- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How did a planet form that can support life but the life on it cannot live forever?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:00 pm to crimsoncoded94
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:00 pm to crimsoncoded94
quote:"If other planets were suitable, life would exist there” assumes we’ve checked thoroughly. We haven’t. We’ve barely sampled a handful of worlds in one solar system. The galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars.
But the way water exist and acts on earth is far different than water on other planets etc.
Other planets are not suitable for life forms to exist or else they would exist there.
Water doesn’t “spread out perfectly” to support life. It spreads out because gravity pulls it downhill and because it’s liquid within a certain temperature and pressure range. Rivers are erosion plus terrain, not engineered plumbing for biology.
The fallacy in your logic is this: life seems rare, Earth has life, therefore something must have intentionally arranged it.
But rarity does not imply design.
Think of the lottery. The odds of any specific person winning are incredibly small. But the odds that someone wins are extremely high. After the drawing, the winner thinks, “What are the chances it would be me?” This is you and I.
Earth is the winning ticket in that analogy. We’re observing from the only kind of planet where observers could exist. Of course we find ourselves on a planet compatible with life. If it weren’t compatible, we wouldn’t be here to notice.
Observations are conditioned on the observer existing. It’s not that Earth was tuned for life. It’s that life can only arise in environments that allow it, and we necessarily observe one of those environments.
In short, saying “life is rare, so it must have been purposely put here” is like saying “I won the lottery, so it must have been rigged for me.” Rare outcomes happen all the time in large systems. Someone always wins.
1
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:12 pm to northshorebamaman
The lottery is designed for someone to win it. The universe according to you is not designed for anything specific to happen.
You keep comparing man made (lifeforms that operate using logic) things to a universe that apparently has no rhyme or rhythm.
This is not a good argument.
You keep comparing man made (lifeforms that operate using logic) things to a universe that apparently has no rhyme or rhythm.
This is not a good argument.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 6:14 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:21 pm to crimsoncoded94
In fact the lottery wouldn't even exist if humans didnt buy a ticket.
There are no "tickets" in the universe according to you. Tickets in the lottery have a set number of outcomes.
Whereas a ticket in the universe has unlimited possibilities therefore you cant even deduct a probability from it.
There are no "tickets" in the universe according to you. Tickets in the lottery have a set number of outcomes.
Whereas a ticket in the universe has unlimited possibilities therefore you cant even deduct a probability from it.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:24 pm to crimsoncoded94
quote:Do you genuinely think you’ve been making good arguments here?
The lottery is designed for someone to win it. The universe according to you is not designed for anything specific to happen.
You keep comparing man made (lifeforms that operate using logic) things to a universe that apparently has no rhyme or rhythm.
This is not a good argument.
An analogy isn’t claiming two things are identical. It’s highlighting one shared feature to clarify a principle. The lottery example wasn’t saying the universe is designed like a lottery. It was illustrating a probability point: rare outcomes don’t require intention. That’s it.
You’re attacking the surface similarity while ignoring the underlying logic. That’s not a rebuttal. That’s a dodge.
And this is especially strange because I also laid this out without using any analogies at all.
I explained survivorship bias.
I explained the anthropic principle.
I explained that observers necessarily find themselves in environments compatible with observers.
I explained that rarity does not imply design.
I explained that in large systems, low-probability events happen somewhere.
You didn’t address any of that.
Instead of engaging the argument about probability and selection effects, you’re objecting to the teaching tool used to explain it.
If you want to argue the point, respond to the actual claim: why does a rare outcome in a large system require intention?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:28 pm to northshorebamaman
It doesnt.
But I personally dont believe that infinite outcomes eventually produces us and we are the only lifeform on earth that has been able to produce a written language, different currencies, religion, politics, etc.
8.7 million species on earth and yet only 1 can do any of this.
I cant prove anything and neither can you.
You choose to believe that in a world of infinite outcomes we are somehow the outcome vs a higher power that ignores the laws that we are bound to creating us.
But I personally dont believe that infinite outcomes eventually produces us and we are the only lifeform on earth that has been able to produce a written language, different currencies, religion, politics, etc.
8.7 million species on earth and yet only 1 can do any of this.
I cant prove anything and neither can you.
You choose to believe that in a world of infinite outcomes we are somehow the outcome vs a higher power that ignores the laws that we are bound to creating us.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 6:33 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:38 pm to crimsoncoded94
you’re coming up on 5 straight hours of constant engagement with whatever you are doing here. Don’t you have anything better to do? It’s Friday night
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:39 pm to crimsoncoded94
quote:entropy
How did a planet form that can support life but the life on it cannot live forever?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:42 pm to crimsoncoded94
quote:You say neither of us can prove anything, yet you started a thread to argue this exact topic. So what’s the point supposed to be? If the goal wasn’t discussion, then what was it? If you expected the OP to stand as the final word, that’s not really how forums work.
It doesnt.
But I personally dont believe that infinite outcomes eventually produces us and we are the only lifeform on earth that has been able to produce a written language, different currencies, religion, politics, etc.
8.7 million species on earth and yet only 1 can do any of this.
I cant prove anything and neither can you.
You choose to believe that in a world of infinite outcomes we are somehow the outcome vs a higher power that ignores the laws that we are bound to creating us.
No one claimed “infinite outcomes eventually produce us” as some iron law. The point is simpler: in a very large universe, with enormous spans of time and staggering numbers of planetary systems, low-probability events don’t require intention. They require scale.
We also don’t know that we’re the only life capable of written language, currency, religion, politics, etc. We know we’re the only confirmed example so far. That’s a limitation of observation, not a universal census.
You’re framing this as two equal belief systems, but they aren’t structured the same way. My position is that complex structures can emerge from physical processes under certain conditions, and we’re still working out the details. Yours is that because it seems too unlikely to you, a higher power must be responsible.
Those aren’t symmetrical claims. One extends from known mechanisms. The other inserts a new entity to close a perceived gap.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:44 pm to cgrand
It was interesting to learn that a bunch of people believe in pure chance over any other possible explanation.
It just intrigues me. We all really have some crazy beliefs in how we came to be.
It just intrigues me. We all really have some crazy beliefs in how we came to be.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:47 pm to northshorebamaman
Look man I wanted conversation that's why I engaged in it. You believe that 1/infinity = humans.
No matter how you try to spin it thats the only logical explanation of what you believe. And thats okay.
The universe can produce infinite outcomes and it produced humans. It is technically possible its just the closest number to 0 that exist.
Its also possible that there are beings that ignore all the laws thats apply to our reality who created us.
Its all very interesting but yall believe in your stance just as strongly as people believe in God. Its all very intriguing.
No matter how you try to spin it thats the only logical explanation of what you believe. And thats okay.
The universe can produce infinite outcomes and it produced humans. It is technically possible its just the closest number to 0 that exist.
Its also possible that there are beings that ignore all the laws thats apply to our reality who created us.
Its all very interesting but yall believe in your stance just as strongly as people believe in God. Its all very intriguing.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:50 pm to crimsoncoded94
quote:
We would have no reason to reproduce if we lived forever.
I don’t pull out
Posted on 2/20/26 at 7:04 pm to crimsoncoded94
quote:You’re still mischaracterizing the position. I would usually assume bad faith at this point in the discussion but your comprehension difficulties appear genuine.
Look man I wanted conversation that's why I engaged in it. You believe that 1/infinity = humans.
No matter how you try to spin it thats the only logical explanation of what you believe. And thats okay.
The universe can produce infinite outcomes and it produced humans. It is technically possible its just the closest number to 0 that exist.
Its also possible that there are beings that ignore all the laws thats apply to our reality who created us.
Its all very interesting but yall believe in your stance just as strongly as people believe in God. Its all very intriguing.
No one is saying “1/infinity = humans” as some formula. The claim is that in a sufficiently large system with enormous time and enormous trials, low-probability events don’t require intention. That’s probability theory, not metaphysics.
Also, the universe producing “infinite outcomes” is not something I ever asserted nor would I. We don’t even know if the universe is infinite in the first place. What we do know is that it is staggeringly large and very old. That alone changes how probability works.
When you say “it’s technically possible it’s just the closest number to 0 that exists,” that’s fine. Rare does not equal impossible. But again, rarity does not imply design. That’s the whole point.
You then say it’s “also possible” that beings outside our laws created us. Sure. It’s also possible we’re in a simulation. It’s also possible we’re in a higher-dimensional bubble. Possibility is cheap. The question is explanatory power and evidence.
Saying “you believe your stance just as strongly” isn’t an argument. Strength of conviction doesn’t make two positions epistemically equal.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 7:19 pm to crimsoncoded94
quote:
Our existence here is the only thing that threatens the earth's existence.
So then why did the same nothingness create us here if if put itself in danger?
Same reason we are creating AI?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 8:00 pm to crimsoncoded94
quote:
So how did we come from nothing?
God spoke
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:05 pm to crimsoncoded94
quote:
Its all very intriguing.
Your posts were deeply misinformed and seemingly intentionally stupid. None of the conversations you had were intriguing, besides how insanely ridiculous someone can be when steered by motivated reasoning.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:36 pm to crimsoncoded94
Even the universe won't live forever
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:56 pm to crimsoncoded94
Nothing in history has ever formed from nothingness. Unless it was told to do so.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 6:50 am to yakster
quote:
Nothing in history has ever formed from nothingness.
Except god of course…
Posted on 2/21/26 at 6:56 am to crimsoncoded94
quote:
So the nothingness is just a giant magical essence of competition that creates beings whos goal is to outlive all the other beings the same nothingness creates?
You are conflating and unnecessarily confusing concepts.
Yes, ontologically nothing can’t bring into being something.
But beyond that your evolutionary points are confusing.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 7:10 am to crimsoncoded94
How many pots have you smoken?
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News