Evolution vs Creation

[bluntforcemama]

Mostly a little bit of both. I think it's pretty obvious with the newest finding of ancient man, that we're not exactly what we thought we were.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0208/feature1/index.html

 

[Morwen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

What are you, chicken?

You'll answer these other posts because you've already lead them down the primrose path of sophistry, but you don't dare face the abysmal truth:

1) There is no scientific evidence for Creationism, none.

2) The scientific method, which completely acknowledges its own shortcomings by definition, has done infinitely more to explain the world around us and give us the fruits of science than your tortured unsubstantiated incoherent nonsense ever can and ever will.

If I were you, I'd ignore me too.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

What the hell are you talking about?

Nothing.

Mixed metaphors and obfuscation don't cut it in this case. Stick to demonstrably proven facts, no matter how frightening you and your 2,000 year old outdated world-view might find them.

Ten years ago you and your crowd were arguing Earth was the only life-world and our Solar System was the only one with planets. Now we've proven there's more than a hundred of them, and that's just within our feeble, painfully under-funded survey.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

Um Morwen, before you go off half-cocked, look to what I am claiming. Find anywhere in posts support for what you are saddling me with. I made no such claims - I support the fact of evolution - I don't even claim it to be a theory.

I am not saying there are not other places where life is possible, I am not saying that there might actually be life other places in the universe - there very well could be. I am saying that even given the immense expanse of the universe, the places where such conditions exist are probably very rare.

It seems that you are jumping to the conclusion that I am using this as an argument to support something, where if you knew me as many others here do, you would know I am just being anal and making sure we are all working from the same book while talking about the subject at hand.

 

[bluntforcemama]

*LOL* Go, Morwen!




And I already have him on ignore.

 

[WaxNWane]

Mostly a little bit of both. I think it's pretty obvious with the newest finding of ancient man, that we're not exactly what we thought we were.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0208/feature1/index.html

That's the guy I was babbling on about evolution being a scientific theory because it welcomes new evidence, even if it forces rethinking or discarding of parts of the theory.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Jedi_Outcast]

thanks wax;

the jist of this whole monkey thing is that given enough time, if it is within the realms of physical reality, it will happen.

my point was and still is that the big bang was inevitable, even if the probability is very small, beacuse there is an infinite amount of time for it to happen, or whatever analog there was before the big bang for "cause-effect".

 

[Dougy]

Humans are, most likely, a fluke. At risk of being attacked by someone that knows more, here is the theory. As apes began to move to African plains, it became advantageous to be able to see over the grasses, thus spotting and evading predators. Over time, bipedalism was the result as seen in Ramapithecines (I know...carrying on about them again). A side effect of this upright walking was that the spinal column met with the skull significantly farther back. The resulting structural changes in the respiratory and digestive portions of the head led to a rearrangement of the pharyngeal/esophogeal area (I don't really remember the terms for what changed) and an increase in the size of the overall volume of the upper skull.

This meant two things: First, it meant that unlike animals we do not have a 'flap' that completely separates our respiratory system and digestive system in the throat. Most animals cannot choke on a turkey sandwich and die. We can. The second thing was that we could make a much wider variety of noises. The human line does not need the large exhale of air necessary to open the 'flap' in order to vocalize. This was an unexpectedly positive advantage which led to greater communication and then to a larger brain capacity.

Okay...enough from me already.

 

[Morwen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

Um Morwen, before you go off half-cocked, look to what I am claiming. Find anywhere in posts support for what you are saddling me with. I made no such claims - I support the fact of evolution - I don't even claim it to be a theory.

Well you sure come across as a Creationist, and if that's not your ultimate viewpoint, if you are merely playing devil's advocate to make us step back a little, okay, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to belittle you so thoroughly.

But if you are indeed advocating a half-baked philosophy based on some old books and a heck of a lot of wishful thinking, be up front about it, don't backpeddle or deny it. Defend yourself logically, rationally, and with evidence.

 

[Black_Bird]

None of this has anything to do with the scientific understanding of the evolution of human intelligence, at any stage. That's like reading "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and claiming you understand the vast and complicated macroeconomic process that puts Twinkies in little plastic bags in stores near your house so you can eat them.

... Damn.

You win points with me just for making reference to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" in an intellectual argument and making it relevant to the conversation.

Damn! Just, damn.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

What are you, chicken?

You'll answer these other posts because you've already lead them down the primrose path of sophistry, but you don't dare face the abysmal truth:

Woe slow down! Don't go off accusing people of things, especially if you don't know them. Anyone here on the GB will tell you I am not afraid to tackle controversial topics or take unpopular stands. I have not answered your post because it is not the only one in the thread and I only just saw it. Moreover, even I chose not to answer your post it would mean nothing more than the fact that I chose not to answer it. It could mean that you said nothing of consequence or that I cared to reply to.

1) There is no scientific evidence for Creationism, none.

I never said there was - this is a non-sequitor. Where did I make any such assertion? I said I believed in both a Creator and in evolution, and that I saw no conflict between my relgious beliefs and my scientific beliefs.

2) The scientific method, which completely acknowledges its own shortcomings by definition, has done infinitely more to explain the world around us and give us the fruits of science than your tortured unsubstantiated incoherent nonsense ever can and ever will.

Which incoherent nonsense is that?

Again, slow down, take a breath and read my posts again. Come at them without the huge chip on your shoulder that you seem to have put there. Sheesh!

 

[WaxNWane]

... Damn.

You win points with me just for making reference to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" in an intellectual argument and making it relevant to the conversation.

Damn! Just, damn.

Hehe - I had to stop and read the post again, too. "Did that refer to 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'?"

Much applause & circumstance.

 

[Lost Cause]

My great-great-great-great-great ancestor..

Looks alot like me! I'd like to stay, but speaking of God's creations, the History channel has a program on the Harley-Davidson! Yee Haaaaaa!

 

[Jedi_Outcast]

I think it's awful ego-centric of us to assume that we are the only life in the universe, If I was god, I'd be spreading life everywhere to see what happens, just to avoid the boredom of being around for all of existence

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

Well you sure come across as a Creationist, and if that's not your ultimate viewpoint, if you are merely playing devil's advocate to make us step back a little, okay, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to belittle you so thoroughly.

I do believe that the universe was created. I personally believe that it was by a Christian God. I have no way to prove that by scientific means, so I am not even going to try to argue for it or try to convince anyone. The original post and purpose of the thread was to ask people what they believe, nothing more.

But if you are indeed advocating a half-baked philosophy based on some old books and a heck of a lot of wishful thinking, be up front about it, don't backpeddle or deny it. Defend yourself logically, rationally, and with evidence.

Damn! You just can't help yourself can you?

Look, as I said, do not jump to conclusions. Learn to give people the benefit of the doubt before assuming the worst. You will find that once you get to know me that I argue/debate from my own perspective and I do not "backpeddle" and I am always upfront - sometimes too much so (ask the originator of this thread).

I seek one thing from life - truth, and as such I am often attacked from multiple sides at once - it is why my email addy is "TheHeretic", because I rarely please anyone except for myself and many people find my views heretical.

 

[Azwed]

Re: CREATION vs evolution

Third) Science is based mainly on about 90% faith, not fact. Most theories have NEVER been proven. The ones that have are of a short term view. ( sorry, but I am not going to explain geology and archeological terms right now, but I will put it in laymans terms as much as possible)

Of course no theory has ever been proven. Once it is proven it stops being a theory and becomes a law.

Hmhh I see that you don't have much respect for our intelligence or knowledge so excuse me if I don't have much respect for yours.

I always hear people say how horrible inaccurate carbon dating is bbut I never see them give an explination as to why it is inaccurate. They also never mention any of the other forms of isotope type dating.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

The Old Testament, the Torah, whatever you call it, contain a number of interesting creation myths and antiquated laws for nomadic pastoral living. So does the Koran, the King James Bible, the Elder Edda, the Vedas, and all of the Eastern books. So too the Celtic myths. For that matter, Tolkien's creation stories are as aesthetically pleasing as any of the shining bits of fiction worshipped in empty houses.

None of this has anything to do with the scientific understanding of the evolution of human intelligence, at any stage. That's like reading "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and claiming you understand the vast and complicated macroeconomic process that puts Twinkies in little plastic bags in stores near your house so you can eat them.

It's highly likely there is life outside our solar system. I really, really hope there is, because I don't want the universe relying on you superstitious rock-worshipping fucks.

Is this the post you are claiming I ignored?

Beyond the hyperbole I don't have a problem with it (except for one issue). You could have said the same thing without the insults - but being a Christian I used to them so no big deal.

The only statement I have a real problem with is "It's highly likely there is life outside our solar system". This statement I disagree with for reasons I have already stated. Until we are able to gather much more information about distant objects in space this is just so much speculation - not really supported by the facts.

 

[WaxNWane]

Is this the post you are claiming I ignored?

Beyond the hyperbole I don't have a problem with it (except for one issue). You could have said the same thing without the insults - but being a Christian I used to them so no big deal.

The only statement I have a real problem with is "It's highly likely there is life outside our solar system". This statement I disagree with for reasons I have already stated. Until we are able to gather much more information about distant objects in space this is just so much speculation - not really supported by the facts.

And until we have another sample of life evolving to work with, your statement that it's 'astronomically' unlikely is equally unsupported by facts.

 

[Morwen]

You shout at me to be calm, as if this is a life and death and struggle for me. It's not. If I sound strident, it's only because I am so easily defeating your arguments. I take no pleasure in it, I too once believed. When I was thirteen. But I rather a civil society be built upon a common understanding of what is real, and what is wishful thinking.

So perhaps you need to take a step back, drop the Bible, and try to use the cerebral cortex evolution gave you.

The numbers probably come from a somewhat well reasoned argument by a Christian astrophyicist in a book titled "Reason to Believe". The numbers do not dispute the the theory of evolution, just point out that life is a rare occurance in the universe.

No one knows how common or rare life is in the universe. Whether a particular astrophysicist is Christian or not should have no bearing on the results, unless he's fudging data to back up his spiritual beliefs.

But the fact that we've discovered 100+ solar systems in the last ten years ought to really put to rest these "Earth is special, Earth is rare, life on Earth was made by God" arguments once and for all. It shouldn't take a math genius to realize that in a Galaxy with 100 billion stars, a huge percentage of which have solar systems, that Earth-like planets probably number in the millions. Life-bearing systems could be as common as two or three in our Solar System alone (Earth, Mars, and Europa).

And if we are, by some remote fluke, the only intelligent life in our Galaxy of 100 billion stars, then remember there are at least 100 billion galaxies glimpsed by our telescopes, and no one knows how many more. You're saying God made 1 billion stars for each and every one of us? Or did the people who wrote the Bible simply not know enough about the universe. Occam's razor.

I believe the story of Adam and Eve are some kind of figurative, not literal, story. Of course God could have actually literally done something along those lines and it might have even fit the physical evidence - there is evidence in the fossil record that could support the idea of some kind of intervention; it is now believe that there was not just one evolutionary branch preceding homo-sapiens, but rather a number of branches, all of which died off save for one. There is also evidence that there could have been a sudden branch off of the tree which is homo-sapiens as we know them now. That is just pure conjecture - it could just as easily support the theory of a big black obilisk messing around with the people of the time too.

This reasoning is so muddled I don't even know where to begin. This is like the Jehovah's Witness I knew who claimed God planted dinosaur bones in the desert to test the faith of the believers. Magical (Freudian) thinking can devise pretty much anything to support its fantasies.

 

[Dougy]

Re: Re: CREATION vs evolution

I always hear people say how horrible inaccurate carbon dating is bbut I never see them give an explination as to why it is inaccurate. They also never mention any of the other forms of isotope type dating.

I may just be pulling this out of my ass, but I think the percentage of potential error is in the 7% range. Damn I wish I had my textbooks...It is actually pretty darned accurate. The issue with C14 is that it is seldom the archaelogical material that can be tested, but burned organic material associated with the sample. If there is not a clear geological stratum, the results can be brought into question based on the locations of the materials. There are other forms of isotope dating, but C14 is one of the more accurate and commonly available methods.

 

[Azwed]

I don't have my geology book with me either so I can't bring up all the different isotopes used for older speciemens.


They have dated rocks older then 1 billion years old using zircons.

http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/zircons.html


Thats just the first site that came up but it fits with what I remember from geology.

That right there pretty much blows the whole fundamentlist view that the earth is only 10,000-12,000 years old.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

You shout at me to be calm, as if this is a life and death and struggle for me. It's not. If I sound strident, it's only because I am so easily defeating your arguments.

Well, whether you are defeating them or not I will bypass for the moment as that is not the issue I was addressing when asking for calm. I was saying there is little reason to engage in ad hominem attacks as they add nothing to a good rational argument. I personally find them distasteful, others relish the chance to engage in them - I merely ask that you refrain from using them, and to fruther, to refrain from jumping to conclusions about where I come from until you get to know me.

I take no pleasure in it, I too once believed. When I was thirteen. But I rather a civil society be built upon a common understanding of what is real, and what is wishful thinking.

I can agree in principle - I see no support for your attacks on me in that principle. If you want to discuss/debate/argue about what is real, then let's drop the name calling and assumptions - okay?

So perhaps you need to take a step back, drop the Bible, and try to use the cerebral cortex evolution gave you.

If you will swallow your bile I will give it a try, but I didn't have the Bible in my hands to start with.

No one knows how common or rare life is in the universe. Whether a particular astrophysicist is Christian or not should have no bearing on the results, unless he's fudging data to back up his spiritual beliefs.

I didn't say it had any bearing beyond the possibility that this is where driver775 probably got his numbers from.

But the fact that we've discovered 100+ solar systems in the last ten years ought to really put to rest these "Earth is special, Earth is rare, life on Earth was made by God" arguments once and for all.

Once again with the assumptions; where did I make any such claim? Look, I can wear multiple hats at the same time - I can easily argue scientific issues in one sentence and religious in another. If I didn't make that statement do not attribute it to me - in short, do not put words into my mouth. I am not your typical Christian with regards to such issues - anyone here on the GB can tell you that.

It shouldn't take a math genius to realize that in a Galaxy with 100 billion stars, a huge percentage of which have solar systems, that Earth-like planets probably number in the millions. Life-bearing systems could be as common as two or three in our Solar System alone (Earth, Mars, and Europa).

My point was that the possiblity of life in the universe is not simply a quantitative issue, it is also a qualitative issue. Our understanding of both issues changes daily, but all scientists that are involved in these debates agree that both quantity and quality are indeed factors that must be considered. That is all I was trying point out - not that Earth is the only place life is possible, just that it is probably a rarer planet than most non-scientific people think. Most people see shows like Star Trek and think the universe is just chuck full of solar systems with planets, indeed chuck full of solar systems with planets that can support life - when indeed we know no such thing, and that it is very likely just the opposite. I just saw a poll conducted on TV where 97% of the respondents thought that within ten years we would make contact with intelligent alien life (i.e., from another planet). Now if that isn't overly optimistic then I can't say what is.

You're saying God made 1 billion stars for each and every one of us? Or did the people who wrote the Bible simply not know enough about the universe.

Did I say any such thing? As stated in the movie "Contact", such a possibility would be an awful waste of space. But since you brought up the Bible again (after asking that I drop it), from a relgious perspective, the Bible says little or nothing about the Earth being the only place in the universe where life exists - that is an assumption some Christians have extrapolated from their interpetations, possibly erroneously.

This reasoning is so muddled I don't even know where to begin. This is like the Jehovah's Witness I knew who claimed God planted dinosaur bones in the desert to test the faith of the believers. Magical (Freudian) thinking can devise pretty much anything to support its fantasies. [/B]

As I said in the statement you are referring to, it was pure conjecture - not really reasoning. It was meant to show that because the Bible is so vague on these issues it and the physical evidence need not be seen to be conflicting. As for the very last statement about the black obilisk, that was meant in half-jest, and to show that my religion does not have an exclusive interpretation of the facts in evidence, not by a long shot (something that some Christian apologists seem to forget in their arguments).

Oh, and while we are on the subject, I quoted the wrong book; it is not "Reason to Believe" where that argument was made, it was "The Fingerprint of God"

 

[Cibo]

Cibo:
"Read it and lemme know your thoughts on that."

It would take me awhile to answer all the points brought up in the link you posted. When I do finish, would it be all right if I PMed you as well as posted to the board?

Then again, it's possible that another poster will come along and whip though this but it's not my field of expertise so to speak.

Sure, you can PM me with your thoughts...will be interesting to discuss it.

 

[Guest]

yaaaawn.

1. i don't recall god saying anything about not creating life on other worlds.

2. several bibles mention the earth being a meeting place of intelligent beings long before the age of adam and eve. i don't doubt that there were ape/man looking things running around because from my point of veiw the same being made them too.
(so much for dna)

3.Out of africa theory, give it a rest, there are a couple of other places also.

4.evolution is a interesting theory and about the time things get boring it changes...the evolution of evolution.

5. did you ever stop to think god might meddle in the developement of animals like we do?

6. i'm waiting for a skull to be dug up here in the good old usa from a couple of million years ago. that will start some shit.

7. to tell the truth i think evolution and god fit together and i can see it a goodly part of the way.

8. one run in with the supernatral forces of god go a long way in the argument between evolution and creationism.

9. most people posting here aren't even up on the latest therioes of evolution and don't know a damn thing about god.

that is why i did not regester.

 

[Morwen]

Bile? Name-calling? If you're feeling defensive and personally assaulted, it's not because I'm making ad hominem attacks. That would presume I know something personal about you. As far as I know, we've never spoken before ever. I'm only countering your arguments. If you choose to react to that on a personal, emotional level, that's your mistake.

Once again with the assumptions; where did I make any such claim? Look, I can wear multiple hats at the same time - I can easily argue scientific issues in one sentence and religious in another. If I didn't make that statement do not attribute it to me - in short, do not put words into my mouth. I am not your typical Christian with regards to such issues - anyone here on the GB can tell you that.

Then be more clear. Speak clearly in a scientific sense to us, and if you must go back to your ju-ju friends and talk your mumbo-jumbo about the power of prayer or the literal truth of the Bible, then do so. But don't pretend it's science. Because until you can prove that Christianity in any shape way or form -- including whatever coyly scientific doctrine you pretend to profess -- has any bearing whatsoever on reality, I really don't want to hear it.

Every scientific theory put forward has to be put up to critical scrutiny. It is the fundamental nature of the scientific process. No one cares about Creationism, Christian Science, or whatever doublespeak sophistry you care to concoct precisely because you refuse to acknowledge facts.

You're being cute in your answers, trying to make yourself look reasonable.

Answer these questions:

Was there a Great Flood that wiped out all life on Earth except what Noah took on his ark?

Is there a fallen angel named Satan corrupting people still?

How and when were human beings created? By God, or Evolution?

And so on.

My point was that the possiblity of life in the universe is not simply a quantitative issue, it is also a qualitative issue. Our understanding of both issues changes daily, but all scientists that are involved in these debates agree that both quantity and quality are indeed factors that must be considered. That is all I was trying point out - not that Earth is the only place life is possible, just that it is probably a rarer planet than most non-scientific people think. Most people see shows like Star Trek and think the universe is just chuck full of solar systems with planets, indeed chuck full of solar systems with planets that can support life - when indeed we know no such thing, and that it is very likely just the opposite. I just saw a poll conducted on TV where 97% of the respondents thought that within ten years we would make contact with intelligent alien life (i.e., from another planet). Now if that isn't overly optimistic then I can't say what is.

You can't cloud the issue by muddying it with words about "quality" of life, what the hell does that mean? God -- by your logic -- made flatworms, slugs, leeches, tricky little beasts that crawl around and suck blood. Is that not "qualitative" enough? So if some stinking slug is floating around in the depths of the Pacific, it's "qualitative" but some similar hypoethetical beast in the depths of Europa's ice-choked seas is what, the creation of Satan?

Because we're going to find those creatures, whether it's in our Solar System, or another. Get your head out of the sand.

Did I say any such thing? As stated in the movie "Contact", such a possibility would be an awful waste of space. But since you brought up the Bible again (after asking that I drop it), from a relgious perspective, the Bible says little or nothing about the Earth being the only place in the universe where life exists - that is an assumption some Christians have extrapolated from their interpetations, possibly erroneously.

Possibly erroneously? Possibly? This is the whole problem with you anthrocentric, humoprogenous, dimwitted walking apes. Nothing we've done matters for fuck, not the Bible, not the Pyramids, not the U.S. Constitution. They're all beautiful things, like primitive rock art, but they don't get us above the level of gangs of armed monkeys.

And nothing will, until stupid primitive superstitious nonsense like yours is left behind.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

You start off with:

Bile? Name-calling? If you're feeling defensive and personally assaulted, it's not because I'm making ad hominem attacks. That would presume I know something personal about you. As far as I know, we've never spoken before ever. I'm only countering your arguments. If you choose to react to that on a personal, emotional level, that's your mistake.

And you end with:

This is the whole problem with you anthrocentric, humoprogenous, dimwitted walking apes. Nothing we've done matters for fuck, not the Bible, not the Pyramids, not the U.S. Constitution. They're all beautiful things, like primitive rock art, but they don't get us above the level of gangs of armed monkeys.

And nothing will, until stupid primitive superstitious nonsense like yours is left behind.

If that isn't an ad hominem attack I don't know what is. It certainly is a personal, emotional attack. An ad hominem attack, as you well know, means to attack the person instead of the argument. Repeatedly mixing name calling with hyperbole is indeed an ad hominem attack.

When you call people names as you have repeatedly done in most if not all of your posts (maybe even all), that is attacking the person - it doesn't matter whether you know me or not, indeed it makes it easier to attack me if you don't know me because you can pretend to assume. I could just as easily call you a bunch of names, make assumptions about your character, etc., but I have not - I just have repeatedly tried to disuade you from doing so, and I have mostly ignored your hyperbole.

I can see now that this just doesn't seem to be possible for you, I don't know what your issues are, but you do seem to have some - so I will answer your questions, address your statements, then ask that we agree to disagree and leave it at that, as your venom is tiresome to deal with.

Which is rather sad really, because if you could get past what seems to be a predispositional attitude towards me, I think you would see that we are actually fairly close in our viewpoints of the real issues, if not our approach to them.

So to the issues you raised:

Then be more clear. Speak clearly in a scientific sense to us, and if you must go back to your ju-ju friends and talk your mumbo-jumbo about the power of prayer or the literal truth of the Bible, then do so. But don't pretend it's science. Because until you can prove that Christianity in any shape way or form -- including whatever coyly scientific doctrine you pretend to profess -- has any bearing whatsoever on reality, I really don't want to hear it.

Okay then don't listen - I never said it was science. The whole thread is about science (evolution) and its conflict with a belief system (creation) - or did you not see the thread title? It was clearly labeled "Evolution vs. Creation". I would suggest if you don't want to hear about Christianity then you may want to avoid such threads. BTW - where did I made statements about the "power of prayer" or other "mumbo-jumbo"?

No one cares about Creationism, Christian Science, or whatever doublespeak sophistry you care to concoct precisely because you refuse to acknowledge facts.

First, a number of people do indeed care about Christianity, both Christians and non-Christians. Second, just which "facts" have I refused to acknowledge? I have disputed one issue, but I have not disputed any facts.

Answer these questions:

Interesting that you don't want to hear about Christianity, but you ask these questions.

Was there a Great Flood that wiped out all life on Earth except what Noah took on his ark? I do not know. There is evidence that there was a flood, probably only local to the Mediteranean, and there might be evidence of an ark.

Is there a fallen angel named Satan corrupting people still? I believe so, but beyond a philosophical argument I have no evidence I can present to you to support that belief.

How and when were human beings created? By God, or Evolution?Evolution has never created anything - evolution is a process by which things (both biological organisms and non-biological entities) are modified.

I believe that ultimately humans were created by God. Whether God directly created humans instantaneously or put in place a process where humans came about I would say the latter.

Did modern humans evolve from primitive humans? Yes - from the physical evidence I think we can say we do know that. Did God have a direct hand in that process as referred to in the Bible? I believe that yes he did - how much, when and where I can only speculate as I certainly do not know.

Before you start tearing that apart, know this; when I say I 'know" something, that means this is something that I am prepared to provide evidence and a rational argument for. When I say I "believe" something, it means this is something I hold faith in, but I am not prepared to provide scientific evidence for - I am prepared to engage in a metaphysical and/or philosophical argument on the issue, but not a scientific one.

You can't cloud the issue by muddying it with words about "quality" of life, what the hell does that mean? God -- by your logic -- made flatworms, slugs, leeches, tricky little beasts that crawl around and suck blood. Is that not "qualitative" enough? So if some stinking slug is floating around in the depths of the Pacific, it's "qualitative" but some similar hypoethetical beast in the depths of Europa's ice-choked seas is what, the creation of Satan?

You have mistinterpreted what I had to say (either intentionally or not - I do not know). When I used the words qualitative vs. quantitative I meant the literally. I think my meaning was amply clear from the context in which I used it, but I will explain it further for the benefit of others because it seems it was you who muddied the waters not me. I would have thought someone who claimed to put so much store in the scientific method would know what these terms mean.

By qualitative I mean to say that there must be a quality to an environ which makes it amenable to the evolution/creation of life. A planet to close to the sun, such as Mercury, does not have that quality - as would many planets which would be too far from a star to support life, or which would have other factors not amenable to life. By quantitative I simply mean quantity of planets.

We both seem to agree that there needs to be some quantity of planets for there to be life, the reason being, if you think about it, is that not all planets are going to have the right qualities to support life.

There - is that clear now? I don't see how you could have missed it - but you apparently did.

Because we're going to find those creatures, whether it's in our Solar System, or another. Get your head out of the sand.

Highly unlikely that we will find life in another solar system - for the following reasons:

1) Even if life in the universe were a lot more plentiful than even the most optimistic of scientists allow for, it is still going to be fairly rare.

2) Given #1, and given the fact that we are unlikely to develop faster than light travel (we will probably die off as a species first), and given that even near the speed of light it would take us centuries (probably millenia if not longer) to reach a planet outside our solar system that is capable of supporting life, not to mention actually having life - it is highly unlikely we will ever find any kind of creature, and less likely an intelligent one.

3) Add on top of #2 and #1, the fact that even if we could travel faster than light, if we undertook such a highly resource intensive and low reward endeavor, and we did find a planet that at one time was amenable to life, life on that planet may have dissappeared by the time we reach it.

Assuming there are other such planets, it would be a huge assumption to believe that both the Earth and this other planet are in the same time frame ecologically. This is especially true when we consider the possiblity of intelligent life - such life may have either not evolved yet, or it may have died off millions, even billions of years ago. We as humans have only been around for a very short time respectively - it is almost a leap of faith to assume that life on other planets would be around at the same time, especially given the nature of organisms to compete vs. cooperation.

4) Given #3, especially the part about competition, and given that we seem to be a rather destructive irrational species, I find it more likely that we will destroy ourselves, either directly or indirectly, before we get off this planet, much less out of this solar system. Sure we have been to the moon, but by getting off this planet I mean colonization of other planets, or at least real and concerted exploration of other planets to the extent that we have explored this one (which is rather pitiful - we probably know more about the surface moon than we do about two-thirds of our planet, the oceans).