| Is the Earth the only Habital planet? |
| Yes |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
| No |
|
82% |
[ 14 ] |
| In our Galaxy but not universe |
|
11% |
[ 2 ] |
| In the Universe |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 17 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| Boy Genius |
 Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: Earth. The only Habital Planet? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 18
|
Well, this is simple. do you think earth is the only habital planet in our galaxy, or even the universe.
If your an average christian you would believe it is, but scientists are always trying to figure this out so, you try to.
Thanks~ Boy Genius
_________________
"Debates are what keep me going" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:15 am Post subject: Re: Earth. The only Habital Planet? |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Boy Genius |
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 18
|
Yeh, well the vatican are stupid. lol.
_________________
"Debates are what keep me going" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Hanuka |
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 18 Apr 2008
Posts: 544
Location: The 10th Kingdom xD
|
[ad hominem remark deleted]
In our universe there are serval BILLIONS of stars, now take the water commoncy in the universe and count the odds of how many planets from this total of serval thousands(millions) of billions of stars might contain water.
I tell you this: It's not one plantet, it's not hundered planets and its even not 20 million planets, its much much MUCH more.
You came to a science forum, if you want to have a baneficial experiance here I recommend leaving Jesus at home and learn how to not respond by "FU" each time you see someone who's not Christian!
Even a Satanist is human enough to have the mere right to be heard.
_________________
Good Brother
~~~~~~~~~~
Feed Meeee! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: Re: Earth. The only Habital Planet? |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 503
|
| Given the rapidly accumulating evidence for microbial life on our nearest neighbour Mars, the odds of Earth being the only habitable planet are exceedingly low. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1140
Location: Norway
|
That Tellus is the only planet where there is life or where life can appear is ludicrous when reviewing the evidence. The probability for there being life elsewhere in this universe is significantly high.
_________________
You can't determine what's good and what's bad before you've seen both extremes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ryon |
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 56
Location: Virginia
|
( (Is this the right forum for this? It seems like an astrobiology question...) ).;
_________________
My avatar looks like a vagina! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BumFluff |
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Canada
|
The Earth isn't even the only hobital body within our solar system. What makes you think it's the only habital planet in the universe?
_________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lynx_Fox |
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 88
|
If you mean where humans can play and sing outside and naked--well those are probably exceedingly hard to come by.
With technology we could inhabit many planets in our own solar system right now--but we need at least some tech to survive large parts of our own planet as well.
If you mean Habitable to any form of life, I think in the end we'll find life pretty common especially in primate forms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1179
|
Our galaxy is relatively young, and so is our solar system. It could not always support life. This is because some stars had to live and die to make the elements which planets and life are built of. Now Sol, formed from this material about as soon as it was available.
Life then appeared on Earth as soon as conditions were even remotely hospitable.
We've come to exist at the earliest possible opportunity, in this galaxy's frame of development.
As the galaxy matures there will be more and more opportunities, which I believe life will fill automatically. 5 more billion years, I guess, before life becomes very common.
I was tempted to vote "In our galaxy but not universe", but I guess there are some fellow early birds growing parallel to us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2082
Location: South Africa
|
Very large stars can burn out in a few million years and create the heavier elements needed for life in the supernova explosion. That leaves PLENTY of time for life to originate.
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1179
|
The oldest stars in our galaxy are 13 billion years old, that's as old as the universe itself apparently (???). The oldest stars in our part of the galaxy - the disc or arms - are about 5 to 10 billion years. Our particular neighbourhood (a "fluff" beside an arm) is considered habitable - the core or arms proper are not, for adverse conditions we see in those hectic structures.
Our sun began to form from the wreckage of a supernova 4.6 billion years ago; the molten Earth formed 4.54 billion years ago. The oldest proof of life we have is 3.46 billion-year-old bacteria, though life certainly originated sooner - as soon as possible I assume.
Our sun will become a red giant in about 8 billion years. That's after Andromeda galaxy begins to collide with our Milky Way galaxy.
I hope that all puts us in perspective. What I take from this is, firstly, habitable systems are very rare and ours is among the first; and secondly, where by chance a habitable planet does appear life follows automatically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SuperNatendo |
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 518
Location: Nashville, TN USA
|
You need to be more specific. Habitable in what way, and habitable by what.
We CAN live on any planet we want...with the right technology.
Now as for living without the aid of any technology, not in our solar system...yet.
Mars has the potential to be made habitable. First, all we have to do is increase the amount of greenhouse gasses on the planet. We are good at that so that won't be a problem, Then, it is habitable by bacteria and simple plant life-forms. After a while we can introduce more plants, then this sets a chain reaction where the atmosphere is the right pressure and temperature where humans can survive with just a simple breathing aperatus, no space-suit required!
After that, we may be able to find a way to make the atmosphere breathable by humans. This process would span a very long time, but it is eventually possible.
As for a habitable planet outside of our solar system, it is possible, but there are so many factors involved. It may be perfectly breathable, but there may be harmful viruses or bacteria that would kill us. It may be habitable by other life, but poisonous to us. There are way too many factors to be sure, but I believe we will discover a planet through a telescope of some type with a suitable atmosphere for some type of life or another very very soon, within my lifetime anyway.
Also, if we find life in primate form I would be even more inclined to attest to the reality of a Creator influencing the evolution of intelligent life into similar forms, because the odds for that happening by natural selection and chance alone are so very astronomical! If Atheists are correct we would find more intelligent insectoid, marine, dinosaur/bird life than we would intelligent primates.
_________________
“It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.” - Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Stephen |
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:57 am Post subject: Re: Earth. The only Habital Planet? |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 69
Location: U.K.
|
| Boy Genius wrote: |
Well, this is simple. do you think earth is the only habital planet in our galaxy, or even the universe.
If your an average christian you would believe it is, but scientists are always trying to figure this out so, you try to.
Thanks~ Boy Genius |
Don't see what this has to do with being Christian. I suppose some nutty creationist types might insist that this is the only habitable planet because the Bible mentions no other, but most would probably be quite happy with the prospect of other earths, perhaps with other beings. They would just say that if God can make one such world he can make a million. (Now wait for a dyslexic 20,000 word essay from Jollybear).
There is, however, much to be said for the "Rare Earth" hypothesis which is well explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
Habitable planets may well exist but there are good reasons for suspecting that they are not common. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Stephen |
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 69
Location: U.K.
|
| SuperNatendo wrote: |
Also, if we find life in primate form I would be even more inclined to attest to the reality of a Creator influencing the evolution of intelligent life into similar forms, because the odds for that happening by natural selection and chance alone are so very astronomical! If Atheists are correct we would find more intelligent insectoid, marine, dinosaur/bird life than we would intelligent primates. |
I think actual insects, dinosaurs and birds on an alien world would be just as improbable as primates. More likely would be equivalents, produced by parallel evolution filling similar ecological niches. So we might see things that looked a bit like insects, birds etc. but were not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
