Ok, so in some spare time over the weekend I did some research.
And ya know, maybe it depends on opinion becuase there are lost of questions that can't be answered, and lots of questions that HAVE been answered. IE - it looks like some photo's ARE fakes because the qaulity of some weren't plausible to air to the public, so NASA touched some up for presentation. Thier source though was likely real.
IMO, there's enough doubt TODAY based on current technology to merit a requirement of hard proof, but you have to use Today's technology to prove it. Now that could either mean that there's no way in the 60's they could have faked it, OR it could mean that there is a technology way ahead of the times being used - becuase they didnt have access to the tech that theorists are using today.
It really comes down to whether you are cynical about it or not and what you as an individual prefer to believe. Someone put the "mindset" link up (the first chap that called me an idiot) and thats a good one, I get that and how people create something from nothing. Did the Terrorists fly planes into the WTC? Yes unfortunately. Where they sponsered by the CIA who cause thousands of lives to be lost to justify a war in Iraq? No. One leak in such a plot and the civil uprising in the USA would be terminal.
FWIW, I'd rather perhaps naively in a matrix-style live my life as "ignorance is bliss"
So did we go to the moon?
Yep. 😉
Do atheists 'believe' we went to the moon?
there are lost of questions that can't be answered,
Such as?
Do atheists 'believe' we went to the moon?
Atheists all believe the same thing of course. I can only speak for one of them, though I'd hazard that their answers are probably going to be fairly consistent. Yes.
Atheists all believe the same thing of course.
Well, I understood that in terms of their shared requirement for evidence and disavowal of systems built on belief, that it might not be unrealistic for them all to believe and not believe in the same kinds of things. I was just unsure where the moon landings came in this reasoning
Such as?
The lack of a plausable binding agent to hold Armstongs footprints together*
*I didn't have time to look very hard for that one to be fair, but Scientist do quote that without oxygen and water they should have crumbled immediately.
Do atheists 'believe' we went to the moon?
I don't think that most atheists/rationalists/humanists/whatever have a problem "believing" in something that there is strong evidence for.
The lack of a plausable binding agent to hold Armstongs footprints together**I didn't have time to look very hard for that one to be fair, but Scientist do quote that without oxygen and water they should have crumbled immediately.
Pour flour onto the floor. Stand in it. Hey, footprint!
I doubt very much that "scientists" quote anything of the sort, seeing as it's bobbins.
Next?
I think a slightly more interesting question is whether people, including "atheists/rationalists/humanists", believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life?
I'll start, no.
The lack of a plausable binding agent to hold Armstongs footprints together*
There's no atmosphere and hence no wind/rain/erosion on the moon. the only way the footprints could disappear would be if hit by a meteorite.
Put a load of sand/gravel/moon rock type stuff into a container, suck out all the air and imprint a pattern into the substrate. So long as conditions stay sealed/under vacuum, it'll stay there.
Someone put the "mindset" link up (the first chap that called me an idiot)
HI! 😀
The lack of a plausable binding agent to hold Armstongs footprints together*
The lack of plausible agent o cause erosion is what you want to look for
Is it your view I cannot make an imprint in a powder..thats not hard to test
I think a slightly more interesting question is whether people, including "atheists/rationalists/humanists", believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life?
I do.
Mathematically speaking, given our current understanding of the universe, it seems very likely.
Sadly chances are that it is so far away that we will never have any contact with it unless we/they find a way to break the light barrier.
Kryton57 went away, did some research, and came back on here with a revised opinion. Sounds like a decent and intelligent bloke to me 🙂
I think a slightly more interesting question is whether people, including "atheists/rationalists/humanists", believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life?
I'll start, no.
Believe that there are UFOs and little green men flying over Nevada? No.
Believe that somewhere out there there's life other than on this here rock? Yes.
Simply playing the odds here. Space is vast. The Milky Way is a few hundred billion stars, and that's just our own back yard. As a rough estimate, there's a few hundred billion other galaxies too, all containing stars. That's *handwave* 10^23 stars; ie, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 separate solar systems, potentially like the one we've got. And that's probably a conservative estimate, based on figures I've just pulled out of my chuff.
The exact set of circumstances for life to be created is in itself highly unlikely (which the goddish love to remind us), but when you're playing with such big numbers, the unlikely becomes really rather likely indeed. The odds of winning the lottery are astronomically low, yet people do, week in week out.
Do atheists 'believe' we went to the moon?
I am an atheist. I 'believe' we went to the moon. I believe this because of all the evidence.
I think a slightly more interesting question is whether people, including "atheists/rationalists/humanists", believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life?
As GrahamS has already said, given the size and age of the universe it seems highly likely that there will be (or have been or will be) intelligent extra-terrestrial life out there somewhere, but there's no conclusive evidence so far.
What's more interesting is, if there is intelligent extra-terrestrial life, do Christians believe that did God manifested himself there as Jesus? And do they believe we landed on the moon?
do they believe we landed on the moon?
Wouldn't you bounce off the firmament first? Or is it the other way round, I can't remember now.
I meant did the aliens believe we landed on the moon 🙂
Mathematically speaking, given our current understanding of the universe, it seems very likely.
What do we understand that means it's lilely there's life anywhere else?
Other than "the universe is really really big so there might be a bit more life somewhere" ... seems a bit of a presumptious assumption to make considering we have not identified anything trying to make contact with us, and we've found a massive total of absolutely zero evidence of life anywhere outside of our own atmosphere.
There also seems to be the assumption that the lack of or presence of water will dictate where life might be ... considering evolution is apparently the way life appeared 🙄 , would it not seem likely that life might have evolved differently somewhere else, whereby water was not required to sustain it etc?
What do we understand that means it's lilely there's life anywhere else?
Infinity.
The chances of throwing one hundred dice and them all coming up six is really pretty vanishingly small, about 1 in 653318623500070906096690267158057820537143710472954871543071966369497141477376 by [url= http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100+dice+all+6 ]my reckoning[/url].
But if you made an infinite number of throws then how many winners would we get?
Answer: an infinite number!
i.e. in an infinite problem space, if the probability of something happening is anything other than zero, then it happens in infinite number of times 😀
(Of course there is a good chance the universe isn't actually [i]infinite[/i], and instead just really, really, really, really, big)
What do we understand that means it's lilely there's life anywhere else?
Infinity.
That's more down to our understanding of maths rather than the understanding of the universe.
For a start, this only works if the universe is infinite.
However, all this looking for things that might not even be there has led us to discover all sorts of really interesting stuff, so it's not all wasted.
seems a bit of a presumptious assumption to make considering we have not identified anything trying to make contact with us
Is it not more presumptuous to assume that there isn't?
Contact is irrelevant. We've not been in contact with anyone else, does that prove we don't exist?
i.e. in an infinite problem space, if the probability of something happening is anything other than zero, then it happens in infinite number of time
So space aliens have visited earth an infinite number of times?
I meant did the aliens believe we landed on the moon
During my weekend googling I found there's some there's some "evidence" that blurring of pictures highlights structures on the dark side of the moon (the space object not the album). I can't remember now if the author claimed they we US, Russian or other life forms. 😀
Kryton57 went away, did some research, and came back on here with a revised opinion. Sounds like a decent and intelligent bloke to me
Maybe Molgrips, but people always need someone to point and gloat / laugh / criticise at, and those that have more knowledge and time than me to quote this things will have a superior hand - therefore as long as I continue posting (after Friday's events here) I'll never be able to alter thier actions or opinion toward me - I just don't have the time or inclination to research to the nth conclusion.
So space aliens have visited earth an infinite number of times?
Only over an infinite amount of time, I expect.
(Of course there is a good chance the universe isn't actually infinite, and instead just really, really, really, really, big)
Fair point. But, if its just really really really really big, what's that, over there, on the other side of it? 😉
My head hurts
I think a slightly more interesting question is whether people, including "atheists/rationalists/humanists", believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life?
I'll start, no.
I think it's likely there's simple/non-intelligent life in our own solar system right now, and very likely there's intelligent life further out- and probably quite a lot of it.
As above though it's unlikely we'll ever meet them, so I don't think there are aliens buzzing the Earth right now.
I think it's likely there's simple/non-intelligent life in our own solar system right now
I think some of it has forum logins.
(-:
Fair point. But, if its just really really really really big, what's that, over there, on the other side of it?
The new improved Hope Pro2? 😉
As above though it's unlikely we'll ever meet them, so I don't think there are aliens buzzing the Earth right now.
But given the infinite universe idea, there is no such thing as 'unlikely' is there?
Veering dangerously back on topic for a moment, I've just spotted this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Interesting reading for anyone still of a "NASA made it all up" persuasion, perhaps.
There also seems to be the assumption that the lack of or presence of water will dictate where life might be ... considering evolution is apparently the way life appeared , would it not seem likely that life might have evolved differently somewhere else, whereby water was not required to sustain it etc?
There's life on Earth that doesn't need water or oxygen. (It looks like snot.) This [i]increases[/i] the chance of there being life out there.
But, we [i]know[/i] that life requiring water exists, so looking for evidence of water is a good place to start.
But given the infinite universe idea, there is no such thing as 'unlikely' is there?
But humans don't/won't have an infinite existence. So far, we've only been around for somewhere between 100000 and 250000 years, which is a blink in cosmic terms.
There's a difference between unlikely ever and unlikely within a limited timeframe.
But humans don't/won't have an infinite existence. So far, we've only been around for somewhere between 100000 and 250000 years, which is a blink in cosmic terms.
Sure but some other race might have been here sometime in the last [s]6000 [/s]13 billion years and left something behind
There's a difference between unlikely ever and unlikely within a limited timeframe.
Oh, that's an interesting one. Do explain
Personally, as others note .given the size of the universe it is nearly inevitable there is other life out there - just due to the odds- we are finding earth like planets "locally" for example
I am less sure that it will be intelligent as it does seem we will **** up our planet and cause orself some seriious harm so evolutionary spoeaking it may not be that helpful to survival
I am even less sure [ almost certain] given the distances involved we are highly unlikely to be able to have a chat or know it for definite one way or the other
The balance of probabilities is on the side of yes but it is not conclusive
Other than "the universe is really really big so there might be a bit more life somewhere" ... seems a bit of a presumptious
There is an equation and everything that you can question. Your view is also an assumption so its mute point
we have not identified anything trying to make contact with us, and we've found a massive total of absolutely zero evidence of life anywhere outside of our own atmosphere.
See contact point above and the size of the universe and of course absence of proof is not proof of absence
The universe is quite big and we have looked barely anywhere - what a moon and mars ish so small smaple size given the number of planets- its like me assuming nothing exists on earth that i cant see on my desk.
There also seems to be the assumption that the lack of or presence of water will dictate where life might be ... [b]considering evolution is apparently the way life appeared[/b] , would it not seem likely that life might have evolved differently somewhere else, whereby water was not required to sustain it etc?
Making quite a few assumptions there yourself 😉
Do you dount evolution?
We know nothing of exo biology so we generalise from here - anything we say is little more than science fiction
Sure but some other race might have been here sometime in the last [s]6000[/s] 13 billion years and left something behind
Possibly. But given what we know about geology and archeology, it's unlikely to have survived or to be discovered by humans.
There's a difference between unlikely ever and unlikely within a limited timeframe.
Oh, that's an interesting one. Do explain
I'm unlikely to eat a biscuit in the next five minutes, but the probability increases as the timeframe increases.
Mmmm, biscuits. Will extra-terrestrial life have invented biscuits?
I'm unlikely to eat a biscuit in the next five minutes, but the probability increases as the timeframe increases.
Sure, but that is at an individual level, and doesn't take into account the 'infinite part'.
I thought you were going to show that the probability of something occurring within an infinite set increased with an increased time frame
Possibly. But given what we know about geology and archeology, it's unlikely to have survived or to be discovered by humans.
Ok, so if it is possible, then from an infinite set, it has already happened, lots of times. Does this mean they have visited and all traces are gone?
Secondly, even if all earth bound traces are gone, surely SETI might have picked something up?
I thought you were going to show that the probability of something occurring within an infinite set increased with an increased time frame
I'm not an expert on set theory.
Ok, so if it is possible, then from an infinite set, it has already happened, lots of times. Does this mean they have visited and all traces are gone?
Or, they haven't.
I thought you were going to show that the probability of something occurring within an infinite set increased with an increased time frame
Why would you think thet chances of something happening do not increase with time?
He did IMHO with the biscuit thought experiment- its like STW shroiedingers cat is it there is it not who knows
I'm not an expert on set theory.
You don't need to be. I'm only asking if the number of outcomes is infinite, then time is not a factor is it?
You don't need to be. I'm only asking if the number of outcomes is infinite, then time is not a factor is it?
Why don't you tell me what you think?
Why don't you tell me what you think?
Well, I thought 'No' but...
Because you said this
There's a difference between unlikely ever and unlikely within a limited timeframe.
It seemed that I misunderstood something and I want to understand
/*edited for clarity*/
It seemed that I misunderstood something and I want to understand
I obviously didn't explain clearly enough. In the limited time I have available to explain, it's unlikely you'd understand. Perhaps you would if I had longer?
