Search for EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL LIFE:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Nov 7, 2017.

  1. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,113
    Is there not somewhat of an elephant in the room with this?
    If they intend to use the "frequent solar storms" as a means to search for the signatures of life, will these same storms not have actually prevented life - or made it far less likely to take hold - in the first place?
    While I'm sure that the method is sound in terms of investigating the atmospheres, is the method not already limiting the possibility of finding what they're looking for?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,227
    I guess it depends what you mean by 'far exceeding their numbers'.

    There is an oft-referenced account about elephants creating deserts by knocking down trees over generations.
    Beavers create lakes by damming rivers, rendering acres unsuitable for wildlife.
    Algae blooms poison swaths of ocean.

    Where do you draw the line?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,673
    My guess is scientists will take what they can get

    No good looking at solar storms and saying they might stop life forming so we won't bother using them. We will just wait for the massive neon sign to flash with the arrow pointing to the planet saying HERE BE LIFE

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    649
    Elephants didn't starve themselves into extinction by doing that. And excusing human destruction be saying "hey, those dumb animals do it to" is still absurd.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,227
    Creating deserts certainly starved a lot of critters. And humans aren't extinct.

    So humans do the things animals do. So it's not only humans, as you asserted.

    I think your point was kind of overstated.
     
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    649
    Ah, you're AGW denialist.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,227
    A non sequitur. It does not follow from what we have been discussing.

    I haven't made an assertion; I have dimply dismantled the assertion you've made, using examples.
     
  11. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    649
    Or at least you tried to do so. However, why be disingenuous?
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,227
    I showed several examples where it's not true. That's pretty much a mismantling.

    I'm not sure how you think I'm being disingenuous. It was quite sincere.

    I'm not sure what the big deal is. Yours was a comment made in haste, and it's not really pivotal to the discussion at-hand. Why don't we just move on?
     
  13. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    649
    You're denying you're an AGW conspiracy theorist. That's old and boring.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,227
    That's adorable.
    I'm not even sure what an AGW conspiracy theorist is, let alone how you got here from there.

    Tell me, if I declared that global warming was caused by an excess of ducks, and you pointed out the factual flaw in that, could I then accuse you of being a Climate Change denier?
    Is that how your logic works?
     
  15. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    649
    You have a nice life, you hear?
     

Share This Page