Again, I can claim earth is unique because no two planetary circumstances are going to be the same, and that's a fact.
That is not a fact. Don't say something is a fact when it's totally unverifiable. Anyone with a brain knows you're full of *beep*
doesn't seem to imply that humans are the only form of intelligent life in the universe. The point of saying it is self obvious.
First of all, the term you're looking for is self evident.
Second of all, your statement was incredibly vague. I took from the context of the previous post that you were suggesting humanity was "very special for many reasons."
Rare=out of the usual. Intelligent life, IMO as we understand intelligence, would require very high levels of complexity which would require long periods of stable geological time with non-extreme circumstances. That's why I think it is out of the usual for a given body at a given time to harbor intelligent life.
I should have known your definition of rare would be vague. So by rare, you meant "abnormal."
And do you have no concept of history? Our world has experienced some incredibly cataclysmic events and yet life persists. Further, your reasoning is specious at best. Do you have any background in any of the sciences?
That sentence wasn't redundant. Higher life, intelligent life, and sentient life aren't the same thing.
Yes, it was redundant. If you think it was not, let me post the two sentences together. If you STILL think it isn't redundant, I suggest you look up what the word means.
"Higher life is much rarer, though on the universal scale, extremely abundant. Sentient life, in a way we would recognize it, is probably very rare, but again, on a universal scale, still very abundant."
Both sentences have the same meaning, they're just worded slightly differently. You say there's a difference, but since you didn't define either of the terms you used, how is anyone supposed to know you intended them to be different(even though they aren't). But you're wrong anyway, sentience is a prerequisite for intelligence.
In fact, it's part of the definition. Sentience is consciousness, which one most possess in order to be considered intelligent.
I am curious how you would define "higher life" however. Since I've now established that sentient life and intelligent life are the same thing.
Who would argue that the universe is empty because matter takes up so little volume within the universe? That's ridiculous and shouldn't be said as it has nothing to do with what I am saying whatsoever. However, one could rightly argue that baryonic matter makes up only a tiny fraction of the known universe. What I was trying to get at is that while there may be millions and millions of inhabited planets out there, on the universal scale, that's a minuscule number.
It's called an analogy. I should have known you wouldn't be able to grasp it from this conversation. Silly me for assuming too much of you.
I also think it's funny how you seem to believe you know the number of planets in the universe, even though we don't even know how many stars there are. There are over 300 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone, and current estimates suggest there are over 170 billion galaxies in the known universe. And our galaxy isn't even that "big" in terms of how many stars there are contained within. Your estimates don't even come close to the scale we're talking about here.
Further, preliminary estimates from Kepler suggest there may be as many as 17 billion Earth sized planets in our galaxy alone. Extrapolate that to the rest of the universe and you begin to realize how absurd your suggestions are.
You're arguing from ignorance, which is fallacious reasoning. You're severely lacking in information and using that for a basis for your argument.
Edited to add this link:
http://theweek.com/article/index/212385/the-milky-ways-500-million-pot entially-habitable-planets
You are WAY off on your estimations.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
reply
share