Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 446,864 views
Imari
NASA disagrees.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-solar-system/life-on-mars.html

The reality is that there is some evidence that suggests that life could have existed on Mars, and may still be able to exist. That doesn't say anything about whether life has or does exist on Mars, because the only proof of that is actually finding it.



That's not how research works. When you're not sure about something, you still do the research because it's the only way to find out if you're correct or not. If people only researched stuff that they were very, very, very sure about, we'd never get anywhere.



Well, the reason why it needs to live under the surface on Mars is that the actual surface is incredibly hostile to life. And not in the "life finds a way in the strangest places" sense, the levels of radiation and reactive chemicals is high enough that it's difficult to see how a self-propagating system would function for long enough to gain enough complexity to form something like that we might deem to be "life". At least in more sheltered conditions a system has more opportunity to develop.
Click to expand...
While to probability is likely low, I dont think it quite as unlikely that life could have found a way to exist on the surface. At least in the areas where there is water. As whatever type of life it be creeps closer to the surface over the course of however many years, it could slowly evolve to adapt to these conditions.
 
Rallywagon
While to probability is likely low, I dont think it quite as unlikely that life could have found a way to exist on the surface. At least in the areas where there is water. As whatever type of life it be creeps closer to the surface over the course of however many years, it could slowly evolve to adapt to these conditions.
Click to expand...

The problem however is that the atmospheric pressure is so low and it's so cold that liquid water can't exist on the surface for any significant period of time. I'm not saying it's impossible, scientists find weird counter-intuitive stuff all the time. But on paper at least, being underground is a massive, massive advantage on Mars, for the same reasons that we don't have populations of birds and insects flying around up in the stratosphere. Life could have inched towards that niche over the millions of years, but it hasn't because it's just a step too far.

We don't know the probability of any random planet forming life, but it seems reasonable to assume that the more ecologically easy niches there are the more likely it is, and that life is likely to fill those ecologically easy niches first. Why develop into an organism that's resistant to ionising radiation and reactive oxygen when you could just live underground? Even if you were such an organism, you'd still live underground unless the competition for resources was so fierce that you were better off living in the harsher environment.

Anything is possible, but if we're looking at relative likelihoods then finding life on the surface of Mars is really very low. There have been experiments on whether any contamination on a probe or lander could survive on Mars, and the conclusion so far seems to be "kinda, sorta, maybe, not really".

https://www.astrobio.net/mars/mars-contamination-dust-up/

While a thin layer of dust or sand could help protect microbes against solar ultraviolet rays, there are at least 10 other factors to contend with on the surface of Mars in addition to the five potentially lethal or "biocidal" factors the researchers tested. These other biocidal factors include galactic cosmic rays, solar particles such as protons or neutrons, or high soil concentrations of toxic heavy metals.

"Whenever multiple biocidal factors are combined, the survival rates plummet quickly," Schuerger said.

It’s hard work to see just how difficult a time terrestrial microbes face on Mars. "There are no full-Mars simulations published yet that include all of the 15 biocidal factors combined," Schuerger said. "It is nearly impossible to conduct such experiments. I am attempting to combine between two and four factors in new research, but the work goes slowly because multi-factored experiments are much more difficult than single-factor experiments."
Click to expand...

If you're looking for liquid water, under the polar ice caps is still the best bet as far as I'm aware.

https://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/astrobio-top-10-liquid-water-discovered-on-mars/

Life in such cold and salty conditions would be a long shot, but not wholly unsurprising if it were to be found.
 
We unquestionably live in a universe that is fine-tuned for life. In order for this to be random chance, there must be more universes than there are atoms in our own universe, anywhere from one followed by 500 zeroes to infinity. No-nonsense mathematician, writer and debunker Martin Gardner, wrote a column for Scientific American for 25 years and was a founding member of arch-skeptic CSICOP. He did not buy the multiverse solution. In his book, Are Universes Thicker than Blackberries, he writes,
There is not the slightest shred of credible evidence that there is any universe other than the one we are in. No multiverse theory has so far provided a prediction that can be tested....Surely the conjecture that there is just one universe and its Creator is infinitely simpler and easier to believe than that there are countless billions upon billions of worlds, constantly increasing in number and created by nobody. I can only marvel at the low state to which today's philosophy of science has fallen.​

"There is no way to test the multiverse hypothesis. This is ruled out even in principle because the with different laws of physics in different universes - the key hypothesis - there is no possibility of any observation. So it is not a scientifically provable theory. This belief in a multiverse is a faith, no matter how you dress it up in scientific language and mathematics."
- astronomer Bernard Haisch​

 
Dotini
We unquestionably live in a universe that is fine-tuned for life
Click to expand...

That's questionable, particularly the implication that there's been an agent action upon the universe in pursuit of a particular outcome. There hasn't. There's a massive mind-boggling amount of random chance. We're in a good position to see that as the sentient outcome of one huge set of mind-bogglingly-extensive random chances.
 
I mean, on one hand the "no-nonsense debunker" says the multiverse theory has no evidence, and then goes on to talk about a "Creator" for which there is no evidence. Leads me to doubt his no-nonsense and debunked titles.
Haisch at least doesnt take his feeling onto the supernatural path.
 
You'd think that a mathematician would understand that you can't make statistical inferences about a population when you have a sample size of one. Particularly when you have absolutely no idea what the overall population size even is.
 
Danoff
Can you explain why a creator is simpler? Can he? This statement is not obvious by a long shot.
Click to expand...
I mean, I think we kinda do know the creator myth is easier because you dont actually have to think or do any real work proving the theory. The creator cant be weighed and measured or ever seen, but works in mysterious ways putting the universe together in just the right way for humans to exist.
 
Rallywagon
I mean, I think we kinda do know the creator myth is easier because you dont actually have to think or do any real work proving the theory. The creator cant be weighed and measured or ever seen, but works in mysterious ways putting the universe together in just the right way for humans to exist.
Click to expand...

But that relies on the idea that you're happy with putting the most basic and ill-constructed version of the creator myth (one creator, don't ask any more questions or it'll be bed with no dinner) up against a version of the multiverse hypothesis that is required to be far more in depth.

If you actually take either a multiverse or a creator as a starting point, then sit down and draw out all the logical consequences of that idea and try to address them, I think it's VERY debatable which is more complex. Frankly, without more information or restrictions, I don't think you can stop either one of them from turning into an infinite series which is ultimately no more explainable or explanatory than no idea at all.
 
I agree both ideas are very debatable and have questions and problems. So what is there really to choose between them in a practical, useful and everyday sense? If our universe is a truly random event in an infinity of random universes, then how can it have innate and intrinsic meaning and purpose? But if our universe was designed and created with meaning and purpose, then doesn't it make more sense that our individual lives take on more meaning and purpose?
 
Imari
But that relies on the idea that you're happy with putting the most basic and ill-constructed version of the creator myth (one creator, don't ask any more questions or it'll be bed with no dinner) up against a version of the multiverse hypothesis that is required to be far more in depth.

If you actually take either a multiverse or a creator as a starting point, then sit down and draw out all the logical consequences of that idea and try to address them, I think it's VERY debatable which is more complex. Frankly, without more information or restrictions, I don't think you can stop either one of them from turning into an infinite series which is ultimately no more explainable or explanatory than no idea at all.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that multiverse is any more tangible. Only that it's always easier to say "because of a great creator" than it is develop a theory that is testable and repeatable.

Dotini
I agree both ideas are very debatable and have questions and problems. So what is there really to choose between them in a practical, useful and everyday sense? If our universe is a truly random event in an infinity of random universes, then how can it have innate and intrinsic meaning and purpose? But if our universe was designed and created with meaning and purpose, then doesn't it make more sense that our individual lives take on more meaning and purpose?
Click to expand...
The universe has no purpose or mean, it just is. What you personally find purpose and meaning is on you. There's no need for a great creator to find purpose and meaning in your life, or to assume the universe has some sort of purpose for you, much less even has the faculty to consider you. We may or may not be alone, but if the idea is that a creator made all of this for us, why would they create a potentially boundless universe for us to reside in. Surely a single star system or even galaxy would suffice.
 
Rallywagon
I'm not arguing that multiverse is any more tangible. Only that it's always easier to say "because of a great creator" than it is develop a theory that is testable and repeatable.
Click to expand...

One could come up with a creation hypothesis that was robust and testable. Just like one could come up with a bare bones multiverse hypothesis; "There are many completely independent universes and we happen to be in this one which is why it looks the way it does, the end". See?

It only looks like they're of differing complexities when you overly simplify one but not the other. Both ideas are so vague that they're as simple or as complex as you want them to be.

Dotini
I agree both ideas are very debatable and have questions and problems. So what is there really to choose between them in a practical, useful and everyday sense?
Click to expand...

Truth?

It's OK, I know you don't believe in truth.

If our universe is a truly random event in an infinity of random universes, then how can it have innate and intrinsic meaning and purpose? But if our universe was designed and created with meaning and purpose, then doesn't it make more sense that our individual lives take on more meaning and purpose?
Click to expand...

c1c.jpeg
 
Rather than looking for an elusive and possibly unknowable "truth", I think maybe we should be looking for the best way to live our lives here and now on Earth.
 
Danoff
Evidence, or we don't choose. You're missing the part where you do not need to know the answer.
Click to expand...
All the science evidence is on a fine-tuned universe. The only question is, is this by design or by chance? I choose design, since that grants meaning and purpose. Those that choose chance and no meaning or purpose are going to have a bit harder time in life, but certainly that is not an insuperable handicap.
 
Dotini
All the science evidence is on a fine-tuned universe. The only question is, is this by design or by chance? I choose design, since that grants meaning and purpose. Those that choose chance and no meaning or purpose are going to have a bit harder time in life, but certainly that is not an insuperable handicap.
Click to expand...
What science says the universe is fine tuned?
 
Dotini
If our universe is a truly random event in an infinity of random universes, then how can it have innate and intrinsic meaning and purpose?
Click to expand...
My life has meaning and purpose because I say it does. If there is a creator, whatever purpose the universe was intended to have has no significance for me.
 
Exorcet
My life has meaning and purpose because I say it does. If there is a creator, whatever purpose the universe was intended to have has no significance for me.
Click to expand...
I lived most my life in the same belief as that, and seemed to do okay. My life had meaning and purpose simply because I instilled it. I changed my mind recently.
 
Dotini
If our universe is a truly random event in an infinity of random universes, then how can it have innate and intrinsic meaning and purpose?
Click to expand...

Simple. It doesn't. Nor is there a reason why it should.

But if our universe was designed and created with meaning and purpose, then doesn't it make more sense that our individual lives take on more meaning and purpose?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, granting your "if". But there's no reason why our lives should have meaning and/or purpose, either.
 
Dotini
I lived most my life in the same belief as that, and seemed to do okay. My life had meaning and purpose simply because I instilled it. I changed my mind recently.
Click to expand...
If self defined meaning was enough in the past, doesn't it show that a person doesn't need to having meaning supplied from elsewhere? It would be hard to delude yourself with something that doesn't work at all (though not impossible).
 
Exorcet
If self defined meaning was enough in the past, doesn't it show that a person doesn't need to having meaning supplied from elsewhere?
Click to expand...
That's a good question, because in my case and yours, self-defined meaning got the job done, no problem. I suspect the same thing is true for many forum members. I changed my mind because my recent reading combined with my experience in a world increasingly and obviously afflicted by nihilism and alienation made it seem an unattractive idea to explore. I'm glad I did!
 
Exorcet
My life has meaning and purpose because I say it does. If there is a creator, whatever purpose the universe was intended to have has no significance for me.
Click to expand...

I wonder if perhaps as one grows old enough and sees a rapidly approaching demise that it might not instigate a search for a greater "meaning" to life, the universe and everything. You know, something to make you feel like you haven't wasted your life, or that there might be something more beyond that final breath.

I wouldn't be able to say, I'm too young to be anywhere near that stage and because of my life experiences I've got a pretty devil-may-care attitude to death as it is. But I could see how as someone got older they might find their perspectives shifting towards a need for meaning and purpose. It's not particularly rational, but understandable.
 
Imari
I wonder if perhaps as one grows old enough and sees a rapidly approaching demise that it might not instigate a search for a greater "meaning" to life, the universe and everything. You know, something to make you feel like you haven't wasted your life, or that there might be something more beyond that final breath.

I wouldn't be able to say, I'm too young to be anywhere near that stage and because of my life experiences I've got a pretty devil-may-care attitude to death as it is. But I could see how as someone got older they might find their perspectives shifting towards a need for meaning and purpose. It's not particularly rational, but understandable.
Click to expand...

I don't want to imply that @Dotini or anyone in a similar position is wrong for feeling as they do. It's the notion that a fulfilling world needs, as in must have, a purpose from a higher power that I disagree with. Perhaps someone is unable to find meaningful goals for themselves, why not take up someone else's goal? Are the desires of another person worth less than an unseen god? At the very least assisting a real person lets you see the fruits of your labor.

I agree with you that certain pressures can drive people to seek things that might not be purely rational. Something I hate is to be at the mercy of circumstance or chance. I suppose aging fits into that category fairly well.
 
Dotini
All the science evidence is on a fine-tuned universe. The only question is, is this by design or by chance? I choose design, since that grants meaning and purpose. Those that choose chance and no meaning or purpose are going to have a bit harder time in life, but certainly that is not an insuperable handicap.
Click to expand...

Multiple flaws in this. First, there is no evidence of a fine-tuned universe. Second, design and chance may not be the only options - false dichotomy. Third, you don't get to choose what the truth is when you don't know it.
 
Exorcet
I don't want to imply that @Dotini or anyone in a similar position is wrong for feeling as they do. It's the notion that a fulfilling world needs, as in must have, a purpose from a higher power that I disagree with.
Click to expand...

Correct. Feelings in and of themselves are not wrong, you can't be wrong about feeling the way that you do. However it's not then a given that ones feelings are in concordance with objective reality. Part of what has made humans so successful is their ability to analyse an emotional response and determine whether it's accurate or just some in-built twitch in our squishy monkey meat brains. Sometimes feelings and intuition can be misleading.

I agree with you that certain pressures can drive people to seek things that might not be purely rational. Something I hate is to be at the mercy of circumstance or chance. I suppose aging fits into that category fairly well.
Click to expand...

It also fits into the category of a fate which you cannot escape. Humans will instinctively rebel against that, it's why reverse psychology works so well. We don't much like being told that this is the way things are and there's nothing you can do about it. The brain, being the marvellous pattern recognition organ that it is, will go to extraordinary lengths to try and fill an emotional need like this with anything it can.

Danoff
Multiple flaws in this. First, there is no evidence of a fine-tuned universe. Second, design and chance may not be the only options - false dichotomy. Third, you don't get to choose what the truth is when you don't know it.
Click to expand...

Fourth, it's not at all established that believing in a universe of meaning and purpose gets you an easier life.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Chris30
My Mom Has Cancer! (Need Advice)!
2 3
Replies
64
Views
5K
Chris30
Chris30
Vince_Fiero
Creation of wealth, the ideal distribution
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
Vince_Fiero
Vince_Fiero
HyperState
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution question
Replies
5
Views
4K
Magog
Magog
SYLVERIS
  • Locked
OFFLINE PLAYERS VS ONLINE RACERS, OFFLINE PLAYERS WON !
Replies
1
Views
1K
daan
daan
GranTurNismo
The Future of Joe Biden
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Imari
Imari

Latest Posts

Back