apply that to Genesis as a verbatim interpretation of something that actually happened, as it's a story that's as much about why women are flawed, untrustworthy and inferior to men as it is about how the world was created.
quote:Originally posted by HopefulNebula: And it's also just as presumptuous to assume that we'll be able to recognize life as intelligent, or even alive; their form or methods of communication might be totally different from what we expect.
Who knows? There could be a hyper-intelligent shade or twelve of the color blue out there.
To paraphrase Arthur C. Clark, it's hard enough finding intelligent life on Earth.
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I agree with Hopeful. Like I said, there could be life made of things we can't even directly perceive. Or even if there is life made of matter like us, they could be intelligent nebulae, stars, or the like. There could be beings made of energy - not in the Trek glowing ball sense, but in the sense of somehow intelligent patterns of movement or heat in massive objects. Even supposing there was life just like us, a la most of sci fi, if it's more advanced than we are it could still go undetected, and if it's not, then it's no wonder they haven't visited us yet.
Also, assuming the life of the universe is finite, it's going to last a *very* long time anyway, and even if there were a trillion species achieving sentience before us, we're *still* one of the oldest. The universe has still been around less than 20 billion years after all. In another hundred trillion that's going to seem like the beginning of time.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
As far as the time thing for Creation, for some odd reason a question popped into my head one night concerning time and gravity. IIRC, the basic theory is that approaching the event horizon of a black hole results in a dilation of time as we know it. Given that the theory is that all matter in the universe existed in one compacted sphere, this would seem to equate not only to infinite mass, but infinite gravity as well. If something the size of a black hole can alter time being of infinitesimally less mass than the Original Ball, what then would be the temporal affect on the OB? The sheer forces required to cause the mass expulsion would be unimaginably enormous, However as the expansion occurred there would still be significant gravitational distortion of time due to the relative amounts of mass within each small sector. Until the galaxies themselves had sufficient separation and had then spun out the individual solar systems with sufficient separation, time itself would not be in operation as we now understand it. Would time be virtually non-existent through the first centillion miles each galactic mass traveled from the OB? As the galactic cores which would have far more mass than a black hole began to coalesce and fling out solar systems would that be when time would start to approach what we know?
Yes, I believe in God, in Jesus Christ and the Bible. If you think that makes me a moron, well, its a semi-free internet and you are entitled to your opinion. Do I think that everything was created in six days? I think it is along the same parameters as being the "First Ones".
It IS a possibility.
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
While I consider myself an atheist, or at least a non-believer, I have no problem accepting most of what is in the holy bible. It has been documented that Jesus WAS a real person, and when you think of it, the bible is pretty much the only venue people of the time had to record history to be delivered to the masses, besides oral history, which can become distorted. Actually, what I have just said kind of makes me question my stance on the whole thing. I have no problem agreeing with Christian beliefs, but I just dont believe in a god, and the deadly sins ( of which I have commited probably a great deal). But as one of my friends pointed out the other day, I do believe in myself, and my friends, the strength of my reltionships, and for the most part, I have faith in humanity.
Damn, this is confusing.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Wiz: Kind of sounds like an explanation for inflation.
Sean, I don't think the "deadly sins" are in the bible. That was something some monk came up with, I think. Like a lot of Catholic doctrine.
I believe life is a rather enjoyable illusion. To explain more fully would take about 25 pages. I might actually do that some day...
posted
I wouldn't call myself an atheist, that would presume I knew enough to make an intelligent judgement as to religion (any and all) being entierly wrong. Agnostic is usually the answer I give as I don't believe I'll even know enough to be sure...at least until I croak, perhaps not even then.
As far as Scientology goes, sounds like your average embryonic religion to me; they always seam to start out weird and out there, perhaps even misunderstood. If that statement seams at odds with the previous one, know that my problem with organised religion isn't with people who are religious or have faith, it's with the "organised" part. Which usually amounts to allot of hypocritical bastards using people's faith and/or fear to control them and tell them what they can and can't think...to a point.
As to the existence of Christ; having a real person around the time with that name leading a splinter group of Jewish religious (and probably political) radicals who later gained a huge following is a long way from having the "son" of God walking around and doing miracles. Given that most of what was written about him was centuries after the fact, I think it's safe to say that the element of the "divine" in those accounts was probably a case of generous PR and your garden variety cult of personality.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
