What if ... we were truly alone in the universe?

originally posted by: caterpillage

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.”

Douglas adams

Some evolutionists have estimated the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros); and the chance of obtaining all the enzymes that are needed for the cell’s activity at random to be one chance in 10^40,000 (the simplest of histones: one in 20^100). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe! (10^80)

When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”

Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.” (Evolution From Space, pp. 30, 31, 130.) Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,”⁠(1) as Dawkins expressed it. Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life.(2)⁠ In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?

1: The Selfish Gene, p. 14.
2: Evolution From Space, p. 31.

The numbers Hoyle and Wickremasinghe were referring to that are “just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one”, were for example concerning the chance of obtaining all the enzymes that are needed for the cell’s activity at random. Which they calculated to be one chance in 10^40,000! “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”⁠ (Evolution From Space, p. 24.)

Of course, the same counts for life originating spontaneously anywhere else in the universe. However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”⁠ (New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.)

More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20^100​—another huge number “larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes.” (Evolution From Space, p. 27.)

There is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,” Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, “to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: “Yet here we are​—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”⁠ Does that sound like objective science? (Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46.)

British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as “simple dogmatism​—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen.”⁠ (The Immense Journey, by Loren Eiseley, 1957, p. 200.) How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” (p. 199)

Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such matters in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding dogmatism prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific method.

Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds against a spontaneous origin for life, said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” He further observed that after Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”⁠ A sad but true commentary. (Physics Bulletin, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” p. 138.)

Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor at University College, Cardiff, said: “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. . . . For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe​—and finding it.” In other words, it is just not possible that life could have originated from a chemical accident. (Daily Express, London, “There Must Be a God,” by Geoffrey Levy, p. 28)

Arthur C. Clarke — 'Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.'

That pretty much sums up my feelings on this.

While I believe it is not possible we are alone, the odds are there are a lot of planets that share a similar goldilocks position to us that are ruled by dinosaurs.

originally posted by: Tortuga
...the odds are there are a lot of planets that share a similar goldilocks position to us that are ruled by dinosaurs.

Only to those who actually ignore what is mentioned about the odds in my previous comment (not even considering the thing you said about dinosaurs).

I.e. in people's biased and indoctrinated imagination based on the same irrational fallacious argument, 'oh the universe is so vast'. The problem is, the odds of life emerging by accident anywhere in the universe, are so “outrageously small”, that they cannot be overcome “even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” (quotations from previous comment)

The odds mentioned in that comment, “are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.” “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup,” as some people do when they bring up how vast the universe is that they can't even imagine life not having emerged on its own (spontaneously, accidentily) anywhere else in the universe. Of course, they won't spell it out like I just did when bringing up the part that the universe is so vast. See for example how 0zzymand0s put it:

Our local area of the universe (our sun and its planets) seems so fine-tuned for life that it is hard to imagine a universe without that system repeating itself an infinite number of times.

Question: if the universe is finite, why would anything like that 'repeat itself an infinite number of times'? Why would one even imagine that being the case, especially if we don't have any conclusive evidence that such a finely tuned system is even repeated once in the entire known or studied universe? Twisted storylines filled with baseless assumptions and twisted interpretations to force-fit the idea don't count (usually also ignoring crucial factors that need to be finely tuned for life to exist, survive or be preserved and thrive; arguing from fantasy, such as regarding utterly unknown lifeforms of a sort that doesn't require the same crucial finely tuned factors, doesn't count either. It's not much better than arguing from ignorance: 'but nature found a way', right? 'Life found a way to overcome the odds'?).

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If there is no alien out there, then there will be one from our own species through speciation evolution in outer space.

a reply to: whereislogic

You don't know, and neither do I.

Since aliens are just another configuration of life , and artificial of natural development from humans will spread throughout the universe ; by the time we are capable to even search nearly for them , there will not be any different between the two (so the question becomes moot).

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I think the more operable question is...what if we are NOT alone in the universe?

There are doubters, but the Fermi Paradox is really not arguable. There's no one else out there.

And, even if there was, they are irrelevant to human existence. The human species will never know of them, they will never meet them or benefit from them in any way.

We know with a reasonable degree of certainty that there is no intelligent life in our solar system. So, let's just pretend for a moment...Let's say tomorrow morning we received a message from "ET", and the message said..."Hello Earthlings, I am ET, I have the solution to all your problems, so hit me back and we'll talk."

Okay, so first there's a problem with this. ET would have had to have known millions of years BEFORE the dawn of the human race that we would exist when his message arrived. How is that possible? Secondly, let's say we respond, let's say we decide to "hit him back" with a response. Our message will take millions of years to reach him (if he's still around). How old will we be then? And, let's say he responds back with the secrets of the Universe, the Holy Grail of knowledge. His message is going to take millions of years to reach us. Now, the human race is millions + millions of years older. Does the human civilization even exist then??? (at the rate we're going presently, probably not).

And all of that hypothetical scenario above assumes ET just "reached out and touched someone"

People can fantasize about FTL travel, and travel through worm holes or whatever, but the reality is...humans will never be able to do these things. The "concepts" may turn out to be sound, but the human form will never be able to do these things. They just won't. So, other than just curiosity it doesn't really matter.

When ET "phones home"...there won't be anyone at home to answer.

Silly humans!

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Hypothetical, of course.

BUT, How can we be "Alone in the Universe", when we are not even alone on Earth?

We are surrounded by Millions of species of life of all kinds, indeed, even our own multi cell organism bodies, are hosts to Millions of germ, bacteria, parasites, etc, all Living In and On each of us, all the time.

Even the air we breathe and water we drink is home to micro and macro life.

What if all these bugs, in human's bodies, are asking themselves.....I Wonder if we are Alone, in this World ??.

a reply to: gort51

Good point also. Just another example of how Humans are so selfish. Why are we looking to the stars when we can be looking all around us here on this blue orb we call Earth? Further, if ET showed up tomorrow there's about a 99.99999% chance we wouldn't even recognize him. For that matter, ET could be here right now and we wouldn't know it. In a way, this only proves Fermi right once again. Even if we did eventually recognize ET, his form would be so vastly different from ours we wouldn't know how to engage him. ET could be an energy force, he could be at the nuclear level, he could not have any form at all...ET would likely be so different we wouldn't even recognize him as ET.

So, either ET is here with us right now...or he doesn't exist.

Once again...Silly humans!

originally posted by: whereislogic
Question: if the universe is finite...

There is no evidence the universe is finite.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It doesn't have to be that far.

There are more closely earth-like planets around nearby star systems like Alpha Centauri, which is within our travel range.

a reply to: EasternShadow

'Within our travel range'...in what century??

Not in this century, or the next...not even in the one after that!

People just do not seem to understand, the human physiological form is simply not suited to long distance space travel, no matter how you slice it. Even traveling within our Solar System is at the absolute limits of the human form (not to mention technology). People just don't understand how far it is to another solar system.

Voyager 1 was launched from Earth 42 years ago. It will take another 30,300 years for Voyager to exit our Solar System. And that's just our solar system! Now granted, Voyager is taking a somewhat circuitous route out of the solar system, but so too will anyone else in the future have to take a similarly circuitous route. It's the nature of space travel, gravitational pull makes this a necessity.

You can't just travel in a straight line between point A and point B. And, even if you could, you wouldn't want to, for a variety of reasons.

originally posted by: Tortuga
a reply to: whereislogic

You don't know, and neither do I.

Speak for yourself. No need to project your conveniently selective agnosticism on me. I'm not a member of that flock. There is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,” Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, “to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.”

So no, no dinosaurs or other aliens on other planets unless a creator(s) made them, and I know the one who created life on earth didn't, based on the evidence of a source that I have found to be* way more reliable and honest than the ones quoted above and the rest of my previous commentary; some of whom, like the person quoted above, contradict their own acknowledgements by claiming it happened anyway (by chance, by accident, spontaneously) because we're here. A nice circular argument from fantasy and wishful thinking, dissing the evidence to the contrary that he just acknowledged there. You get some real ironic results in those trying to deny and/or ignore the evidence for creation and stubbornly holding on to philosophical naturalism, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

And if another creator or creators made life on other planets in the universe, that information would have been included in the earlier mentioned reliable source of truth.

“What Is Truth?”

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.​—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth​—especially moral and spiritual truth—​is not absolute but relative and ever changing.
...
The statement that prompted Pilate’s question is worth noting. Jesus had said: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37) Truth to Jesus was no vague, incomprehensible concept. He promised his disciples: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”​—John 8:32.

Where can such truth be found? On one occasion, Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) ...

*: I have found the following to be true in life as well:

“But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.”—Rom. 3:4.

I hope this comment didn't have too much of an edge. Don't know how else to put it.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Blue Shift

There's evidence, and there's belief. People believe that there might be life, but what if they knew for certain that there wasn't?

I don't think very many people live their lives wondering how best to impress an alien species with our human awesomeness, so I doubt that anything would change.

However, a lot of people I know work very hard to make a good impression on people who either don't know and don't care, or are actually dead. Parents, old friends who are long gone, ex-spouses, authority figures, etc.

But I still have a hard time imagining us finding out that we're the only game in town and people bemoaning that we'll never get to show aliens our cool pyramids or our little tin machines on the Moon.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor at University College, Cardiff, [...]

Isn't this the same guy who claimed to have found alien life in dust cloud rain? I'm not sure if he's your best source, and if he is, you don't have much of an argument.
www.onlanka.com...

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: AaarghZombies

It go as far as saying that scenario is impossible.

I think it's greatly unlikely we are all alone in totality.

Of course it's possible. It's entirely possible and judging on the actual evidence that we currently hve, it's likely that we're alone.

Until there's evidence that suggests otherwise, that's what it looks like.

a reply to: Blue Shift

He's in there to show what some scientists who believe in the spontaneous generation of life, i.e. the chemical evolution theory of life a.k.a. the hypothesis of abiogenesis, are willing to acknowledge and how they use circular reasoning to argue it happened (by chance, by accident, spontaneously) anyway because we're here.

This argument also comes in another form, usually in response to any numbers being discussed in terms of odds, involving the topic of someone winning a lottery and therefore supposedly beating the odds that were stacked against that person to win the lottery. Which is a poor comparison or analogy anyway, cause we're not talking about odds here for just any person winning the lottery once. A better example would be 1 particular person winning the lottery 10^40000 in a row. Someone might begin to think that the lottery is fixed and that therefore it's not a real lottery, chance is no longer a causal factor of this person winning the lottery over and over so many times; it's by design that this is happening, that would be a more appropiate and rational conclusion. It's not coincidence (by accident, by chance).

a reply to: gort51

I covered that when I excluded things that we brought with us, and said that everywhere else was dead rocks and gas.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: AaarghZombies

I think the more operable question is...what if we are NOT alone in the universe?

There are doubters, but the Fermi Paradox is really not arguable. There's no one else out there.

And, even if there was, they are irrelevant to human existence. The human species will never know of them, they will never meet them or benefit from them in any way.

We know with a reasonable degree of certainty that there is no intelligent life in our solar system. So, let's just pretend for a moment...Let's say tomorrow morning we received a message from "ET", and the message said..."Hello Earthlings, I am ET, I have the solution to all your problems, so hit me back and we'll talk."

Okay, so first there's a problem with this. ET would have had to have known millions of years BEFORE the dawn of the human race that we would exist when his message arrived. How is that possible? Secondly, let's say we respond, let's say we decide to "hit him back" with a response. Our message will take millions of years to reach him (if he's still around). How old will we be then? And, let's say he responds back with the secrets of the Universe, the Holy Grail of knowledge. His message is going to take millions of years to reach us. Now, the human race is millions + millions of years older. Does the human civilization even exist then??? (at the rate we're going presently, probably not).

And all of that hypothetical scenario above assumes ET just "reached out and touched someone"

People can fantasize about FTL travel, and travel through worm holes or whatever, but the reality is...humans will never be able to do these things. The "concepts" may turn out to be sound, but the human form will never be able to do these things. They just won't. So, other than just curiosity it doesn't really matter.

When ET "phones home"...there won't be anyone at home to answer.

Silly humans!

Great question ... For another thread.