Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Uniquity

148 views
Skip to first unread message

Glenn

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 2:23:32 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"We demonstrate that, in spite of deterministic physical, chemical, and biological factors that control most of our planet's mineral diversity, Earth's mineralogy is unique in the cosmos."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1500391X

erik simpson

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 3:13:32 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 11:23:32 AM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> "We demonstrate that, in spite of deterministic physical, chemical, and biological factors that control most of our planet's mineral diversity, Earth's mineralogy is unique in the cosmos."
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1500391X

From the article itself:

The preceding calculations relate specifically to the distribution of 112 known beryllium minerals, which represent only 2.3% of the 4831 approved species. Given Earth's significant mineralogical diversity, how probable is Earth's mineralogy on another Earth-like planet? The most common rock-forming minerals are likely to dominate on any Earth-like planet; thus, major lithological units such as basalt and granite are deterministic. However, the majority of mineral species are rare, with 1062 species known from only 1 locality (mindat.org). Thus, replicating Earth's documented mineralogy on another world that has been subjected to comparable exploration would require more than 1000 low-probability (less than 50%) events. Extrapolating from the case of Be minerals, for which 33 species are known from 1 locality, and assuming that probabilities scale roughly with the number of rare minerals (also noting that similar LNRE frequency distributions apply both to all minerals and to the Be subset), we approximate the probability, P, of duplicating Earth's mineralogy to be less than:
P<10−[10×(1062/33)]≈10−322P<10−[10×(1062/33)]≈10−322

The seemingly absurd claim in the abstract turns on what precisely is required
of 'duplication'. Much as you'd like it to say, this contribution does not
validate Bill's uniqueness assertions.


Bill

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 3:48:33 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Of course is does. There are so many special conditions required for Earth
to be the way it is, that we can skip the maybes and probabilities and could
haves and jump right to the obvious conclusion that Earth is singular.
Notice that I did not use the U word since offends T.O. orthodoxy.

Bill


RSNorman

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 3:58:33 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:22:27 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>"We demonstrate that, in spite of deterministic physical, chemical, and biological factors that control most of our planet's mineral diversity, Earth's mineralogy is unique in the cosmos."
>
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1500391X

Try actually reading the paper you cite.

Specifically the authors looked at 112 known minerals containing
Beryllium. Some were very common, beryl for example, but many were
quite rare. The abundance distribution followed a Zipf-Mandelbrot
model just as, as cited in the paper, do species in a forest ecosystem
or words in a book. The authors predicted from the distribution
pattern that there are likely some 90 as yet undiscovered but very
rare Beryllium species here on Earth.

Of the total of 204 presumptive Earth minerals, the authors calculated
that 34 would likely occur on all earth-like planets with another 26
having > 95% chance of occurring. So more than half of the Beryllium
minerals found on Earth would likely be found on any Earth-like
planet. The differences are in the very rare minerals found on Earth
at only one or a few locations. The very specific set of these
rarities is extremely unlikely to be reproduced exactly on another
planet.

The authors predict "that every mineral-forming chemical element has
the potential to form at least 1000 species; thus, we suggest that as
many as 800 additional plausible Be minerals may occur in the cosmos,
significantly decreasing the likelihood of finding the identical suite
of 112 species on another planet." Repeat that for all the 4831 known
Earth minerals and you get that ridiculously small probability quoted.
However the authors also write "The most common rock-forming minerals
are likely to dominate on any Earth-like planet; thus, major
lithological units such as basalt and granite are deterministic.
However, the major-ity of mineral species are rare, with 1062 species
known from only 1 locality..." It is this set of rare minerals with a
chance of less than 50% for any one to appear on another planet that,
in exact combination, yields that number.

I don't think this result comes as any surprise. The basic minerology
of most of the mass of a different Earth-like planet will be identical
but the rare outliers are certain to be unique to each planet.

I also doubt that an Earth-like planet with tectonic plates will
include a Pacific plate rubbing against the North American plate to
produce a San Andreas Fault. I would expect, though, that any
Earth-like planet with tectonic plates will have subduction and
upwelling or rift zones as well as transform faults like the San
Andreas just as any Earth-like planet will have a wide variety of
Beryllium containing minerals with perhaps 50 of the most common types
agreeing completely with the same minerals we see on Earth.




RSNorman

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 4:18:33 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:46:07 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>erik simpson wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 11:23:32 AM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>> "We demonstrate that, in spite of deterministic physical, chemical, and
>>> biological factors that control most of our planet's mineral diversity,
>>> Earth's mineralogy is unique in the cosmos."
>>>
>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1500391X
>>
>> From the article itself:
>>
>> The preceding calculations relate specifically to the distribution of 112
>> known beryllium minerals, which represent only 2.3% of the 4831 approved
>> species. Given Earth's significant mineralogical diversity, how probable
>> is Earth's mineralogy on another Earth-like planet? The most common
>> rock-forming minerals are likely to dominate on any Earth-like planet;
>> thus, major lithological units such as basalt and granite are
>> deterministic. However, the majority of mineral species are rare, with
>> 1062 species known from only 1 locality (mindat.org). Thus, replicating
>> Earth's documented mineralogy on another world that has been subjected to
>> comparable exploration would require more than 1000 low-probability (less
>> than 50%) events. Extrapolating from the case of Be minerals, for which 33
>> species are known from 1 locality, and assuming that probabilities scale
>> roughly with the number of rare minerals (also noting that similar LNRE
>> frequency distributions apply both to all minerals and to the Be subset),
>> we approximate the probability, P, of duplicating Earth's mineralogy to be
>> less than: P<10?[10×(1062/33)]?10?322P<10?[10×(1062/33)]?10?322
>>
>> The seemingly absurd claim in the abstract turns on what precisely is
>> required
>> of 'duplication'. Much as you'd like it to say, this contribution does
>> not validate Bill's uniqueness assertions.
>
>Of course is does. There are so many special conditions required for Earth
>to be the way it is, that we can skip the maybes and probabilities and could
>haves and jump right to the obvious conclusion that Earth is singular.
>Notice that I did not use the U word since offends T.O. orthodoxy.

We have already had several long drawn-out threads on the supposed
uniqueness of Earth.

It is certainly true that Earth is unique among all planets in the
universe. It is certainly true that you, Bill, are unique among all
humans on this planet.

It is also certainly true that there are an enormous number of
Earth-like planets with mineral composition and physical conditions
like temperature, atmospheric pressure, etc. very similar to that on
Earth. It is also certainly true that you, Bill, are just another
member of the species Homo sapiens and have essential the same general
structure and function as every other human.

The question is not whether Earth is unique. It is whether those
exceptionally fine details of diversity are specifically the details
which make the origin and evolution of life on Earth unique or whether
the features shared by many Earth-like planets would very likely allow
the origin and evolution of life elsewhere.

Bill

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 4:23:32 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
There are an enormous number of planets. One planet among them has life.
These are facts that have been verified.

Bill


RSNorman

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 5:23:32 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Read what I wrote. The earth is unique is some ways. It is not
believed to be unique in all. There is no reason to think that no
other planet is capable of life. There is reason to know that only
one planet is currently known to have life.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 5:43:32 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Bill" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mrl723$vp4$2...@dont-email.me...
See all the straw?

Robert Camp

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 6:13:33 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I read this post as the final strains of Thick as a Brick were emanating
from my computer.

Positively Jungian.

Bill

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 6:38:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Don't supply your reasoning for ignoring what's actually said, it will
confound your archetype.

Bill


jillery

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:28:32 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:46:07 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>erik simpson wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 11:23:32 AM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>> "We demonstrate that, in spite of deterministic physical, chemical, and
>>> biological factors that control most of our planet's mineral diversity,
>>> Earth's mineralogy is unique in the cosmos."
>>>
>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1500391X
>>
>> From the article itself:
>>
>> The preceding calculations relate specifically to the distribution of 112
>> known beryllium minerals, which represent only 2.3% of the 4831 approved
>> species. Given Earth's significant mineralogical diversity, how probable
>> is Earth's mineralogy on another Earth-like planet? The most common
>> rock-forming minerals are likely to dominate on any Earth-like planet;
>> thus, major lithological units such as basalt and granite are
>> deterministic. However, the majority of mineral species are rare, with
>> 1062 species known from only 1 locality (mindat.org). Thus, replicating
>> Earth's documented mineralogy on another world that has been subjected to
>> comparable exploration would require more than 1000 low-probability (less
>> than 50%) events. Extrapolating from the case of Be minerals, for which 33
>> species are known from 1 locality, and assuming that probabilities scale
>> roughly with the number of rare minerals (also noting that similar LNRE
>> frequency distributions apply both to all minerals and to the Be subset),
>> we approximate the probability, P, of duplicating Earth's mineralogy to be
>> less than: P<10?[10×(1062/33)]?10?322P<10?[10×(1062/33)]?10?322
>>
>> The seemingly absurd claim in the abstract turns on what precisely is
>> required
>> of 'duplication'. Much as you'd like it to say, this contribution does
>> not validate Bill's uniqueness assertions.
>
>Of course is does. There are so many special conditions required for Earth
>to be the way it is, that we can skip the maybes and probabilities and could
>haves and jump right to the obvious conclusion that Earth is singular.
>Notice that I did not use the U word since offends T.O. orthodoxy.


There's nothing singular about Earth having singular features.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

jillery

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:28:32 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:22:04 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

This stupid canard again. You don't know that Earth is the only
planet to have life. Get over it.

jillery

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:28:33 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
<PING> Dang it!

Pete K.

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:33:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:22:04 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

"One planet among them has life" is ambiguous. If you mean "at least
one planet has life" then you are correct. If you mean "only one
planet has life" that is certainly not a verified fact.


Glenn

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:38:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Pete K." <n...@email.plz> wrote in message news:nvista5jjn9jenjop...@4ax.com...
Hypotheses are not verified facts.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:38:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:qsistathk6me4lgcq...@4ax.com...
<PING> Dang it!


Glenn

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:38:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:unistalunbttfh1ac...@4ax.com...
Now that is deep stuff.

Pete K.

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:43:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:36:37 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
What hypothesis? I'm asking Bill to be more precise in his language.

erik simpson

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:53:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I don't want to disillusion you in your search for clarity, but asking Bill
anything is manifestly a waste of time. He's just a troll, and an especially
repetitive, boring one at that. TO is short on really entertaining trolls,
you should check sci.phyics.relativity or sci.math for much more colorful nonsense.

jillery

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:58:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Good point.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:58:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Pete K." <n...@email.plz> wrote in message news:aljstahouctr61nlt...@4ax.com...
Do you expect to say that he knows only one planet in the universe has life?

RSNorman

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:58:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The precision is in the more proper wording: Earth is unique in being
the only planet that we know has life on it.

Of course that notion of uniqueness (uniquity, if you prefer) has no
value. But it is true.



Glenn

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:58:32 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:358b5bea-a872-41be...@googlegroups.com...
And that is why everyone is piling on him, right?

Bill

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 7:58:32 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Of course it is. Life has only been found on Earth. This is a fact. Life has
not been found anywhere else. This is also a fact. These are both verified
facts and completely non-ambiguous. The "at least" part is an unnecessary
qualification (and ambiguous) since it assumes facts that don't exist.

Bill

Glenn

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 8:03:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:qbksta5vdicaapoan...@4ax.com...
Sure it does. Just find one with life and it is falsified.

erik simpson

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 8:03:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Sorry, Glenn. You don't make the interesting troll list either.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 8:18:32 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:70d4e025-a576-4dba...@googlegroups.com...
Why are you sorry?

Paul J Gans

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 8:28:32 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:46:07 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>erik simpson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 11:23:32 AM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "We demonstrate that, in spite of deterministic physical, chemical, and
>>>> biological factors that control most of our planet's mineral diversity,
>>>> Earth's mineralogy is unique in the cosmos."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1500391X
>>>
>>> From the article itself:
>>>
>>> The preceding calculations relate specifically to the distribution of 112
>>> known beryllium minerals, which represent only 2.3% of the 4831 approved
>>> species. Given Earth's significant mineralogical diversity, how probable
>>> is Earth's mineralogy on another Earth-like planet? The most common
>>> rock-forming minerals are likely to dominate on any Earth-like planet;
>>> thus, major lithological units such as basalt and granite are
>>> deterministic. However, the majority of mineral species are rare, with
>>> 1062 species known from only 1 locality (mindat.org). Thus, replicating
>>> Earth's documented mineralogy on another world that has been subjected to
>>> comparable exploration would require more than 1000 low-probability (less
>>> than 50%) events. Extrapolating from the case of Be minerals, for which 33
>>> species are known from 1 locality, and assuming that probabilities scale
>>> roughly with the number of rare minerals (also noting that similar LNRE
>>> frequency distributions apply both to all minerals and to the Be subset),
>>> we approximate the probability, P, of duplicating Earth's mineralogy to be
>>> less than: P<10?[10?(1062/33)]?10?322P<10?[10?(1062/33)]?10?322
>>>
>>> The seemingly absurd claim in the abstract turns on what precisely is
>>> required
>>> of 'duplication'. Much as you'd like it to say, this contribution does
>>> not validate Bill's uniqueness assertions.
>>
>>Of course is does. There are so many special conditions required for Earth
>>to be the way it is, that we can skip the maybes and probabilities and could
>>haves and jump right to the obvious conclusion that Earth is singular.
>>Notice that I did not use the U word since offends T.O. orthodoxy.

>We have already had several long drawn-out threads on the supposed
>uniqueness of Earth.

>It is certainly true that Earth is unique among all planets in the
>universe. It is certainly true that you, Bill, are unique among all
>humans on this planet.

>It is also certainly true that there are an enormous number of
>Earth-like planets with mineral composition and physical conditions
>like temperature, atmospheric pressure, etc. very similar to that on
>Earth. It is also certainly true that you, Bill, are just another
>member of the species Homo sapiens and have essential the same general
>structure and function as every other human.

>The question is not whether Earth is unique. It is whether those
>exceptionally fine details of diversity are specifically the details
>which make the origin and evolution of life on Earth unique or whether
>the features shared by many Earth-like planets would very likely allow
>the origin and evolution of life elsewhere.

Well put! But given the ubiquity and hardiness of life on earth, I'd
bet on life existing on many other planets.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

erik simpson

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 10:13:31 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Got me there. I'm not actually sorry, I was just trying not to hurt your feelings.

Robert Camp

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 10:18:30 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I'm sorry for not responding substantively. I will actually apologize
for the cheap shot. And to demonstrate my good will, I'll explain my
reasoning for ignoring what you said...

What you said was embarrassingly obtuse.

Richard offered a several-paragraph set of observations on the subject
of earthly distinctiveness. He took the time to consider the issue from
both the semantic and empirical perspective. He tried to explain why
there is a logical disconnect between the speculative inferences you
suggest are supported by "uniqueness," and the actual (contextual)
superficiality of those notions of uniqueness.

Your response betrayed not the slightest hint of having read or
understood any of the post to which it was appended.

Obtuse.


Glenn

unread,
Aug 26, 2015, 10:58:33 PM8/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f01182f5-e801-4a50...@googlegroups.com...
No you weren't. If you thought that would hurt my feelings you wouldn't have said it if you were trying not to hurt my feelings.
Where do you nuts come from?

Bill

unread,
Aug 27, 2015, 12:18:30 PM8/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
There were two points in play: the mineral composition of Earth and the
uniqueness of Earth. I was responding to the second. As we know, I argued
that point several times and it was agreed by all that there was sufficient
evidence to prove me wrong. Worse, I was not only wrong but anti-science for
even suggesting that Earth is unique. My reply is evidence that I still hold
my original views.

Now, reread the posts.

Bill

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 27, 2015, 2:38:29 PM8/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:55:46 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
No one is that clueless, and no one who understands English
is incapable of understanding the above. When others called
Bill a troll, I argued against that. Apparently I was wrong.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 27, 2015, 2:43:29 PM8/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:55:24 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f01182f5-e801-4a50...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 5:18:32 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>> "erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:70d4e025-a576-4dba...@googlegroups.com...

<snip irrelevantia>

>>> > Sorry, Glenn. You don't make the interesting troll list either.

>>> Why are you sorry?

>> Got me there. I'm not actually sorry, I was just trying not to hurt your feelings.

>No you weren't.

So why did you ask if you're able to read his mind and
already know the answer?

>Where do you nuts come from?

We're always on the lookout for squirrely individuals.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 27, 2015, 3:18:28 PM8/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:b5muta15nki1uuf9m...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:55:24 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f01182f5-e801-4a50...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 5:18:32 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:70d4e025-a576-4dba...@googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip irrelevantia>
>
>>>> > Sorry, Glenn. You don't make the interesting troll list either.
>
>>>> Why are you sorry?
>
>>> Got me there. I'm not actually sorry, I was just trying not to hurt your feelings.
>
>>No you weren't.
>
> So why did you ask if you're able to read his mind and
> already know the answer?

Um, because I didn't know why till he responded.
>
>>Where do you nuts come from?
>
> We're always on the lookout for squirrely individuals.
> --
"We"? LOL!

Bill

unread,
Aug 27, 2015, 3:23:28 PM8/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova wrote:


...

>>>>> The question is not whether Earth is unique. It is whether those
>>>>> exceptionally fine details of diversity are specifically the details
>>>>> which make the origin and evolution of life on Earth unique or whether
>>>>> the features shared by many Earth-like planets would very likely allow
>>>>> the origin and evolution of life elsewhere.
>
>>>>There are an enormous number of planets. One planet among them has life.
>>>>These are facts that have been verified.
>
>>> "One planet among them has life" is ambiguous. If you mean "at least
>>> one planet has life" then you are correct. If you mean "only one
>>> planet has life" that is certainly not a verified fact.
>
>>Of course it is. Life has only been found on Earth. This is a fact. Life
>>has not been found anywhere else. This is also a fact. These are both
>>verified facts and completely non-ambiguous. The "at least" part is an
>>unnecessary qualification (and ambiguous) since it assumes facts that
>>don't exist.
>
> No one is that clueless, and no one who understands English
> is incapable of understanding the above. When others called
> Bill a troll, I argued against that. Apparently I was wrong.

You still don't provide the reasoning behind your characterizations. If I'm
that wrong, that clueless surely it would easy to show.

Bill

erik simpson

unread,
Aug 27, 2015, 6:13:29 PM8/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You seem unusually upset for your normally laconic self. In fact, your feelings
don't matter to me one way or the other

Glenn

unread,
Aug 27, 2015, 7:03:28 PM8/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a436d4c4-866c-4628...@googlegroups.com...
And why should you feel the need to let me know?

erik simpson

unread,
Aug 27, 2015, 7:13:28 PM8/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Didn't you already know?

erik simpson

unread,
Aug 27, 2015, 7:38:29 PM8/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
My last couple of replies contained no information and were (of course) intented
to needle. You've built a reputation for generally snarky (and generally vacuous) one-liners, so in the spirit of bad fun, I decided to try it too.
I find that it isn't much fun, so consider them retracted. Carry on.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 27, 2015, 8:23:28 PM8/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8dea5d84-34db-4c8e...@googlegroups.com...
Lost your black tee shirt with the big "A" on the back and can't go out in public?

Glenn

unread,
Aug 27, 2015, 8:23:29 PM8/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0de6ea9d-580d-4715...@googlegroups.com...
Why did you feel the need to tell me?

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 4:03:27 AM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ok. I will int ut the obvious in the secure knowledge it will go ver
creationist heads in much the same way as, say, Jupiter (the planet).

We've only examined *one* planet apart from earth (Mars) and the jury is
still out on that one sporting any life. So far we've found around a
thousand (or so) exoplanets of which we know little more than their orbit
around some star and (in some cases) a little about their atmosphere.

That's a sample size of 2 in a universe that has an estimated 10^23
planets. Statistically, that does not allow yu to draw *any* conclusion
and *anyone* seriously interested in the subject realizes that.

You are like a baby on a fancy-fair thinking only his mom has breasts,
since those are the only ones he ever saw. The baby can be excused, but
not you.

Nick Roberts

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 10:58:26 AM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In message <mrnnou$bn0$1...@dont-email.me>
OK. You say "that 'a least' is an unnecessary qualification (and
ambiguous) since it assumes facts that don't exist."

What fact does that assume that doesn't exist? By any normal use of
English, "at least X" means "we know there is no fewer than X, and there
may be more than X".

Do you deny that there we know from observation that there are at least
1000 other planets in the galaxy? Are you perhaps claiming that those
1000 other planets are the only ones in the galaxy (i.e. that all the
planets in the galaxy form a very tight cluster close to Earth)? Are
you claiming to have knowledge that not a single one of those 1000 (or
the other estimated 100 billion other planets in the galaxy) has life?

Pretty much everyone who has taken you up on your claim is doing it on
the basis of ignorance - we don't know whether the Earth is unique in
this matter. It's you who is claiming perfect knowledg, and you who is
assuming facts that don't exist.

You see, it's really not hard to demonstrate the cluelessness of your
post. All it requires is a knowledge of English, and an admission that
we don't know about every other planet in the galaxy.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Greg Guarino

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 11:43:26 AM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/26/2015 4:22 PM, Bill wrote:

> There are an enormous number of planets.

How do you know?

So far the human race has only identified a couple thousand, a number I
would not call "enormous". And as far as I know, even those are known
mainly by the dreaded "inference", not seen directly.

You wouldn't be 1. accepting identification by inference and 2.
compounding that presumption by inferring a much greater number based on
mere conjecture, would you?

Bill

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 11:48:26 AM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I cited the facts that are known. You refer to potential fact that may not
be factual. You argue that possible facts modify actual facts. You argue
that an absence of fact is equivalent to actual fact. You say that
potential, maybes and could be and should be and might be facts are more
scientific that observed and verified fact. You argue that I'm clueless
because I prefer verified fact to unverified non-fact.

Bill

Glenn

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 12:08:27 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mrpv90$hca$1...@dont-email.me...
Would you apply this to RNorman's claim?

Greg Guarino

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 12:43:26 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Whoosh!

Bill

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 12:58:26 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
A "certainly true" declaration about something known to be maybe, perhaps,
could be possibly true, is an excellent example of hyperbole. I think we're
supposed to accept it since it's made in a good cause (debunking Bill, et
al).

Bill


Greg Guarino

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 1:08:26 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I have no idea what that means, but it doesn't sound like an answer to
my question. How do you know there are an enormous number of planets?

Burkhard

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 1:33:26 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
No, you are clueless because you make claims much stronger than the
evidence you cite warrants. In fact, you make a particularly bad example
of what you claim you criticize in bad science reporting - you over-hype
your observations to make unwarranted and much stronger claims.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 2:33:26 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:qbksta5vdicaapoan...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:42:06 -0400, "Pete K." <n...@email.plz> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:36:37 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Pete K." <n...@email.plz> wrote in message news:nvista5jjn9jenjop...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> It is also certainly true that there are an enormous number of
>>>>>> Earth-like planets with mineral composition and physical conditions
>>>>>> like temperature, atmospheric pressure, etc. very similar to that on
>>>>>> Earth. It is also certainly true that you, Bill, are just another
>>>>>> member of the species Homo sapiens and have essential the same general
>>>>>> structure and function as every other human.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is not whether Earth is unique. It is whether those
>>>>>> exceptionally fine details of diversity are specifically the details
>>>>>> which make the origin and evolution of life on Earth unique or whether
>>>>>> the features shared by many Earth-like planets would very likely allow
>>>>>> the origin and evolution of life elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are an enormous number of planets. One planet among them has life.
>>>>>These are facts that have been verified.
>>>>
>>>> "One planet among them has life" is ambiguous. If you mean "at least
>>>> one planet has life" then you are correct. If you mean "only one
>>>> planet has life" that is certainly not a verified fact.
>>>>
>>>Hypotheses are not verified facts.
>>
>>What hypothesis? I'm asking Bill to be more precise in his language.
>
> The precision is in the more proper wording: Earth is unique in being
> the only planet that we know has life on it.
>
> Of course that notion of uniqueness (uniquity, if you prefer) has no
> value. But it is true.
>
"Responsible science demands that we attempt to prove the null hypothesis - that is, to try our level best to disprove any claimed contact."
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2000ASPC..213..629S&db_key=AST&page_ind=4&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

So SETI's hypothesis has no value?

Glenn

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 2:38:25 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mrq2oc$uoj$1...@dont-email.me...
LOL!



Glenn

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 2:38:25 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mrq47g$4dv$1...@dont-email.me...
How does Richard know that there are an enormous number of Earth-like planets?
Do you think that Richard was just mimicking Bill, whoosh?

Glenn

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 2:43:26 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:mrq5ql$b0c$1...@dont-email.me...
Such as SETI does?

rge...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 3:03:25 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 2:23:32 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> "We demonstrate that, in spite of deterministic physical, chemical, and biological factors that control most of our planet's mineral diversity, Earth's mineralogy is unique in the cosmos."
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1500391X

Watching the history channel on the great flood. Instead of a flood that affected multiple groups of people, is it possible that the great flood stories from around the world is the same story involving a single group of individuals that then went on to populate various areas of the globe after the flood? This would point to common descendants for all ethnic groups....

Glenn

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 3:48:26 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

<rge...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ea172854-2992-4276...@googlegroups.com...
That you nymshifting, Robert Camp?

RSNorman

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 4:13:25 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:32:36 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Typical. You quote some statement and ask a question unrelated to the
original problem. Did I mention anything whatsoever about "contact?"

Do you think SETI's hypothesis has value? You go first.

RSNorman

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 4:13:25 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:38:03 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
It is unlikely that Greg has any information about what I know or what
my intentions might be.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 4:58:25 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:a0g1ua997miln417p...@4ax.com...
Unlikely has nothing to do with it. I asked him if he knew how you know. If you do know, either it is
something all to yourself or it is public knowledge.
As to whether you were mimicking Bill, others have done so and been obvious about it. I didn't see
you make any attempt to reveal that was your intention. I asked him for his opinion.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 5:03:25 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:lsf1ualulek7cq4j9...@4ax.com...
First of all, you didn't provide a reason for claiming that the question is "unrelated".
Second of all, I asked first.
Thirdly, "typical" is indicative of childish ad hom.
Fourth, the movie (which is one of my favorites) has nothing to do with the question.

Flap your lips as much as you like, but get to the point or shut up.



RSNorman

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 5:13:26 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:00:09 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
Make a point that is worth responding to.

There is no requirement that you stare fixedly at my lips to see if
and when they might flap.

Moreover, "typical" is also indicative of a mature ad hom. Do you
deny the attribution?

Glenn

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 5:28:26 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:ebj1ua970l2uol1pf...@4ax.com...
I asked you a question. If you want to morph that into "a point" then be my guest. But get to your point or shut up.
>
> There is no requirement that you stare fixedly at my lips to see if
> and when they might flap.
>
> Moreover, "typical" is also indicative of a mature ad hom. Do you
> deny the attribution?
>
I need not defend myself against your childish implication, Richard. And ad hom is not what I would ever characterize as "mature" in any form or context.



RSNorman

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 5:48:25 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:24:49 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
I do think that the statement you quoted and attributed to SET "to try
our level best to disprove any claimed contact" with extraterrestrial
intelligence has no value in determining whether Earth is unique.

Now your turn. What is your point in producing that quote?



Glenn

unread,
Aug 28, 2015, 7:18:24 PM8/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:icl1uap9gv4hshoii...@4ax.com...
Nice strawman. You can't help yourself.
>
> Now your turn. What is your point in producing that quote?
>
Ah, so you all are so upset because Bill is not trying his level best to disprove his claim.

Rolf

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 7:33:24 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:mrlbma$isf$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Bill" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mrl723$vp4$2...@dont-email.me...
> See all the straw?
>

Not at all. What I see is incredulity.

I believe your bold assertion is somewhat premature.

How many solar systems and planets have we studied closely by now? How many
are waiting to be studied yet?

We have no reason to think life could not be present elsewhere in the
universe.

Before we have scanned the entire universe can we say for certain - one way
or the other.


Nick Roberts

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 8:38:22 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In message <mrpvku$iun$1...@dont-email.me>
Which potential fact? At no time did I state that other planets contain
life. What I stated is that (a) there are other planets; and (b) we
don't know that these don't contain life.

Which of these is not a fact? Obviously, you insist that at least one
of them is not a fact - but which one? And what is your evidence for
this?

> You argue that possible facts modify actual facts.

No. I argue that there is a difference between "we don't know that
there is no life on other planets" and "we know that there is no life
on other planets".

> You argue that an absence of fact is equivalent to actual fact.

Where? I argue that we don't know. Are you claiming that we do know? In
which case, as I say, it is you who is claiming facts not in evidence.

> You say that potential, maybes and could be and should be and might
> be facts are more scientific that observed and verified fact.

Actually, I'm arguing exactly the opposite: it is not merely a
"potential" fact that there are other planets; it is not merely a
"potential" fact that we don't know if they contain life.


> You argue that I'm clueless because I prefer verified fact to
> unverified non-fact.

No, I argue that your arguments are clueless, because they are based on
the assumption that not knowing that X is true is the same as knowing
that X is not true.

I don't think you're clueless. I simply think that you are a troll. And
you ceased being a particularly interesting one several months ago,
because all you do is recycle the same old clueless arguements time
after time.

Nick Roberts

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 8:38:23 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In message <mrq9n3$qup$1...@dont-email.me>
No, I think that RNorman is smart enough to realise that the odds that
if there are only a few thousand planets in the galaxy, the odds that
over a thousand of them are close enough to Earth for us to detect with
the technology available to us are so astonoshingly remote that it can
be discounted.

I still live in hope that some time you will contribute something to
the NG that is above the "sniping from the sidelines" category. Hope
springs eternal, as they say.

Pete K.

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 10:13:24 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:55:46 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pete K. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:22:04 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It is also certainly true that there are an enormous number of
>>>> Earth-like planets with mineral composition and physical conditions
>>>> like temperature, atmospheric pressure, etc. very similar to that on
>>>> Earth. It is also certainly true that you, Bill, are just another
>>>> member of the species Homo sapiens and have essential the same general
>>>> structure and function as every other human.
>>>>
>>>> The question is not whether Earth is unique. It is whether those
>>>> exceptionally fine details of diversity are specifically the details
>>>> which make the origin and evolution of life on Earth unique or whether
>>>> the features shared by many Earth-like planets would very likely allow
>>>> the origin and evolution of life elsewhere.
>>>
>>>There are an enormous number of planets. One planet among them has life.
>>>These are facts that have been verified.
>>
>> "One planet among them has life" is ambiguous. If you mean "at least
>> one planet has life" then you are correct. If you mean "only one
>> planet has life" that is certainly not a verified fact.
>
>Of course it is. Life has only been found on Earth. This is a fact. Life has
>not been found anywhere else. This is also a fact. These are both verified
>facts and completely non-ambiguous. The "at least" part is an unnecessary
>qualification (and ambiguous) since it assumes facts that don't exist.

So you stand by the statement "it is a verified fact that only one
planet has life" ?

You do realize this is logically identical to saying "it is a verified
fact that every planet except one does not have life" right?

RSNorman

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 10:53:22 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I think you miss what is verified. The statement refers to "has been
found". Bill is focussed on one point and one point only: life is
known to exist on exactly one planet in the universe. In that sense
he is correct that, to the best of our current knowledge, Earth is
unique. Whether other planets are capable of having life, whether
there is a very good chance that they might, whether there is a
virtual certainty that life exists elsewhere makes no difference. All
that is unknown and to Bill one unknown (life existing elsewhere) is
equally valid as any other unknown (life does not exist elsewhere).
They are both unknown and therefore neither is "valid".

You can't argue science with him because he does not accept science
just as he does not accept the notion of an objective reality "out
there".

You can't argue logic with him. He argues: if you think there exists
life elsewhere then show me the evidence. He also argues: I think
there is design in the universe but I don't have to show you evidence
of a designer.

He is wrong on so many counts but he happens to be right about how
many planets actually have been demonstrated to contain life.



Glenn

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 10:53:23 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Pete K." <n...@email.plz> wrote in message news:54f3ualblc73m9p50...@4ax.com...
What statement? You changed "at least" to "only". And yes, Bill did say "at least" is unnecessary.
>
> You do realize this is logically identical to saying "it is a verified
> fact that every planet except one does not have life" right?
>
Do you realize this is a strawman?

Glenn

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 11:03:23 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:e1h3uap1pmn2ul0i6...@4ax.com...
"Indeed, most astrophysicists accept a high probability of there being life elsewhere in the universe, if not on other planets or on moons within our own solar system. The numbers are, well, astronomical: If the count of planets in our solar system is not unusual, then there are more planets in the universe than the sum of all sounds and words ever uttered by every human who has ever lived. To declare that Earth must be the only planet in the cosmos with life would be inexcusably egocentric of us."
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/search_life_I.html

Do you agree that a probability can be assigned? Or are you in the camp of "just don't know enough".

Bill

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 11:08:23 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I did not use the word, only. Those four letters completely change the
meaning of what I said. Why insert them? Does this mean that you can't
refute what I said or that you hope to misrepresent it?

Bill

Bill

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 11:13:23 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Talking about me does not address my points. Misrepresenting my posts does
not address them. Falsely attributing motives doesn't refute my points.
Making stuff up isn't a refutation. Instead of risking being thought a
thoughtless thinker, address the points I actually make.

Bill

RSNorman

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 11:13:23 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 07:59:47 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
I would like to hear your views on this to help me decide.

Pete K.

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 11:43:23 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>>>Of course it is. Life has only been found on Earth. This is a fact. Life
>>>has not been found anywhere else. This is also a fact. These are both
>>>verified facts and completely non-ambiguous. The "at least" part is an
>>>unnecessary qualification (and ambiguous) since it assumes facts that
>>>don't exist.
>>
>> So you stand by the statement "it is a verified fact that only one
>> planet has life" ?
>>
>> You do realize this is logically identical to saying "it is a verified
>> fact that every planet except one does not have life" right?
>
>I did not use the word, only. Those four letters completely change the
>meaning of what I said. Why insert them? Does this mean that you can't
>refute what I said or that you hope to misrepresent it?

ME: If you mean "only one planet has life" that is certainly not a
verified fact.

YOU: Of course it is.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 11:53:24 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:9si3uapjpedvim72h...@4ax.com...
LOL!

RSNorman

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 11:53:24 AM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I have repeatedly addressed the points you make.


Mark Isaak

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 12:38:23 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
No. The flood stories around the world are *very* different stories.
In southeast Asia, the common story is that a brother and sister
survived the flood floating in a gourd. In New Guinea, the flood is a
punishment for eating a tabu fish. In the American Southwest, the flood
drove people out one of the four underworlds. In the American
Northeast, the flood was part of an ongoing conflict between Nanabozho
and the manitous (water spirits) because a manitou killed his brother.
The stories have absolutely nothing in common. Not even water.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

Bill

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 1:08:24 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I did not say "only one planet has life". You're hoping to distract from
what was actually said, twice. Is this dishonesty or some kind of reading
disorder?

Bill

Bill

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 1:08:26 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
There can be no probability calculated since we on have only a single sample
within a huge number of unknown extent. It's just a guess based on what one
prefers.

Bill

Pete K.

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 1:53:23 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You did say those words, but you certainly agreed to them:

Glenn

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 1:53:23 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Bill" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mrsoo5$n6r$2...@dont-email.me...
It is what they want to believe.

jillery

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 3:38:22 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
And nobody said you used the word, only.


>Those four letters completely change the
>meaning of what I said. Why insert them? Does this mean that you can't
>refute what I said or that you hope to misrepresent it?


You explicitly agreed that Pete K.'s statement meant the same as your
statement.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

jillery

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 3:38:22 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:50:41 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:
A tactic Bill commonly uses is the bait-and-switch, to say X in one
post and then say Y in follow-up posts.

In a reply to Pete K., Bill explicitly agreed that he means life
exists only on Earth, and explicitly rejected qualifiers as
unnecessary. That is the bait to which Pete K. responded.

What you refer to above is Bill's switch, that life has only been
found on Earth. Based on these and from previous posts, reasonable
people would infer Bill believes the two statements mean the same
thing.

To focus on the switch and ignore the bait enables Bill's deceptive
tactics, and helps him to evade the actual issue.


>You can't argue science with him because he does not accept science
>just as he does not accept the notion of an objective reality "out
>there".
>
>You can't argue logic with him. He argues: if you think there exists
>life elsewhere then show me the evidence. He also argues: I think
>there is design in the universe but I don't have to show you evidence
>of a designer.
>
>He is wrong on so many counts but he happens to be right about how
>many planets actually have been demonstrated to contain life.

Bill

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 3:48:22 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The quote, with its context, would clear this up.

>
> What you refer to above is Bill's switch, that life has only been
> found on Earth. Based on these and from previous posts, reasonable
> people would infer Bill believes the two statements mean the same
> thing.
>
> To focus on the switch and ignore the bait enables Bill's deceptive
> tactics, and helps him to evade the actual issue.

Seems that reading disorders are rampant here. An inability to comprehend
simple sentences follows behind of course.

Bill

jillery

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 4:18:23 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Since you say that a quote with context would clear this up, I can
only wonder why you don't provide these allegedly missing elements,
along with an explanation of how they clear it up.


>> What you refer to above is Bill's switch, that life has only been
>> found on Earth. Based on these and from previous posts, reasonable
>> people would infer Bill believes the two statements mean the same
>> thing.
>>
>> To focus on the switch and ignore the bait enables Bill's deceptive
>> tactics, and helps him to evade the actual issue.
>
>Seems that reading disorders are rampant here. An inability to comprehend
>simple sentences follows behind of course.


I couldn't agree more.

Bill

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 4:58:23 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
No quotes? Nothing to substantiate your claims? Do you suppose that you are
so well regarded here that you can slide by with outrageous
misrepresentations based entirely on your good character?

Bill

Öö Tiib

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 5:08:23 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, 27 August 2015 19:18:30 UTC+3, Bill wrote:
> Robert Camp wrote:
>
> > On 8/26/15 3:35 PM, Bill wrote:
> >> Robert Camp wrote:
> >>> I read this post as the final strains of Thick as a Brick were emanating
> >>> from my computer.
> >>>
> >>> Positively Jungian.
> >>
> >> Don't supply your reasoning for ignoring what's actually said, it will
> >> confound your archetype.
> >
> > I'm sorry for not responding substantively. I will actually apologize
> > for the cheap shot. And to demonstrate my good will, I'll explain my
> > reasoning for ignoring what you said...
> >
> > What you said was embarrassingly obtuse.
> >
> > Richard offered a several-paragraph set of observations on the subject
> > of earthly distinctiveness. He took the time to consider the issue from
> > both the semantic and empirical perspective. He tried to explain why
> > there is a logical disconnect between the speculative inferences you
> > suggest are supported by "uniqueness," and the actual (contextual)
> > superficiality of those notions of uniqueness.
> >
> > Your response betrayed not the slightest hint of having read or
> > understood any of the post to which it was appended.
> >
> > Obtuse.
>
> There were two points in play: the mineral composition of Earth and the
> uniqueness of Earth. I was responding to the second.

Every asteroid is likely unique.

> As we know, I argued
> that point several times and it was agreed by all that there was sufficient
> evidence to prove me wrong.

Lie. You claimed that Earth is unique because it contains life. Like you
had any knowledge what is going on anywhere else. We have plenty of
evidence that you haven't been on any other planets besides Earth.
Therefore you can't know anything about those and therefore we have
plenty of scientific evidence that you are full of shit liar.

> Worse, I was not only wrong but anti-science for
> even suggesting that Earth is unique. My reply is evidence that I still hold
> my original views.

It is waste of time even to check any other stars or planets, all-wise
Bill said already that there are nothing to see anywhere. So indeed you
just tried to help scientists to save money. That wasn't anti science.

>
> Now, reread the posts.

Nah, why? You are anyway correct. We rest are ignorant until we learn
something. You are wise from scratch and do not need to learn anything
since you just know everything. Reading your posts is waste of time for
us however because we can no way reach the depths of your bottomless
wisdom.

jillery

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 7:03:23 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Where's your allegedly missing context? Where's your allegedly
missing quotes?

D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 8:28:23 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Hilarious!

"jillery" is thoroughly disoriented & discombobulated and rapidly running
for the tall grass as fast as his fat little legs will carry him.

How Sweet It Is!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
"jillery" wrote in message

news:vge4ualim5cev9sq6...@4ax.com...
missing quotes? [SIC] DSH
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

...Just like "jillery's brain. Lux et Veritas et Libertas DSH


jillery

unread,
Aug 29, 2015, 9:13:23 PM8/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 14:23:04 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<d_spenc...@america.com> wrote:

Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 30, 2015, 4:23:19 PM8/30/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 13:51:11 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Pete K." <n...@email.plz>:
"didn't"?

> say those words, but you certainly agreed to them:
>
>> ME: If you mean "only one planet has life" that is certainly not a
>> verified fact.
>
>> YOU: Of course it is.

Maybe he meant "Of course 'only one planet has life' is
certainly not a verified fact"? Well, it *could* be taken
that way...but I'd bet on a cognitive disconnect as more
likely; see the earlier discussions re: "unique" and
"habitable zone".
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

jillery

unread,
Aug 30, 2015, 7:43:19 PM8/30/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:03:07 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
Still waiting...

Glenn

unread,
Aug 31, 2015, 4:08:17 AM8/31/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:b1p6uati5qff6i91t...@4ax.com...
Bob in all his glory! Maybe Bill does mean that only one planet has life is a verified fact. He doesn't need to actually say it.
And maybe Texas existed thousands of years before the Alamo.
Yes, lets assume that and say "see earlier discussions" or "already addressed".

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 31, 2015, 2:13:16 PM8/31/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:19:35 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>
>...
>
>>>>>> The question is not whether Earth is unique. It is whether those
>>>>>> exceptionally fine details of diversity are specifically the details
>>>>>> which make the origin and evolution of life on Earth unique or whether
>>>>>> the features shared by many Earth-like planets would very likely allow
>>>>>> the origin and evolution of life elsewhere.
>>
>>>>>There are an enormous number of planets. One planet among them has life.
>>>>>These are facts that have been verified.
>>
>>>> "One planet among them has life" is ambiguous. If you mean "at least
>>>> one planet has life" then you are correct. If you mean "only one
>>>> planet has life" that is certainly not a verified fact.
>>
>>>Of course it is. Life has only been found on Earth. This is a fact. Life
>>>has not been found anywhere else. This is also a fact. These are both
>>>verified facts and completely non-ambiguous. The "at least" part is an
>>>unnecessary qualification (and ambiguous) since it assumes facts that
>>>don't exist.
>>
>> No one is that clueless, and no one who understands English
>> is incapable of understanding the above. When others called
>> Bill a troll, I argued against that. Apparently I was wrong.
>
>You still don't provide the reasoning behind your characterizations. If I'm
>that wrong, that clueless surely it would easy to show.

You claim that "we have not found life elsewhere" means that
"only one planet has life". The first is a verifiable fact;
the second is not. They are not synonymous, despite your
assertion. And "at least" assumes nothing beyond the fact
that we have not fully explored the universe in the search
for life; it is true even if the Earth alone supports life.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 31, 2015, 2:28:16 PM8/31/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 01:05:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>Bob in all his glory! Maybe Bill does mean that only one planet has life is a verified fact. He doesn't need to actually say it.

Of course not; ambiguity is far preferable, as you should
know; it leaves many paths of retreat.

>And maybe Texas existed thousands of years before the Alamo.

Maybe the physical territory which currently comprises the
political entity known as "Texas" indeed did exist prior to
the political entity. In fact, it's certain that it did.

>Yes, lets assume that and say "see earlier discussions" or "already addressed".

Feel free to do so.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 31, 2015, 3:13:18 PM8/31/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:6o69ua546o7su941q...@4ax.com...
He doesn't need to actually say it for you idiots to assume it.
>
>>And maybe Texas existed thousands of years before the Alamo.
>
> Maybe the physical territory which currently comprises the
> political entity known as "Texas" indeed did exist prior to
> the political entity. In fact, it's certain that it did.

Before a political entity there is no "territory" specific to the geographical boundaries of the political entity.
In fact, it is certain that Texas did not.

It is beyond curious that you can state that Texas is a political entity yet claim that Texas existed before the State.
>
>>Yes, lets assume that and say "see earlier discussions" or "already addressed".
>
> Feel free to do so.
> --
Almost never do, but you idiots do on a regular basis.
>


Bill

unread,
Aug 31, 2015, 3:23:16 PM8/31/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova wrote:

...

>>> Maybe he meant "Of course 'only one planet has life' is
>>> certainly not a verified fact"? Well, it *could* be taken
>>> that way...but I'd bet on a cognitive disconnect as more
>>> likely; see the earlier discussions re: "unique" and
>>> "habitable zone".
>
>>Bob in all his glory! Maybe Bill does mean that only one planet has life
>>is a verified fact. He doesn't need to actually say it.
>
> Of course not; ambiguity is far preferable, as you should
> know; it leaves many paths of retreat.
>

I have not said that Earth is only planet with life, several times. I was
clear so there was no basis for misunderstanding. I have repeated all this
so there is no basis for misrepresentations. Even so, at least one poster,
and you of course, has persisted in this deceit. Why don't you correct the
one making the false claims?

I have used the word, unique, to describe what is known to be unique in
having life: Earth. I have used the words, habitable zone, to mean a place
that is habitable to life based on the obvious fact that habitable means
capable of being inhabited.

The objections have been that, since there may be other planets having life,
life on Earth cannot be unique. The same logic is used to mean a habitable
means a potentially habitable zone even if there is nothing there. My points
are scientifically verifiable, they can be observed and quantified.
Objections to these points have not and cannot.

The fundamental assumption seems to be the Copernican Principle, a belief
about what should be true but without scientific warrant. It's a
philosophical position having the sole benefit of buttressing other
philosophical propositions.

Bill

Bill

unread,
Aug 31, 2015, 3:33:15 PM8/31/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I made no such claim. I may have used that to illuminate the absurdity of
the claim that the two phrases are synonymous. Others have insisted I made
that claim but they were confounded by their own cleverness.

Bill

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages