The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SuburbiaSurvivor
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

given the sheer size of the space, the most reasonable view is expecting that alien life exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
SuburbiaSurvivor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,402 times Debate No: 24407
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

given the sheer size of the universe, the most reasonable view is expecting that alien life exists

http://www.thegodlessheathen.com...

http://articles.cnn.com...

there could be, and the most reasonable explanation is, life outside our planet. at least basic life, maybe intelligent, exists.

first consider a basic idea in the size of our universe. if an alien life existed and sent us a signal at the speed of light. even at the speed of light, over 186000 miles per second... per second, by the time the signal got to us, that alien civilization probably rose and fell over billions of years. eg, if they sent it from fifty billlion light years away, and a civilization only lasts a few billion... at teh very most... then by deifinition that civilization probably no longer exists.

i'm about to show some math in the following argument, a little more than basic math. my point is not to get caught up in the minutia of the math, but to simply establishthe point. i did want the math shown though as i did the calcuations for my own edification, might as well share.

a CNN article estimates that the universe is156 billion light years across. (with the article also saying that the universe could be larger, as that figure is only what is known to exist based on the data gathered) the milky way is 100000 light years across. that means volume wise, the milky way is 0.00006% of the universe. (milky way divided by the total universe is the percent). doing the math, comes out to.... our milky way is the size of a ping pong ball, and the universe is the size of a cube, that is 25 miles in all directions. that's a massive cube for a lone ping pong ball, wouldn't ya say? our planet and us individually would be smaller than a speck of dust.

granted, however, doing some basic math, we can see the "cup v. ocean" thing is not quite accurate, according to hypertext book online, the ocean is 321,000,000 cubic miles in volume. hopefully i didn't screw up any math....

---basic algebra: 0.00006% = (X / 321,000,000) *100 ====> x= 193 square miles of ocean is analogous to the equivalent of the milky way and universe. the ocean is hard to grasp itself, so another example could be helpful. (but just look at google maps and see how small 200 miles is in relation, then check out this website to see how small that is, deep

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com... )

---more: 0.00006% = (1 inch cubic square/X)*100 ====> x = 1666666 cubic inches, or 138888 cubic feet, or 25.5 cubic miles.... 1 cubic inch is about the size of a ping pong ball, which would be the equivalent of the milky way, with X being something far larger than any of the largest buildings, cubed. the worlds largest is only half a mile tall... you'd have to stack more than fifty of those on top of each other (make it into a pole), and then make it three dimensional in the other two directions, so drive twenty five miles each direction, setting up another massive pole at each of the four corners of the box, before you put your "cap" on it. look up in the sky twenty five miles, turn left, do some loop de loops in a parking lot, and consider all that in relation to a ping ball ball, and speck of dust. that's a massive cube for a lone ping pong ball, with us smaller than a speck of dust, wouldn't ya say?

also, according to chacha answers (maybe not the best source, but still authoritative) and various internet hearsay, only less than one percent of the universe has even been at all significantly explored by telescope. (yet we don't even know enough to say whether there's life in this less than one percent, either) that means our meek neck of the woods is earth, perhaps our ping pong ball the milky way, and maybe what we can see... in relation to the 25 mile cube, one percent is only a quarter of a mile, cubed.

--- if we used the explored universe, if we used one percent of the universe to compare, which is the amount of explored universe it's be quite a lot bigger than the 200 miles of ocean. if we used the earth to compare a cup of water to the ocean the cup analogy probably ain't that bad. [[[i couldn't help but do the math on earth's volume in relation to a cup v ocean.... 321000000 cubic miles is 46224000000 cubic inches.... 0.00006% = (X / 46224000000) *100, X = about 28000 inches, or less than half a cubic mile, represents earth in the ocean universe, still pretty far off from a cup. ]]]

some perspective on how big our planet and sun is compared to the largest out there:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

--interesting extra point. if the speed of light is the fastest light can go, how fast can a "car" go on that 25 mile cubic box? light travels 186,000 miles per second, or 5865696000000 trillion miles a year. times that by 156 billion light years in width. that means the universe is 91,504,857,600,000,000,000,000 miles in width. that's 91.5 sextillion miles. sextillion comes quintillion comes after quadrillion, after trillion. so we could say you can only travel 5865696000000 trillion miles a year/91.5 quintillion miles an hour (if the speed of light per second is the max, then per year is also max... and that number is the fraction of the total that can be drove) or 6.4e-11 miles an hour, or 0.000000000064 miles an hour. how long would it take to travel a mile? 0.000000000064 = 1/X, x=15625000000 hours, or 1,780,821 years.... at the speed of light equivalency maximum that we can drive. if we traveled at the fastest that we are currently capable of at 25,000 miles per hour. that comes out to .... very small speed to say the least. to travel the whole 25 miles of one side would take forever let alone all the sides and everywhere...

------

another point. i've heard there are 49 sextillion stars in the universe. that means, if we say just for the sake of argument, that life exists one in a quadrillion (after trillion, which is the largest we ever really ever talk about in most day to day life)... that means life would exist in 49 million of those places.
1 000 000 000 000 000 / 49 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

if we assumed each star and nine planets like our own, we could perhaps consider the number might be even higher, as there's more chances that life could exist.
SuburbiaSurvivor

Con

I will be accepting this debate.

The burden of proof is on my opponent.

Unfortunately, Pro has spent so much time focusing on the vastness of the Universe that she has completely failed to describe how such alien life could come about. Indeed, it seems that Pro is simply asserting that with enough space and time, life will just spontaneously arise from non-living matter. In order to affirm the resolution, Pro must prove that it is reasonable to believe that abiogenesis is possible, and given enough space and time, abiogenesis will take place.

Sadly, abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis [1], and has yet to have been observed in nature. Thus Pro must prove that there are probable pathways for abiogenesis to take place, otherwise her entire position is rendered a bare assertion fallacy.

I await my opponent's case for either abiogenesis, or some other means of creating alien life.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
SuburbiaSurvivor

Con

My opponent has forfeited.

I await my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
SuburbiaSurvivor

Con

Full forfeit. Vote Con! :D
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. We don't know enough about the prevalence or non-prevalence of life to assume that just because space is big, the probability is in favor of life.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
: Nur-Ab-Sal
: Most of your mathematics touches on the relative size of Earth/Milky Way, and doesn't actually touch
: on the possibility of life.

Right. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced, but Pro has failed his burden of proof. "Big" is not the same as "Big and full of life."
Posted by DCH 5 years ago
DCH
Love this topic. I am decidedly pro. Will be watching.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Most of your mathematics touches on the relative size of Earth/Milky Way, and doesn't actually touch on the possibility of life.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
dairygirl4u2cSuburbiaSurvivorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con for Pro's forfeiture. Spelling and grammar goes to Con for obvious reasons. Arguments also go to Con because of Pro's forfeiture but also because it was pretty solid -- Pro's calculations focused on the vastness of space but not on the origins of life itself, and Con refuted this with biogenesis. Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
dairygirl4u2cSuburbiaSurvivorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: This vote is brought to you by the Vote Against Noobs Association (VANA) and the Association Wanting To See Low Win Percentages (AWTOLWP) telling you to vote against noobs.