Notices

View Poll Results: Is the Earth the only Habital planet?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    14 77.78%
  • Yes

    1 5.56%
  • In our Galaxy but not universe

    3 16.67%
  • In the Universe

    0 0%
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Earth. The only Habital Planet?

  1. #1 Earth. The only Habital Planet? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    19
    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"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Earth. The only Habital Planet? 
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Boy Genius
    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
    The Vatican doesn't believe it is: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,3740227.story


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    19
    Yeh, well the vatican are stupid. lol.
    "Debates are what keep me going"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    [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
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Earth. The only Habital Planet? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    84
    ( (Is this the right forum for this? It seems like an astrobiology question...) ).;
    My avatar looks like a vagina!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    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.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Earth. The only Habital Planet? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Boy Genius
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Earth. The only Habital Planet? 
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    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.
    Any links/references? Besides NASA's Antarctic meteorite?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    He might be refering to the detection of methane in the atmosphere. More probably it is a refrence to the increasing evidence for significant volumes of water. NASA has been on a crusade to seek out evidence of water on Mars. They seem to operate on the paradigm that water and life are almost identical: find one and you will likely find the other. That is, in my opinion, simplistic to the point of juvenile. (But they have a larger budget for interplanetary exploaration than I. )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Earth. The only Habital Planet? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    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.
    Any links/references? Besides NASA's Antarctic meteorite?
    The methane is indeed a potential biomarker.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...bc15a74a9e00ac


    Using the Fourier Transform Spectrometer at the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope, we observed a spectrum of Mars at the P-branch of the
    strongest CH4 band at 3.3 μm with resolving power of 180,000 for the apodized spectrum. Summing up the spectral intervals at the expected
    positions of the 15 strongest Doppler-shifted martian lines, we detected the absorption by martian methane at a 3.7 sigma level which is exactly
    centered in the summed spectrum. The observed CH4 mixing ratio is 10±3 ppb. Total photochemical loss of CH4 in the martian atmosphere is
    equal to , the CH4 lifetime is 340 years and methane should be uniformly mixed in the atmosphere. Heterogeneous loss of atmospheric methane is
    probably negligible, while the sink of CH4 during its diffusion through the regolith may be significant. There are no processes of CH4 formation in
    the atmosphere, so the photochemical loss must therefore be balanced by abiogenic and biogenic sources. Outgassing from Mars is weak, the latest
    volcanism is at least 10 million years old, and thermal emission imaging from the Mars Odyssey orbiter does not reveal any hot spots on Mars.
    Hydrothermal systems can hardly be warmer than the room temperature at which production of methane is very low in terrestrial waters.
    Therefore a significant production of hydrothermal and magmatic methane is not very likely on Mars. The calculated average production of
    CH4 by cometary impacts is 2% of the methane loss. Production of methane by meteorites and interplanetary dust does not exceed 4% of
    the methane loss. Methane cannot originate from an extinct biosphere, as in the case of “natural gas” on Earth, given the exceedingly low limits on
    organic matter set by the Viking landers and the dry recent history which has been extremely hostile to the macroscopic life needed to generate
    the gas. Therefore, methanogenesis by living subterranean organisms is a plausible explanation for this discovery. Our estimates of the biomass
    and its production using the measured CH4 abundance show that the martian biota may be extremely scarce and Mars may be generally sterile
    except for some oases.
    It remains to be seen whether the methane is truly being generated biologically or not, but levels are higher than expected and cannot be explained with our present level of knowledge about Mars as the abstract indicates.

    The meteorite you mention provides more tantalizing bits, although these are controversial. Additionally, evidence for past liquid water has snowballed over the past decade, with evidence of underground liquid water today, at one of the craters.

    http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podca...-20061206.html

    The absence of organics in the surface soil suggests that life may not be abundant if present at all.

    The Phoenix Mars Lander arrives at the red planet on Sunday. One of its mission goals is microscopic and chemical evaluation of soil samples at the north pole, an area with plentiful ice. Stay tuned. :-D

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ph...ion/index.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Earth. The only Habital Planet? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    The absence of organics in the surface soil suggests that life may not be abundant if present at all.
    The alleged absence of organics. Gilbert Levin, designer of the Labelled Release Experiment on the Viking Landers, still maintains that they detected life on Mars almost forty years ago. The GCMS that failed to detect any organic material also failed to detect organics in biologically active Antarctic soil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Cheers!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Searching for life on Martian surface soil seems to me like hunting truffles without a shovel.

    Somebody bring a damn shovel already! :x
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Visit the Phoenix lander link, see the mission.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I'm whining for a shovel and Phoenix brings a mini back hoe. Hats off to Phoenix team! :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Earth. The only Habital Planet? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Boy Genius
    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

    Boy Genius, let me know when you have the technology to get there. I want to keep a tab of these things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •