a human world?

[kandaurov]

OCEAN, n.
A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills.

from The Devil's Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce

I was just wondering, do you think the world was created for man?

[manolia]

No. But then again i am an agnosticist what do i know ?..:lol:

[kilted exile]

Nope, and this is a good thing for people like me (keeps creating work)

[Lote-Tree]

OCEAN, n.
A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills.


And can't drink any of it!



I was just wondering, do you think the world was created for man?

No longer. From Galeilo onwards - such arrogance has been slowly replaced with very much needed humility...

[kandaurov]

For the record, I too think that the world wasn't created for mankind. I was trying to create a debate between two opposite views, but so far it seems that we all agree - which is the worse that can happen in a debate thread :p

[Lote-Tree]

For the record, I too think that the world wasn't created for mankind. I was trying to create a debate between two opposite views, but so far it seems that we all agree - which is the worse that can happen in a debate thread :p

Then you started it wrongly ;-)

You should have insisted that it is made for man!

[kandaurov]

Good point. I surely could try my hand at defending that point of view, but I honestly thought that people who really think that themselves would speak their minds. I was wrong, and now it's too late. I'm no good at starting threads :p

[cuppajoe_9]

If it was, I desire urgently to have words with the manufacturer.

[bhekti]

The world is for man. But.. is man for the world?

[Lote-Tree]

Good point. I surely could try my hand at defending that point of view, but I honestly thought that people who really think that themselves would speak their minds. I was wrong, and now it's too late. I'm no good at starting threads :p

To argue for a winning cause is quite easy. Anyone can do it. But to argue for a losing cause - that is a challenge! And it is these challenges that are worth pursuing because they give you a different perspective - another viewpoint - from which to assertain why this viewpoint may be faulty :-)

[hyperborean]

The earth is a school. We are merely students.

[Redzeppelin]

If it was, I desire urgently to have words with the manufacturer.

Fine. Bow your head, and say this: "Hi there, God: it's joe and I have a few questions for you." If you're sincere, He will give you answers.

As far as the world being created for humanity, here:

1. Earth's distance from sun: too close, too hot for life; too far, too cold.
2. Sun's short-term and long-term luminosity variability: must be in proper ranges for photosnythesis.
3. Tilt of planetary axis: necessary for seasons. All three forms of water are necessary to maximize life variables.
4. Number of moons: must have one for tidal forces, but more than one would create unbearable tidal instability.
5. Ratio of oceans to continents: must be correct to keep global temperatures stable (land and water absord heat at different rates).
6. Atmospheric transparency: important for both rate of photosynthesis and degree of energy transfer (heat) to earth.


Astrophysisist Hugh Ross has applied probablility theory to the 128 parameters necessary for life to exist on earth: the probability of one planet having all 128 characteristics is 1 chance in 10 to the 166th power.

Yeah - it was designed for us.

Coda for joe: the earth as it is currently (in terms of human behavior/society and its physical characteristics) was not the original plan. We kind of messed that up by sinning (and what was that sin? To pretend that we were the equals of God - that we didn't need Him. Sound familiar?)

[kilted exile]

As far as the world being created for humanity, here:

1. Earth's distance from sun: too close, too hot for life; too far, too cold.
2. Sun's short-term and long-term luminosity variability: must be in proper ranges for photosnythesis.
3. Tilt of planetary axis: necessary for seasons. All three forms of water are necessary to maximize life variables.
4. Number of moons: must have one for tidal forces, but more than one would create unbearable tidal instability.
5. Ratio of oceans to continents: must be correct to keep global temperatures stable (land and water absord heat at different rates).
6. Atmospheric transparency: important for both rate of photosynthesis and degree of energy transfer (heat) to earth.


Astrophysisist Hugh Ross has applied probablility theory to the 128 parameters necessary for life to exist on earth: the probability of one planet having all 128 characteristics is 1 chance in 10 to the 166th power.

Yeah - it was designed for us.



Using this logic however, it would be just as acceptable to say the world was made for bunny rabbits.

[cuppajoe_9]

Fine. Bow your head, and say this: "Hi there, God: it's joe and I have a few questions for you." If you're sincere, He will give you answers.I imagine it's fairly clear that I was joking.


1. Earth's distance from sun: too close, too hot for life; too far, too cold.
2. Sun's short-term and long-term luminosity variability: must be in proper ranges for photosnythesis.
3. Tilt of planetary axis: necessary for seasons. All three forms of water are necessary to maximize life variables.
4. Number of moons: must have one for tidal forces, but more than one would create unbearable tidal instability.
5. Ratio of oceans to continents: must be correct to keep global temperatures stable (land and water absord heat at different rates).
6. Atmospheric transparency: important for both rate of photosynthesis and degree of energy transfer (heat) to earth.I know. Very nice. However, it also contains:

1. Numerous species that find humans delicious (human predation by wolves is still a fact of life in some of the poorer Eastern European countries). These were put there by God, if Genesis is to be believed.
2. Various extremely interesting seismic and atmospheric phenomena that routinely result in large-scale death on the part of human beings completely at random.
3. A host of microbiological nasty little things that have, more than once, wiped out a quarter of the human population, also put there by God according to Genesis.


Astrophysisist Hugh Ross has applied probablility theory to the 128 parameters necessary for life to exist on earth: the probability of one planet having all 128 characteristics is 1 chance in 10 to the 166th power.Astrophysicist Hugh Ross is making the falicious assumption that life cannot exist in a form different form the one we currently see it in.


Using this logic however, it would be just as acceptable to say the world was made for bunny rabbits.Nematode worms, actually. They're microscopic, and they still have a biomass much larger than that of Homo sapiens sapiens.


Yeah - it was designed for us.No, we were 'desinged' for it.


Coda for joe: the earth as it is currently (in terms of human behavior/society and its physical characteristics) was not the original plan. We kind of messed that up by sinning (and what was that sin? To pretend that we were the equals of God - that we didn't need Him. Sound familiar?)Oh really? That's very interesting, but are you sure that sin wasn't arrogant, agressive, pulpit-bashing, biggoted, asinine, prosyletic bullying? Does that sound familiar?

[Virgil]

OCEAN, n.
A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills.

from The Devil's Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce

I was just wondering, do you think the world was created for man?

Whether God exists or not, of course it's here for us. Who else is it here for? And we all use it. All of us, including you. We don't live in caves and hunt for food. We live in houses made of wood from trees and drive in cars made of steel from iron out of the ground burning oil dug up from the ground. And we use electricity and heat our homes and use water for plumbing and fly in planes in the air and sail in boats on the water. We build bridges and tunnels and skyscrapers.

We are human and we control the earth. We manipulate nature.

That does not mean we shouldn't be good stewarts of the environment. I don't intend this to be a environmnetal debate.

[kilted exile]

Whether God exists or not, of course it's here for us. Who else is it here for? And we all use it. All of us, including you. We don't live in caves and hunt for food. We live in houses made of wood from trees and drive in cars made of steel from iron out of the ground burning oil dug up from the ground. And we use electricity and heat our homes and use water for plumbing and fly in planes in the air and sail in boats on the water. We build bridges and tunnels and skyscrapers.

We are human and we control the earth. We manipulate nature.


That we do, and I think if the earth was made for us, we would be better suited to exist in it without making these changes (this is not to say we shouldnt make these changes). There are many other organisms which are more suited to exist in the environment/wilderness than us.

We change the world to make it suitable for us.

[Redzeppelin]

I imagine it's fairly clear that I was joking.

It was - but there's always that chance...


I know. Very nice. However, it also contains:

1. Numerous species that find humans delicious (human predation by wolves is still a fact of life in some of the poorer Eastern European countries). These were put there by God, if Genesis is to be believed.
2. Various extremely interesting seismic and atmospheric phenomena that routinely result in large-scale death on the part of human beings completely at random.
3. A host of microbiological nasty little things that have, more than once, wiped out a quarter of the human population, also put there by God according to Genesis.

No, not quite: Genesis does not indicate that these things were put on earth in their destructive form - after creation God said it was "good" - which means that these things in their destructive form did not exist. Once humanity brought sin into the world, all of reality was changed; not only did human nature degrade, but nature degraded as well. Sin affects all of the "spheres" of existence: human, natural, spiritual.


Astrophysicist Hugh Ross is making the falicious assumption that life cannot exist in a form different form the one we currently see it in.

Since the form we have in front of us is the only one we can really say does exist (and to assume all kinds of other life-forms is merely groundless speculation until exploration of other planets proves otherwise), I think it a fair assumption for Mr. Ross to make. We cannot call his argument "fallacious" simply because he does not allow for life-form configurations that we have no reason to believe exist (without some sort of evidence or reasonable hypothesis to follow).


Oh really? That's very interesting, but are you sure that sin wasn't arrogant, agressive, pulpit-bashing, biggoted, asinine, prosyletic bullying? Does that sound familiar?

Sure it does - because the atheists on these threads resort to this kind of bashing pretty regularly. But, these things weren't around in the beginning - they showed up later, and - regrettably - proliferated. I don't know why atheists keep wanting to act like the fact that sinful Christians exist is some sort of "handful of aces" that invalidates everything we say. It doesn't. You pick the worst exceptions in Christianity and thrust them at us as if it proves some major point about God or Christianity. It does so only as much as a few bad cops indict all police officers, or a few crooked lawyers indict all lawyers.

[cuppajoe_9]

It was - but there's always that chance...I'll tell you what: if I suddenly become a theist, I'll tell you about it. Until then, work on the assumption that I haven't. Fair?


Since the form we have in front of us is the only one we can really say does exist (and to assume all kinds of other life-forms is merely groundless speculation until exploration of other planets proves otherwise), I think it a fair assumption for Mr. Ross to make.To put it another way: the chances of drawing any given hand of bridge in a particular order is one in trillions. But to cite this as evidence that the deck is stacked would be evidence of insanity, because if you didn't draw that hand, you would have drawn another equally unlikely one. Mr. Ross is making a similar fallacy. If the universe wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way. If it happened to be a way that didn't support us, we wouldn't be talking about it.


Sure it does - because the atheists on these threads resort to this kind of bashing pretty regularly. But, these things weren't around in the beginning - they showed up later, and - regrettably - proliferated.Wow. Ok, I thought that I made it pretty clear, but I was talking to you about the specific statement that you made. That sinful Christians exist has nothing to do with the fact that if you personally attack me, I will get angry. What other people do is moot.

[Redzeppelin]

I'll tell you what: if I suddenly become a theist, I'll tell you about it. Until then, work on the assumption that I haven't. Fair?

You made the joke, my friend. I just went along with it.


To put it another way: the chances of drawing any given hand of bridge in a particular order is one in trillions. But to cite this as evidence that the deck is stacked would be evidence of insanity, because if you didn't draw that hand, you would have drawn another equally unlikely one. Mr. Ross is making a similar fallacy. If the universe wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way. If it happened to be a way that didn't support us, we wouldn't be talking about it.

I don't think so; the deck of cards in bridge is a specified entity, containing a certain number of cards with a certain number of suits; the deck cannot help but produce certain results, and there are configurations it absolutely cannot produce due to its clear limitations. Since we are here, and the resulting universe around us seems to (at this point) indicate that we're different from many planets, then it seems reasonable to work with what is here. Since the question is whether or not the earth was designed for humanity, the fact that the planet just happens to have the 128 necessary things for human life against astronomical odds makes the suggestion of ID reasonable (not convincing to you, I'm sure, but reasonable). The math makes its case.


Wow. Ok, I thought that I made it pretty clear, but I was talking to you about the specific statement that you made. That sinful Christians exist has nothing to do with the fact that if you personally attack me, I will get angry. What other people do is moot.

If you took my post offensively, then accept my apologies. But spare me the sterotypes about Christianity - it is tiresome and reflects poorly on you because I didn't engage in name-calling.

[cuppajoe_9]

Since we are here, and the resulting universe around us seems to (at this point) indicate that we're different from many planets, then it seems reasonable to work with what is here. Since the question is whether or not the earth was designed for humanity, the fact that the planet just happens to have the 128 necessary things for human life against astronomical odds makes the suggestion of ID reasonable (not convincing to you, I'm sure, but reasonable). The math makes its case.The logic doesn't. If it wasn't here, we wouldn't be having the conversation. If, by some quirk, early evolution had favored reptiles, you'd be asking why the universe should be so fine tuned as to support reptilian life. If the conditions of the universe cranked out talking rocks, you'd be asking why the universe is so fine tuned for talking rocks, and so on, ad inifitum.


If you took my post offensively, then accept my apologies.Your post implied that people like me caused the fall. How was I supposed to take it, exactly?


But spare me the sterotypes about Christianity...None presented or implied. Those adjectives modify only your post. Any Christian-bashing is entirely in your mind.


...it is tiresome and reflects poorly on you because I didn't engage in name-calling.Well, you implied that all the problems with the universe can be explained by the fact that it contians people like me and accused me of comparing myself to God, but hey, as long as you didn't engage in name-calling.

[Redzeppelin]

The logic doesn't. If it wasn't here, we wouldn't be having the conversation. If, by some quirk, early evolution had favored reptiles, you'd be asking why the universe should be so fine tuned as to support reptilian life. If the conditions of the universe cranked out talking rocks, you'd be asking why the universe is so fine tuned for talking rocks, and so on, ad inifitum.

None of those do exist - so you're not really presenting a challenge to my argument. You're only telling me my argument would be the same no matter what the life form. OK - so life is equally improbable no matter what configuration it arrives in. There.


Your post implied that people like me caused the fall. How was I supposed to take it, exactly?

My post implied that the sin of the earliest of God's created beings is still in full-swing; the most basic of sins that took out our first parents is currently full-blown in our world where people argue that God is unnecessary for our understanding of reality.


None presented or implied. Those adjectives modify only your post. Any Christian-bashing is entirely in your mind.

No - it's right here:


Oh really? That's very interesting, but are you sure that sin wasn't arrogant, agressive, pulpit-bashing, biggoted, asinine, prosyletic bullying? Does that sound familiar?

The difference is that you do claim essentially that God is not necessary by claiming He doesn't exist - I, however, have committed none of the terms you listed (which your final question cannot help but imply).


Well, you implied that all the problems with the universe can be explained by the fact that it contians people like me and accused me of comparing myself to God, but hey, as long as you didn't engage in name-calling.

Identifying your attitude for what Christian theology says it is, is not "name-calling."

The attempt to explain reality in only human terms is to place ourselves as equals to God. You're not required to agree with theology.

The world is the way it is because (according to Christian theology) it has people in it who share your belief: God is unnecessary. Had Adam and Eve not bought into that lie, we'd be in a different place right now. If the esteemed Mr. Dawkins is allowed to call God a "delusion," I'm equally allowed to call certain attitudes by the name my system of belief defines them to be: sin.

[cuppajoe_9]

The difference is that you do claim essentially that God is not necessary by claiming He doesn't exist - I, however, have committed none of the terms you listed (which your final question cannot help but imply).Every single one of the adjectives that I use applies specifically to the post the I was replying to, and I will defend that statement if necesary. Any implication that all Christians behave in that way was put into my post by you, not me. What Richard Dawkins does in his free time has nothing to do with me. I will not be responding to any more ridiculous suggestions that I am comparing myself to God or that I am personally responsible for everything bad in the world. Thank you.

[Redzeppelin]

Every single one of the adjectives that I use applies specifically to the post the I was replying to, and I will defend that statement if necesary. Any implication that all Christians behave in that way was put into my post by you, not me. What Richard Dawkins does in his free time has nothing to do with me. I will not be responding to any more ridiculous suggestions that I am comparing myself to God or that I am personally responsible for everything bad in the world. Thank you.

Fine - stay insulted if you wish. One apology per infraction is fair to me and I've already offered one.

I have not personally said that you are responsible for anything. I've indicated that your view - one you do not hold in exclusion but along with millions of others - is essentially the view that caused the fall of Adam and Eve - the refusal to see that God is necessary. That you hold that belief (as do I and most human beings at some point or other because we inherited this pattern from Adam and Eve) does not personally implicate you in the atrocities of this world as much as it does implicate you as a sinful human being (just like me).

[cuppajoe_9]

I have not personally said that you are responsible for anything. I've indicated that your view - one you do not hold in exclusion but along with millions of others - is essentially the view that caused the fall of Adam and Eve - the refusal to see that God is necessary.And you don't see why I somebody might be extremely angry about that suggestion? Particularly when you've completely failed to back it up with any kind of evidence in the past?

[Redzeppelin]

And you don't see why I somebody might be extremely angry about that suggestion? Particularly when you've completely failed to back it up with any kind of evidence in the past?

We are fully off-topic and I expect to get "moderated" anytime now.

"Back up" what?

People who claim atheism essentially engage in the original sin of Adam and Eve who ate the forbidden fruit in order to be like God - the desire to be like God in this case was the desire to be His equal - the desire to understand life without having to go through Him for understanding. The theory of evolution does the same thing - it attempts to explain life without recourse to God. Why you're so insulted by this is beyond me. In fact, why anybody who doesn't believe in God gets bugged by the use of the word "sin" kind of confuses me - it's like a Star Trek fanatic calling you a "Klingon" - so what?

[manolia]

Using this logic however, it would be just as acceptable to say the world was made for bunny rabbits.

:lol: :lol: :lol: (bunny rabbits, why not? Your sense of humour is so 'Monty Pythons'-like)

[Turk]

If we are here, that means this world is for us.

[kilted exile]

:lol: :lol: :lol: (bunny rabbits, why not? Your sense of humour is so 'Monty Pythons'-like)

I always knew my time watching Monty Python re-runs was better spent than reading the Blake poems my teacher had wanted me to read. I may still be no closer to understanding whatever Iambic pentameter is, but I can make somebody laugh and that is far more worthwhile. In closing Ha! take that Ms Togher :p :goof: :banana:

[cuppajoe_9]

Why you're so insulted by this is beyond me.I doubt that your would react any differently to the statement "the Christian mindset is responsibile for everything bad that has ever happened".

[Redzeppelin]

I doubt that your would react any differently to the statement "the Christian mindset is responsibile for everything bad that has ever happened".

That comment (or a variation of it) has been made numerous times by various posters (some more tactful than others) on this forum and the philosophy forums - I doubt you will find that I have responded with similar intensity.

Either way, no point is worth this kind of bickering. I am sorry to have offended you and will try to avoid doing so in the future. I have been guilty of pursuing my point at the cost of our relationship, and there is nothing more important than in maintaining good relationships - not even an argument is worth such a cost. Please accept my apology.

[cuppajoe_9]

That comment (or a variation of it) has been made numerous times by various posters (some more tactful than others) on this forum and the philosophy forums - I doubt you will find that I have responded with similar intensity.

Either way, no point is worth this kind of bickering. I am sorry to have offended you and will try to avoid doing so in the future. I have been guilty of pursuing my point at the cost of our relationship, and there is nothing more important than in maintaining good relationships - not even an argument is worth such a cost. Please accept my apology.Ok. Sorry I blew up.

[weepingforloman]

OCEAN, n.
A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills.

from The Devil's Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce

I was just wondering, do you think the world was created for man?

I don't know if anyone already said this, but I just saw this thread and thought it was worthwhile.
To answer the question: no. I believe (and so do most other Christians, especially the more conservative ones) that the world was created by God as a statement of facts about Himself and to contribute to His greater glory. If you say that sounds selfish (it would seem so, at first glance), consider that any person you know who has done things to make themselves look good is imperfect, and does not deserve praise. But God is perfect, and He does deserve praise.

[MaryLupin]

OCEAN, n.
A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills.

from The Devil's Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce

I was just wondering, do you think the world was created for man?

Some people said yes. Some people said (to paraphrase) because the world works to support us it must have been created for us.

Some people disagreed.


Using this logic however, it would be just as acceptable to say the world was made for bunny rabbits.

Some people think that humans evolved to fit the earth's reality.


No, we were 'desinged' for it.

Here's what I wonder: What if the earth wasn't made for us rather god was made for us?

Have a look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOxRSYd4G0o) and tell me what you think.

This is the book (http://www.project2061.org/publications/rsl/online/TRADEBKS/REVS/MANONEAR.HTM) he is talking about.

[NikolaiI]

Plankton in the ocean provides most of the oxygen in the atmosphere, so maybe we need that water. And what's with the no fur thing? What if we were headed towards evolution into the water, but stayed on land.

Did you know there has been a wide variation of oxygen on Earth, up and down 30 or 40%? Too much more or less and we wouldn't be able to live.

[MaryLupin]

Plankton in the ocean provides most of the oxygen in the atmosphere, so maybe we need that water. And what's with the no fur thing? What if we were headed towards evolution into the water, but stayed on land.

There was such a theory. Elaine Morgan (http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Morgan.html) wrote a book called The Acquatic Ape Hypothesis in which she discusses the bodily evidence for a period of time spent adapting to water. It is based on the work of Alister Hardy (http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Hardy/Hardy.htm).

Hardy was a really interesting guy. He was a marine biologist who believed that religion is a biological impulse but he also believed that it was an impulse that reflected a genuine aspect of reality. There is a research site (http://www.lamp.ac.uk/aht/) that is dedicated to exploring what that reality might include. He wrote a book called The Biology of God that looks interesting. I haven't read it though. Have you?


Did you know there has been a wide variation of oxygen on Earth, up and down 30 or 40%? Too much more or less and we wouldn't be able to live.

Yep. Here, read this (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/20/10955). It's kind of technical though.

Cool isn't it, the extent of the changes on earth? I used to live in eastern Washington State. It is arid there, cold in the winter and hot in the summer, but it used to be vastly different. At one time there were arctic foxes but now it is too hot. At another time there were magnolia trees but now it is too cold.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

We are human and we control the earth. We manipulate nature.

I don't think it's very self-evident that humans control the earth, whatever that means. Granted, we are quite aware of many phenomena that enable us to survive and adapt, but I'd hardly consider that to be a position of power. Any use of the word "control" turns out to be a farce, and is doubly so for this statement, if only based on the fact that humans are not separate from nature to begin with.


To put it another way: the chances of drawing any given hand of bridge in a particular order is one in trillions. But to cite this as evidence that the deck is stacked would be evidence of insanity, because if you didn't draw that hand, you would have drawn another equally unlikely one. Mr. Ross is making a similar fallacy. If the universe wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way. If it happened to be a way that didn't support us, we wouldn't be talking about it.

Agreed, post hoc/reverse reasoning fallacy.


I don't think so; the deck of cards in bridge is a specified entity, containing a certain number of cards with a certain number of suits; the deck cannot help but produce certain results, and there are configurations it absolutely cannot produce due to its clear limitations.

The only "configurations" it cannot produce are when there is a duplicate and when the configuration is greater than 52 cards. Any combination otherwise is permitted. These, of course, are self-evident, within the defined scope of playing cards. I'd like to know what limitations you have in mind; I can't think of how logical impossibilities like these help your argument.


Since the question is whether or not the earth was designed for humanity, the fact that the planet just happens to have the 128 necessary things for human life against astronomical odds makes the suggestion of ID reasonable (not convincing to you, I'm sure, but reasonable).

This hardly implies a design for humanity. Whether or not a planet "just happens" to have these said 128 things is purely a question of probability and not divine intervention. Agreed, the odds are astronomical, but such fascination with them is the same phenomenon as what's already been discussed with the deck of playing cards. To be impressed by the sight of a royal flush is rather silly, as it completely neglects that any other five card combination is equal in likelihood. The probabilistic difference between AsKsQsJsTs and 7h9sJs2d2c and any other five cards is zero. The only reason the royal flush, or for that matter earth, is so great is because people assign a tremendous amount of value to it.

But, as we know, there has been more than one royal flush in history, and an astronomer by the name of Frank Drake endeavored to estimate how many "royal" planets there are:

-------------------------------

The Drake Equation was developed by Frank Drake in 1961 as a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy. The Drake Equation is:
N = N*fp*ne*fl*fi*fc*fL

The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion. (Ralph: Website is sort of old, it's more like 300 billion)

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them

Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves

Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves

Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate

Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?
Answer: 10% to 20%

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live

Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?
Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.

When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

--------------------------

http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html Go ahead and try it yourself, when I did it in college I got 300.

And better yet, there are about 125,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe...


The math makes its case.

Yeah, it does.

[Bookworm4Him]

Why would there by land if it was created for sea creatures?

Gen 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." ... Gen 1 then goes on to talk about how God divided the waters and created a heaven and dry land... Maybe the world is mostly water b/c it was all water, and then seperated, instead of land split up with water in btw... ???

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Why would there by land if it was created for sea creatures?

Gen 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." ... Gen 1 then goes on to talk about how God divided the waters and created a heaven and dry land... Maybe the world is mostly water b/c it was all water, and then seperated, instead of land split up with water in btw... ???

Maybe it has something to do with plate tectonics, or Earth's mantle coming out of holes of the crust and cooling to form land...

[MaryLupin]

Maybe it has something to do with plate tectonics, or Earth's mantle coming out of holes of the crust and cooling to form land...

One thing I find really cool about earth history is that visible life (i.e. fossils) has only been on the earth for 500 million of earth's 4550 or so millions years and yet there were (living) things processing carbon at nearly 4000 million years ago. In that earth, all the way up to 2800 million years ago (or so) probably had a red or orange sky and almost no oxygen. Life then used carbon and hydrogen and what we breathe (oxygen) was its waste product. The air was mostly carbon dioxide. In other words, for the majority of earth's life, its environment would have been poison to us. And here is where it gets really interesting. The long period known as the Protoerozic was full of change. These creatures were slowly poisoning the atmosphere (by producing oxygen) and the earth itself was internally reforming. The lithosphere is literally sliding around on the deeper asthenosphere with its "stuff" (liquid Earth/rock) oozing up in the cracks between the big slabs of crust. Of course this is still happening, and like that early life we are now poisoning our atmosphere with carbon dioxide. I love nature's cycles. The only thing a little distressing is that we seem to learn no better than did cyanobacteria. Oh well. Maybe the next earth will produce creatures that can.

I just find this whole thing, the immense age of the earth and the vast environmental differences of which it is capable immensely comforting and enormously interesting but of course it kind of puts a damper on the idea that it was created for human beings.

[Virgil]

I don't think it's very self-evident that humans control the earth, whatever that means.

Oh no? Next time you sit on a toilet and flush, consider you have controled nature. Next time you get on an elevator and take it to the 50th floor, you have controled nature. Next time you eat something raised on vast farm, you have controled nature. Next time you walk around a city filled with concrete buildings and sidewalks and tar roads, you have controled nature. Next time you get in a car and drive through a road that has been cut out of a forest, you have controled nature. Next time you take a trip on an airplane, you have controled nature. Next time you turn on your electric lights or your gas oven or your microwave, you have controled nature. Frankly the list is endless, but I'll leave you with one more. Next time you wipe your *** with toilet paper made from trees, you have controled nature.


Granted, we are quite aware of many phenomena that enable us to survive and adapt, but I'd hardly consider that to be a position of power.
When bunny rabits can make toilet paper to wipe their asses, or steel beams to build 50 story structures, then they can say they are free to control nature. Until that happens there is only one being on this planet that has the power to do that, and that is man. Take a trip one day to a paper mill, where trees are turned into saw dust by the power of machines (which by the way were designed and built by man), and then reformulated into paper, all so you can wipe your ***, then you will get a first hand view of how nature is controled by man.


Any use of the word "control" turns out to be a farce, and is doubly so for this statement, if only based on the fact that humans are not separate from nature to begin with.
Really? I take it then that you live in a cave without electricity and winter heating and summer air conditioning. I take it you don't sleep on a bed and don't watch TV and don't play on the computer.

These environmentalists make me laugh. They criticize modern society and yet they enjoy all the comforts it presents, and then have the gall to say that man is no different than any animal.

[jon1jt]

i dont think "control" is necessarily a good word to describe it, virgil, even though your point is taken. nature is not indifferent to the extent humans expropriate natural resources for the fueling of those technologies you mentioned. when you use the word, control, you neglect natural resistances, as in, say, of the statosphere in its role of the green house effect. there are many others. global warming is a function of such resistance. controlling energy in your definition presupposes we can control outcomes and consequences. not the case.

surely machines were built by man, but humans still haven't quite figured out how to control fresh air and clean water, nor the stars and moon, which give me more pleasure than those machines and buildings ever will. :)

as far as your last point about environmentalists making you laugh because they are hypocrites, that's like laughing at god-loving people because they criticize others for being immoral when they can't get their own lives in order. hypocrisy writ large, no? the way i see it, people are trying to find their way. true, many environmentalists are as you say, but there are just as many who are responsible, who have resisted the powerful and brought about the EPA, the Clean Water/Air Act, Kyoto Protocol (even though it didn't pass), fuel-efficient cars, Goldstar products, etc. also consider that the nine-to-five lifestyle is a one-size fits all. the system is quite unfriendly to those who would rather walk or bike to work. rising real estate costs promote suburban sprawl, which ensnares people in the first place.

maybe if there wasn't so much resistance out there toward environmentalism, we could refashion the present consumptive habits to one in which all people wouldn't have to resort to those "comforts" which are more the case necessities in this sad modern life.

the world is not black and white. nor is nature owned. when it decides to turn off, it will, and there won't be a damn thing men with "power" will be able to do about it.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I just find this whole thing, the immense age of the earth and the vast environmental differences of which it is capable immensely comforting and enormously interesting but of course it kind of puts a damper on the idea that it was created for human beings.

Yes, only recently is it noticeably different than any other rock in the galaxy. Good post.


Oh no? Next time you sit on a toilet and flush, consider you have controled nature.

Nature behaves in a determined way and we utilize it, I hardly see how that is controlling nature. I granted earlier that we understand enough phenomena to utilize nature's predictability in order to make our lives easier, to so speak, but that hardly suggests a degree of control over the forces which govern us.


When bunny rabits can make toilet paper to wipe their asses, or steel beams to build 50 story structures, then they can say they are free to control nature. Until that happens there is only one being on this planet that has the power to do that, and that is man. Take a trip one day to a paper mill, where trees are turned into saw dust by the power of machines (which by the way were designed and built by man), and then reformulated into paper, all so you can wipe your ***, then you will get a first hand view of how nature is controled by man.

The only first hand view I am getting is your puerile fascination with feces and its removal. Are you even reading what you write?


Really? I take it then that you live in a cave without electricity and winter heating and summer air conditioning. I take it you don't sleep on a bed and don't watch TV and don't play on the computer.

These environmentalists make me laugh. They criticize modern society and yet they enjoy all the comforts it presents, and then have the gall to say that man is no different than any animal.

I hardly see how this is a suitable reply to what I wrote about considering man as a part of nature. It's not clear how you have license to make such a distinction, seeing as though what comprises "man" is food once produced by nature. Surely you're not meaning to suggest that you, a sack of organs, are capable of turning nature into non-nature by merely producing a ****...

The fantastic irony lies in this exact sort of solipsism, the painfully vocal regurgitation of your basest and most immediate thoughts that you claim man is incapable of having; the self-righteous manner in which you bolster your cunning, or rather, your common ability to utilize the cunning of those that have actually improved society, is simultaneously comical and insipid. Nevermind with a response, as I'll surely skip it and move onto the next.

[MaryLupin]

nor is nature owned. when it decides to turn off, it will, and there won't be a damn thing men with "power" will be able to do about it.

New Orleans is a testament to that I suppose. One of the most technologically advanced societies in the world and New Orleans is still a disaster. Amazing what a little blow can do to our sense of control.

[blp]

New Orleans is a testament to that I suppose. One of the most technologically advanced societies in the world and New Orleans is still a disaster. Amazing what a little blow can do to our sense of control.

Well...to most people's sense of control. Presumably there are always going a be a few hubristic flat earthists still going on about our power when a third of the planet's flooded. :rolleyes:

[Virgil]

i dont think "control" is necessarily a good word to describe it, virgil, even though your point is taken. nature is not indifferent to the extent humans expropriate natural resources for the fueling of those technologies you mentioned. when you use the word, control, you neglect natural resistances, as in, say, of the statosphere in its role of the green house effect.
I was about to concede this point but after thinking about it, no I think I'm using the word control correctly. I control my dog. That doesn't mean I change my dog into something like a rabbit. It means I manipulate him to respond to my will. Same thing with nature. I don't change the laws of nature by my engineering efforts. I control them to respond to my will.


surely machines were built by man, but humans still haven't quite figured out how to control fresh air and clean water, nor the stars and moon, which give me more pleasure than those machines and buildings ever will. :)
Give us time. Rome, that great civilization that set out to control nature, wasn't built in a day. :D



as far as your last point about environmentalists making you laugh because they are hypocrites, that's like laughing at god-loving people because they criticize others for being immoral when they can't get their own lives in order.
If you read my first post in this thread, on the first page I think, I said this has nothing to do with religion. Whether God exists or not, man has the power and will and right (because no one can stop us) to control nature.


maybe if there wasn't so much resistance out there toward environmentalism, we could refashion the present consumptive habits to one in which all people wouldn't have to resort to those "comforts" which are more the case necessities in this sad modern life.
I used to consider myself an environmentalist, probably when you were no older than a child. Something has happened to environmentalism in the last decade or two that has pushed them into whacky extremism where in essence they are pushing to reduce man to a mere animal and end increases in standards of living. I used to be and still am in favor of clean water and air and setting aside land for parks to preserve nature and wildlife. That is the environmentalism I grew up on. All that I list there is man in control of nature. Today's environmentalism positions man as subserviant to nature, as you can see by all the responses here. The philosophic distinction is significant.


the world is not black and white. nor is nature owned. when it decides to turn off, it will, and there won't be a damn thing men with "power" will be able to do about it.
A nice statement, but I don't know. People still own their property, national borders are clearly established, and I don't see anything that the natural world, other than the end of the world, can do to change that. These are human political arrangements, again man controling nature.


Nature behaves in a determined way and we utilize it, I hardly see how that is controlling nature. I granted earlier that we understand enough phenomena to utilize nature's predictability in order to make our lives easier, to so speak, but that hardly suggests a degree of control over the forces which govern us.

Read my response to Jon above. Man controls nature.


The only first hand view I am getting is your puerile fascination with feces and its removal. Are you even reading what you write?
You know perfectly well why I chose that specific example.


I hardly see how this is a suitable reply to what I wrote about considering man as a part of nature. It's not clear how you have license to make such a distinction, seeing as though what comprises "man" is food once produced by nature. Surely you're not meaning to suggest that you, a sack of organs, are capable of turning nature into non-nature by merely producing a ****...
Like I said, man controls nature to set up farming, and now mass production of farming, where far less people in the history of the world are starving to death. That is controling nature to man's will.


The fantastic irony lies in this exact sort of solipsism, the painfully vocal regurgitation of your basest and most immediate thoughts that you claim man is incapable of having; the self-righteous manner in which you bolster your cunning, or rather, your common ability to utilize the cunning of those that have actually improved society, is simultaneously comical and insipid. Nevermind with a response, as I'll surely skip it and move onto the next.
So you mean you really do live in a cave and don't use electricity and modern comforts. Then I apologize.


New Orleans is a testament to that I suppose. One of the most technologically advanced societies in the world and New Orleans is still a disaster. Amazing what a little blow can do to our sense of control.
Sorry that's a fallacious argument. All that proves is that man can make mistakes in design. There are places like the Netherlands that are even further below sea level than New Orleans and still control nature to their satisfaction.

[NikolaiI]

Cool isn't it, the extent of the changes on earth? I used to live in eastern Washington State. It is arid there, cold in the winter and hot in the summer, but it used to be vastly different. At one time there were arctic foxes but now it is too hot. At another time there were magnolia trees but now it is too cold.

No kidding? I used to live in Pullman.

Thanks for the link references, I'll check them out. I agree with what you said about the comfort of knowledge of the earth's history. There's no reason to fret that it won't always be habitable to us, but comfort in the knowledge that it isn't going to change any time soon, that we have millions of years. You know, unless we do it ourselves.

[Derringer]

[QUOTE=Virgil;369298]

We are human and we control the earth. We manipulate nature.

QUOTE]

Beavers do a very good job of controling nature. Possibly it was made for beavers? As do spruce trees -- they start large fires for reproduction. Spruce trees? I don't know, they can't even move, what stupid trees, this planet can't be for them!

I answer this question with my pagan views that humans are the caretakers of the land, which does not give us the right to pilfer, loot and destroy the land for capitalistic ends. God bless the Sun King!

[Virgil]

[QUOTE=Virgil;369298]

We are human and we control the earth. We manipulate nature.

QUOTE]

Beavers do a very good job of controling nature. Possibly it was made for beavers? As do spruce trees -- they start large fires for reproduction. Spruce trees? I don't know, they can't even move, what stupid trees, this planet can't be for them!

Well, good for the beavers, but I would hardly characterize it as a "very good job." Next time the beavers can build a structure such as these, let me know. I'd like to examine the qulaity of the steel they manufactured:

http://www.infoplease.com/images/WorldsTallestBuildings.gif



I answer this question with my pagan views that humans are the caretakers of the land, which does not give us the right to pilfer, loot and destroy the land for capitalistic ends. God bless the Sun King!
Destroy the lands for capitalist ends? Do you know what environmental disasters the soviet union was? It seems to me they tried just as much to control nature for their communist ends and because their economic system was a failure they didn't have the resources to devote to keeping the environment green. That should be a lesson to most radical environmentalist, but I suspect most are socialist anyway. Go figure.

[MaryLupin]

No kidding? I used to live in Pullman

Wellpinit. You been camping along the Snake River? There used to be magnolia trees there before the rise of the coastal mountains. Can you imagine the Palouse a sub-tropical paradise? The changes in that landscape from mountain building, the ice dam and the basalt floods is amazing.

[Derringer]

[QUOTE=Derringer;424372]
Well, good for the beavers, but I would hardly characterize it as a "very good job." Next time the beavers can build a structure such as these, let me know.


Actually, I would consider it an extremely good job. Beavers are very prosperous animals. Beaver is happy and content. Why would a beaver create such a large building? It has no reason.



Destroy the lands for capitalist ends? Do you know what environmental disasters the soviet union was? It seems to me they tried just as much to control nature for their communist ends and because their economic system was a failure they didn't have the resources to devote to keeping the environment green. That should be a lesson to most radical environmentalist, but I suspect most are socialist anyway. Go figure.


Don't confuse my paganism with communism. Turtle scorns you. Don't confuse Stalinism/Leninism or Maoism with Communism. Don't confuse Communism with Marxism, or even Socialism. Why don't I say that Mormonism = Protestantism, or all Christians are Pacifists and every Moslem a terrorist? It's based on a book written by Karl Marx, and is therefore open to interpretation and results in a bunch of 'isms'.

I'm not really jivin' with you -- > So it's ok to destroy the land? Would you like to go whooping crane hunting as well? I'm sure we could make a buck or two. Bald Eagles are worth lots! serious! I thought Jesus said be humble, not greedy. Let's go waste!

[Virgil]

Actually, I would consider it an extremely good job. Beavers are very prosperous animals. Beaver is happy and content. Why would a beaver create such a large building? It has no reason.

:lol: Don't get me wrong, beavers are nice animals, but I hardly think you would want to live as a beaver. And I'm sure you don't.


Don't confuse my paganism with communism. Turtle scorns you. Don't confuse Stalinism/Leninism or Maoism with Communism. Don't confuse Communism with Marxism, or even Socialism. Why don't I say that Mormonism = Protestantism, or all Christians are Pacifists and every Moslem a terrorist? It's based on a book written by Karl Marx, and is therefore open to interpretation and results in a bunch of 'isms'.
You're the one that brought up capitalism in contradistinction to whatever you profess. I don't know what exactly you're trying to say. I don't see how paganism either supports or opposes any economic system, whether capitalism or socialism. Ancient pagan Rome of the first and second centuries had quite a developed free market, capitalist economy.


I'm not really jivin' with you -- > So it's ok to destroy the land? Would you like to go whooping crane hunting as well? I'm sure we could make a buck or two. Bald Eagles are worth lots! serious! I thought Jesus said be humble, not greedy. Let's go waste!
Read my post (#45 in this thread). I state that I support conservation of nature and wildlife. What I'm opposed to is the philosophic notion that man is subserviant to nature. I believe it is the opposite, and not because of any religious reason. I believe that people's standards of living are improved by man's control of nature. I believe that people lead happier, healthier lives because we control nature. In all this debate i haven't even brought up modern medicine as a means of controlling nature. Today we have a life expectancy of over 80. If you want to live like a beaver, then you could expect to live, like primitive man did, to about 20 to 25 years.

[SleepyWitch]

The theory of evolution does the same thing - it attempts to explain life without recourse to God.

yep, and it makes a pretty good job of it. it offers a very plausible explanation and arrives at an answer without recourse to God. which seems to indicated that the concept of God doesn't have any significant explanatory value for this question. so what's wrong with leaving God out of the equation, unless one believes in him anyway?

[Bookworm4Him]

And just as a sidenote, notice humans are the only species on the planet arguing whether they control nature, or not. Our friends the beavers aren't out there passing out flyers for no strip malls, or save the rainforest. We are the only species intellectual enough to think about such things...shouldn't that say something???

[SleepyWitch]

http://www.infoplease.com/images/WorldsTallestBuildings.gif



hehe, maybe the reason beavers don't build huge structures like these is because they don't have a phallic complex? :D



yep, the soviet union destroyed loads of environment. one of the reasons was theat they didn't not really develop any alternative to industrialism. the only difference between their economy and the Western economy at that time was the distribution of resources, but the underlying ideas where the same: to control nature. they didn't develop any alternative lifestyle, their goal was rapid industrialization, catching up with the west. the only difference was that it was all state-controlled as opposed to private ownership and businesses.

[NikolaiI]

Wellpinit. You been camping along the Snake River? There used to be magnolia trees there before the rise of the coastal mountains. Can you imagine the Palouse a sub-tropical paradise? The changes in that landscape from mountain building, the ice dam and the basalt floods is amazing.

Well, the last time I was there I was just thinking about climates, and how rain would turn any place into a rainforest...or actually that was in a part of Cali. But yeah it would be cool, definitely. And sadly, I never camped out there, though I heard talk of Snake River while I lived there. I only went hiking one mountain and fishing up north a couple of times, probably would have got to Snake River eventually.

[Virgil]

hehe, maybe the reason beavers don't build huge structures like these is because they don't have a phallic complex? :D



Hahahaha. :lol: Leave to a woman to think about penises in a discussion of the environement. :p :p Of course men brought up beavers. ;) :p :lol: