Notices
Results 1 to 65 of 65

Thread: What Are Your Views On Life In Space?

  1. #1 What Are Your Views On Life In Space? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3
    I s life in space really real or is it all a fake idea!


    for MORE ON THIS TOPIC VISIT: http://aliens.com


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    You can engage that theological discussion next to each other, in the same room. You don't have to mindlessly spam to this forum for goodness sake. Your posts are meaningless, I mean I add my two cents now and again even if short, but your spamming far too often, and why are you doing it in the behavioural sciences topic sub forum?

    Ophiolite mod comment:Above comments precede my deletion of several worthless posts. The post below has been left in place as it has the saving grace of humour.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman danspurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    U KNOW
    Posts
    10
    as we have behavioural problems
    I quote; "why does my life always co-inside with violence"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    hmm. Apparently a cable company has more information on aliens. Who knew?
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1
    sorry but I really did honestly want an honest fact and thanks for the interesting comment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    There are probably few planets out there in the trillions of should be solar systems, which have not, do or will have some microscopic life on them.

    Most likely your thinking complex or maybe intelligent life, similar to what exist on earth. IMO; Yes, thousands to maybe billions of planets are in inhabited by beings and for the most part far more advanced than earthlings. Many in our galaxy and no doubt in every galaxy, regardless of age.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Nobel laureate Jacques Monod declared that The Universe was not pregnant with life; nor the biosphere with man. Life, in Monod's view was a chance, possibly unique occurence in anotherwise hostile universe.

    In contrast Nobel laureate Christian de Duve believed that the universe was permeated by a Vital Dust (the rich pre-biotic chemical percursors of life) that led inevitably, in suitable conditions, to life.

    When two distinguished, knowledgeable, erudite, intelligent, thoughtful scientists hold such diverse views on a subject I shall hold off from forming a firm opinion until more data is in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: What Are Your Views On Life In Space? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by littledanno
    I s life in space really real or is it all a fake idea!


    for MORE ON THIS TOPIC VISIT: http://aliens.com
    I was thinking about this and thought up the idea that if NASA did an experiment on the survival of 'Stem Cells' in space as a dormant survivor at 3K, than life in the universe would be on any habital planet.

    I am still waiting to see if this experiment was done and the answer to what I said.

    So, can Stem Cells survive in space as dormant living forms?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Shall we move this thread to astronomy? The original post is worthless, but some of the later replies seem interesting enough to maintain the thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: What Are Your Views On Life In Space? 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,039
    Quote Originally Posted by littledanno
    I s life in space really real or is it all a fake idea!
    You're here, aren't ya?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Lol, well Dr. Drake attempted to estimate the amount of intelligent civilizations in the universe that might be willing to interact with humans.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Lol, well Dr. Drake attempted to estimate the amount of intelligent civilizations in the universe that might be willing to interact with humans
    I'm in an unusually strong pedantic mood today, so please don't take offence.
    1. You cannot say amount of intelligent civilisations, but number of intelligent civilisations. Amount refers to something continuous, like a volume. For discrete entities, such as civilisations, we must use number. Think of it as the difference between analogue and digital.
    2. Drake didn't really set out to figure out the probable number of civilisations, but simply wanted to provide a theme for a meeting on Extra-terrestrial life held at Greenbank Observatory back in the early 60s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Lol, well Dr. Drake attempted to estimate the amount of intelligent civilizations in the universe that might be willing to interact with humans
    I'm in an unusually strong pedantic mood today, so please don't take offence.
    1. You cannot say amount of intelligent civilisations, but number of intelligent civilisations. Amount refers to something continuous, like a volume. For discrete entities, such as civilisations, we must use number. Think of it as the difference between analogue and digital.
    2. Drake didn't really set out to figure out the probable number of civilisations, but simply wanted to provide a theme for a meeting on Extra-terrestrial life held at Greenbank Observatory back in the early 60s.
    Semantics, I'm sure such an insignificant detail hardly led to the confusion of anyone who read that statement. As a biologist I rarely deal with math in any form lol. Technically despite scientific convention it is correct to use amount to refer to anything quantifyable, but incorrect to use number for something which is continuous. Thus, you can have an amount of civilizations, but not a number of volume.

    You're second point is just the reasoning behind why he developed the Drake Equation, the Drake Equation is still an attempt to quantify the number of civilizations even though it wasn't a serious attempt by Drake to actually solve the question of the number of intelligent civilizations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    As a biologist I rarely deal with math in any form lol.
    I realize this is a complete tangent, but I've had other conversations about this recently so it's on my mind. From what I remember of your intro you are a student, and I would highly recommend that you get yourself into some math. As a biologist myself I'll admit math isn't my favorite, but it is important not to neglect the subject. Many biology programs these days have few math requirements and I believe this is to the detriment of the students. Math is essential to good scientific research, so that you can accurately quantify and statistically analyze your results. And depending on the specific subject you want to study, a variety of mathematical models and algorithms will be required to do your research.

    End Rant.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    As a biologist I rarely deal with math in any form lol.
    I realize this is a complete tangent, but I've had other conversations about this recently so it's on my mind. From what I remember of your intro you are a student, and I would highly recommend that you get yourself into some math. As a biologist myself I'll admit math isn't my favorite, but it is important not to neglect the subject. Many biology programs these days have few math requirements and I believe this is to the detriment of the students. Math is essential to good scientific research, so that you can accurately quantify and statistically analyze your results. And depending on the specific subject you want to study, a variety of mathematical models and algorithms will be required to do your research.

    End Rant.
    I have taken calculus to Cal 3, Linear Algebra, two university level Stats classes, physics course in electricity and magnetism, and a painful course in thermodynamics. I like to limit my math to enzyme kinetics in biochem these days. Those were the worse courses of my academic career so far, apart from biochem.

    Edit: some real innapropriate capitalisations in this post o.O lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    [ Technically despite scientific convention it is correct to use amount to refer to anything quantifyable, but incorrect to use number for something which is continuous.
    Wrong. This is simply bad English. You cannot have an amount of discrete quantities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Moved to astronomy/cosmology, this thread has nothing to do with Social Science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    If you are talking pure chance, there probably exists someplace in the universe that can support basic life. Intelligent life is far less likely. Even if it exist (intelligent life), it is more than likely so far removed from this planet that we will never encounter it.

    There may be some credible evidence of UFO's but they are more than likely something that was developed on earth.

    If any "intelligent life" is advanced enough to come here, they would probably be smart enough to realize that we humans are more hostile than to be worth the effort.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: What Are Your Views On Life In Space? 
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by littledanno
    I s life in space really real or is it all a fake idea!
    Uh, technically WE are "life in space" so what's the question here?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    ... thousands to maybe billions of planets are in inhabited by beings and for the most part far more advanced than earthlings.....
    Why? Why can't we be the most advanced?

    I think its all wishful thinking. We have no more evidence of life on other planets than we do of god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    ... thousands to maybe billions of planets are in inhabited by beings and for the most part far more advanced than earthlings.....
    Why? Why can't we be the most advanced?

    I think its all wishful thinking. We have no more evidence of life on other planets than we do of god.
    I think there's a high probability for there being life on other planets, but not necessarily intelligent life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    Why? Why can't we be the most advanced?
    Because we have nothing to compare to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    I think its all wishful thinking.
    It would be if it weren't for the fact that we are already a proof for the statistical probability. :P
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    89
    Yeah, well I want statisical proveability, not probability.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously

    Why? Why can't we be the most advanced?

    I think its all wishful thinking. We have no more evidence of life on other planets than we do of god.
    I think there's a high probability for there being life on other planets, but not necessarily intelligent life.[/quote]

    Evidence for life on other planets, with much different environments or tolerance to extreme heats or cold to our existence, all all evidenced on this planet alone.

    We simply are just beginning to advance. From the first human to the first that rationalized to even our simple abilities took up to 3 million years, if you accept homo-sapians ancestors.

    As explained earlier, the potential for intelligence in a life form depends on many things. We as humans, could just as well be another species wondering around hunting for food, mumbling/grunting, dieing from starvation while food is all around us or standing in the cold while dieing.

    Complex life of sorts, did exist on this planet 200+ million years ago and plenty of it. Our planet is thought to be 4.5 billion years old, with another couple left, including our suns activity. We are in one of a billion or so solar systems in our galaxy and we believe there are a trillions or so galaxy out there, many with many more systems. We are finding planets near by and a couple earth like. Our star is thought to be common to what exist in his galaxy and suspected to be in the universe. H2O in any form should be common and we now understand amino acids and elements for life, could be formed on any developing rock planet. I would think gas planets would be no different. (long explanation). To think this one little planet, in one little solar system of the billions of trillions potential places, was the only place the process to intelligence could have happened, borders on some kind of theological desire or just some form of arrogance.

    My opinion, anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Not saying it's impossible for intelligence or higher intelligence to emerge elsewhere, just pointing out that it depends on evolution and natural selection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Not saying it's impossible for intelligence or higher intelligence to emerge elsewhere, just pointing out that it depends on evolution and natural selection.
    and if it did, they could have wiped themselves out already. I just don't understand why we can't be the most evolved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    Yeah, well I want statisical proveability, not probability.
    Is it probable that there exists life in space? If none is found, the probability remains false. If one is found, the probability becomes true. We exist in space, so the probability is true. What more do you want?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    and if it did, they could have wiped themselves out already.
    Why do you believe that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    I just don't understand why we can't be the most evolved.
    We can't actually call ourselves the "most evolved" until we have something to compare to. Even IF we found another species out in space, and proved ourselves more evolved, we couldn't call ourselves "most evolved" until we've exhausted our search for life across the whole universe...which likely is impossible.

    But I digress...Let's assume we actually are the leading species in the universe as far as development goes. We started first. Okay, so what now? What does that mean?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    89
    I think its all wishful thinking. Until we have proof, I don't buy it. I guess its the atheist in me.

    Saying that because there is life here there must be life out there somewhere doesn't make it so. Is it 100% likely? 100%?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Lets try this; If a catastrophic event is pending today, we have the basic knowledge to prevent it, technology aside. Just 100 years ago, all we could have done is watch a asteroid hit, hope it didn't do what it surely would have and so on. Today we could at least try and do something and in a few hundred years it will be a minor problem to solve. Any society that has reached a certain level of intelligence is more likely to solve problems which do happen on active planets in a chaotic universe. I think its probable many societies have erected some form of adjustable structures, to with stand any problem, including solar burn out...

    Obviously; I do agree to some extent...evolution and natural selection, to get to intelligence (brain capacity) is vital. We would probably disagree on the time required. I may be wrong but wasn't the Neanderthal brain cavity larger than the modern human. I don't know where reasoning thought began and find very little on th subject, but some time about 10k years ago somethig happened to cause that action IMO. As for ignorance in the human species, you don't have to go far back and even today many humans show little capacity for self thought...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Obviously; I do agree to some extent...evolution and natural selection, to get to intelligence (brain capacity) is vital. We would probably disagree on the time required. I may be wrong but wasn't the Neanderthal brain cavity larger than the modern human. I don't know where reasoning thought began and find very little on th subject, but some time about 10k years ago somethig happened to cause that action IMO. As for ignorance in the human species, you don't have to go far back and even today many humans show little capacity for self thought...
    I would say the time for intelligence to evolve is random. Either it's millions or billions of years since life first emerge and starts to evolve, or never, it all depends.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    I think its all wishful thinking. Until we have proof, I don't buy it. I guess its the atheist in me.

    Saying that because there is life here there must be life out there somewhere doesn't make it so. Is it 100% likely? 100%?
    We have no proof on so many things. We assume the best and hope to learn from that. I have no idea how many things thought to be proved beyond a doubt, were later proved to be totally incorrect.

    For other than accepted reason, I do not think we are or have been visited by other creatures. But I do think visual observation, will someday be in our grasp of distant objects, with the clarity of our satellites to this planet. I also would guess, others have this ability and could observe us. If 5k or 20k light years away in our galaxy they see what was then. This gets into several things, including our limited visual capacity of energy wave, vision itself which many animals seem to see to distances we cannot and to just what we or they could be looking for.

    Science and the acceptance of potential life elsewhere, ironically has been fought by religious concepts since it has been. Religion is built on humans being the creation of one god, to one species. You atheism or my agnostic attitudes have nothing to do with it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    The number of stars in our Milky Way galaxy (about 400,000,000,000) is so large that it is almost beyond our imagination. A fair number of these stars will have planets and moons that are hospitable for the development of life.

    I often wonder if the earth is the secluded planet. That is; everyone with even a vague understanding of space travel knows it involves extreme complexities and current technologies makes it virtually impossible for us to travel out is search of intelligent life. And in turn, it appears the same holds true for the possibility of intelligent life visiting our little spec in the Universe. So... is earth the secluded one?

    Can distant star systems that sustain intelligent life be close enough to each other to achieve communication/visitation or maybe planets in the same star system harbour intelligent life? Like traveling from Earth to Mars. Are they close enough to make space travel a reality for them while earth remains the secluded planet. If the answer is yes, think of the possibilities. Do these other intelligent life inhabited planets exchange technology with eachother? Are they all connected to the same internet infrastructure? Have they overcome the challenges of life and death? Have they witnessed science triumph over religion? Do they even have the ambition to seek out intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? Maybe there are hundreds or thousands or millions of intelligent life planets within shouting distance of each other. (somewhere out there) ...and then there is Earth... way way way over here.

    Maybe the question is not, "are we alone?" but rather, "are we left alone?"
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    I saw an estimate recently for a trillion stars in our galaxy, two trillion in Adromeda...Think their figuring out some of those that appear to be bright are clusters.

    Why wouldn't any star in formation have plenty of debris for planets to develop. Just speculation, but isn't it probable many formed in ours, without the proper motion to orbit, falling into the sun or exiting the system long ago...

    Asking for or accepting the premise that life could form on two planet in the same solar system, requires a stretch to conditions required. They should have a good temperature difference, probable mass difference or most certainly a evolution difference. Then both would have to achieve intelligence and have to know the other exist to there level. This scenario, would be best for one planet to migrate to another same size (effects of gravity) and then communication desired...

    Yes, 'left alone', there must be a thousand reasons any intelligence capable of space travel would ignore earthlings, until they could become a problem for them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    Is it 100% likely? 100%?
    Let's say it's 0.0001% possible that life exists elsewhere in the universe. What are the odds then? Still rather high. And, given the fact that there is one instance of life, in an environment that is remarkably ordinary, the chances of there being other life is probably higher than the chances that there is none.

    As for "atheist"? Given the nature of this hypothetical, if we somehow found out we were the only life in the universe, it would actually more support a creationist viewpoint than not. If we assume that life comes about by a set of natural conditions, then given the scale of the universe it is almost impossible that such conditions would not be present elsewhere. The alternative would be that life is intended.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    Is it 100% likely? 100%?
    Let's say it's 0.0001% possible that life exists elsewhere in the universe. What are the odds then? Still rather high. And, given the fact that there is one instance of life, in an environment that is remarkably ordinary, the chances of there being other life is probably higher than the chances that there is none.

    As for "atheist"? Given the nature of this hypothetical, if we somehow found out we were the only life in the universe, it would actually more support a creationist viewpoint than not. If we assume that life comes about by a set of natural conditions, then given the scale of the universe it is almost impossible that such conditions would not be present elsewhere. The alternative would be that life is intended.
    I posted that if 'stem cells' could survive in 3K space, than life would be common throughout the universe. But I forgot that 'plant seeds' could possibly also survive in space and would be needed to compliment the animal life.

    Than again, the origin of the smallest forms of life that is the bacteria should also be considered.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    What makes you think that stem cells could possibly survive 3K?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Most animal stemcells can barely survive a 5 degree fluctuation in temperature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Same view as life on Earth.

    lol Kidding :wink:.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    We may yet find life of some form in our own solar system.

    The moons of saturn certainly point to that possibility. We may even be spawns of martian life.

    Intelligent life may also exist "somewhere" in the universe. It will be difficult, at best, to ever find it.

    It is highly doubtful that we will ever find "human life" (as we define it).

    Maybe we are just not all that intelligent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    ....Science and the acceptance of potential life elsewhere, ironically has been fought by religious concepts since it has been. Religion is built on humans being the creation of one god, to one species. You atheism or my agnostic attitudes have nothing to do with it...
    For me it does have something to do with it. I need proof. Its why I'm an atheist. You want me to believe life exists somewhere than on our planet, prove it.

    I think more theists believe aliens have been to this planet than athesits. Why? because they believe stuff with no proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    For me it does have something to do with it. I need proof. Its why I'm an atheist. You want me to believe life exists somewhere than on our planet, prove it.

    I think more theists believe aliens have been to this planet than atheists. Why? because they believe stuff with no proof.
    Your being a little tough on theist, but they have faith in what they believe to be the truth. Kind of like when you set in a chair and with out proof it will hold you....Never the less, most people think one god created 'ALL THINGS', with the majority having no idea how or when and loyal participants thinking, this was 6013 years, 4 days, 6 hours and 30 minutes ago, give or take a few seconds. I will add these are smart people and know that we could see only a few stars in the sky, if true, but rely on that faith.

    I have gone over the 'logical' points for potential life elsewhere. What you say, indirectly says the Earth is a unique planet/moon/object, of the tens of trillions which should exist (near 300 we know exist, very nearby) and could be the only such unique place, simply because we as humans have not gained the intelligence to prove that possibility to you. I am sorry, you must have a terrible time relating to any science or many things in life. Are you seeing the comparisons, in these two paragraphs???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    .... Kind of like when you set in a chair and with out proof it will hold you.......
    Sounds kinda like an agnostic, which I would be in that case. They hope it will hold them, but have no proof that it will. A theist would believe not hope.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    What makes you think that stem cells could possibly survive 3K?
    They do have these male and female banks for creating life for people than have problems conceiveing.

    These banks are kept at temperatures of 70 degrees Kelvin (liquid nitrogen). This temperature is 200 degrees below the freezing temperature of water.

    So adding 67 degrees would not add any additional harm to the cells,
    I would think?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    What makes you think that stem cells could possibly survive 3K?
    They do have these male and female banks for creating life for people than have problems conceiveing.

    These banks are kept at temperatures of 70 degrees Kelvin (liquid nitrogen). This temperature is 200 degrees below the freezing temperature of water.

    So adding 67 degrees would not add any additional harm to the cells,
    I would think?

    Cosmo
    That involves complex procedures though, you can't just drop a cell into that kind of temperature and expect it not to die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I posted that if 'stem cells' could survive in 3K space, than life would be common throughout the universe. But I forgot that 'plant seeds' could possibly also survive in space and would be needed to compliment the animal life.
    Why even bother with the stem cell notion at all? We've shown on Earth that simple organisms like bacteria can survive in extremely harsh conditions, and can even go into suspended animation. The odds I think would be better for something like a bacteria, then a stem cell.


    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    It is highly doubtful that we will ever find "human life" (as we define it).
    Actually, there's a small debate going on about this. There's the idea that life evolves similarly in similar conditions, so if there's another Earth-like world out there, it's possible that a form of human could evolve.


    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    I think more theists believe aliens have been to this planet than athesits. Why? because they believe stuff with no proof.
    It's...it's almost like he's trying to make a joke or something...


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Kind of like when you set in a chair and with out proof it will hold you.
    That's a terrible example, jackson33...


    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander
    Sounds kinda like an agnostic, which I would be in that case. They hope it will hold them, but have no proof that it will. A theist would believe not hope.
    And yet oddly enough, dissmissing without proof is somehow better...? Either way, the slander doesn't do much for this thread...
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf

    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    It is highly doubtful that we will ever find "human life" (as we define it).
    Actually, there's a small debate going on about this. There's the idea that life evolves similarly in similar conditions, so if there's another Earth-like world out there, it's possible that a form of human could evolve.

    To clarify, I am not saying that it cannot exist. I am just saying that the probability is quite low that we will ever encounter it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Why do you believe the odds are low?
    Do you believe mankind is doomed to be restricted forever to this solar system?
    Do you believe all intelligent life forms are doomed forever to be restricted to their systems of origin?
    If you do believe these points, why do you believe them? What is your evidence for them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    I believe that encountering "human type life" is low because it would, in all likelihood, be quite far from us.

    We will certainly expand our knowledge beyond this solar sytem...in time.

    Intelligent life forms are capable of such things but it is doubtful we will ever encounter one another. That is not to say that it is impossible, just highly unlikely.

    When you ask, "Why?," it is just statistically improbable. My "evidence" is that I do doubt that I will ever win the lottery. Statistically speaking, it probably won't happen. You have almost the same chance of winning the lottery if you never play it as if you play it regularly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    I believe that encountering "human type life" is low because it would, in all likelihood, be quite far from us.
    My apologies. I had been interpreting the discussion to relate to intelligent life, but you quite explicitly state 'human type life'. Now Simon Conway Morris, I believe, argues that intelligent life forms on any planet will tend to be warm blooded, bi pedal entities with brain and major sensory organs grouped on a 'head'. This sounds pretty much like 'human type life', but I think he is probably in a minority and most would go along with Stehpen Gould's notion that if you 'played the tape of life again' you would get quite a different result.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    I was talking about life in general the whole time. But I wouldn't find that hard to deduce.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    All the life on our planet existed without the material goodies we have today.

    These material goodies are the product of our 'HANDS'. So if there are no Apes on these other planets, there will be no means of communicating with other intelligent life. So give credibility to the Apes for this great gift that is our HANDS.
    These tools are the reason why we have these advanced technologies. So our HANDS are our real Brains.

    So I do believe there is life on other planets. But if there was no 'evolution' as it ocurred on our planet, then do not expect to communicate with other planets unless they have Apes or maybe 'birds' or 'frogs' with 5 fingers?
    Ha ha.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    So give credibility to the Apes for this great gift that is our HANDS.
    You seem to be overlooking the vast number of creatures with hands. In fact, the only thing that distinguishes primate and human hands from most other animals, is the opposable thumb. If you've ever watched a raccoon or a bear eat, you'd find they are extremely dexterous with their paws.

    So the hand isn't so profound a thing, in-so-far that it doesn't separate much. Even the opposable thumb isn't much of an argument for the continuation of sentience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    So I do believe there is life on other planets. But if there was no 'evolution' as it ocurred on our planet, then do not expect to communicate with other planets unless they have Apes or maybe 'birds' or 'frogs' with 5 fingers?
    What demands that creatures must have the same hand configurations as we do? Or that they will not evolve to have similar functionality? Canines (among many other animals) have five digits. What's the likelihood that they will develop hands? Well, it's not likely they will if they continue to walk on fours, since hands don't make as good for walking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Ha ha.
    :?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I think intelligence is a "winner takes all" evolutionary trait. Once a single species makes it that far, they don't ever allow another one to surface.

    That said, you need hands first in order to evolve human intelligence, because without hands you can't build tools, and without building tools, intelligence is pretty useless. If it's useless it won't evolve, because that's not how evolution works.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Why do you believe the odds are low?
    It's a good point. This belief seems to proceed more from human vanity/ego than from any real analysis of the likelihood.

    Do you believe mankind is doomed to be restricted forever to this solar system?
    I think we'd have to demonstrate that the other species could trust us not to bring war to their (probably) peaceful existence before they'd ever allow us to leave our solar system.

    Do you believe all intelligent life forms are doomed forever to be restricted to their systems of origin?
    No. I just think that the first species that ever arrived there would have to have figured out how to survive nuclear weapons. (Which means they'd have to have achieved world peace at some point, or they'd end up playing one too many games of chicken and lose)

    They probably came up with rules about who could join their club and who couldn't, based on the desire to keep things peaceful out there.

    If you do believe these points, why do you believe them? What is your evidence for them?
    I would have a hard time believing evolution as a theory if I tried to convince myself that it's some kind of one in a billion fluke for a planet to evolve life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland,NZ
    Posts
    7
    Its soo interesting.. i mean i am sure we r not alone.. everything is soo huge out there in the universe and there is bound to be life forms somewher ay..?

    i heard that a planet like earth has been found .. not very far away. is it tru? nyone heard of it?
    Regards,

    Rash
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I think intelligence is a "winner takes all" evolutionary trait. Once a single species makes it that far, they don't ever allow another one to surface.

    That said, you need hands first in order to evolve human intelligence, because without hands you can't build tools, and without building tools, intelligence is pretty useless. If it's useless it won't evolve, because that's not how evolution works.
    Well some birds will use sticks, and rocks as tools. They can build nest also, these don't require hands .

    Edit: just look at what termites and bees can build.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Rash26
    Its soo interesting.. i mean i am sure we r not alone.. everything is soo huge out there in the universe and there is bound to be life forms somewher ay..?

    i heard that a planet like earth has been found .. not very far away. is it tru? nyone heard of it?
    Near 300 planets have been located, by using solar irregularity (in small orbit) or seen orbiting the solar image (spot moving across solar image), not as independent images.

    The first, Pegasus 51-B, a giant Jupiter like planet, 50 light years away, in 1995. Recently Gliesc 581-C, some what larger than ours (think 5 times) is thought to be the correct distance from its host sun, to allow liquid water and some of the condition found on earth. This planets star is a dim cooler dwarf star, the planet then orbits much closer allowing the said possibilities. If you want more, google 'earth like planet' and am sure there will be many post to click....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland,NZ
    Posts
    7
    hy i truly believe that we r not alone.. i mean.. if u think about it the universe is soooo SOOO HUGE .. there is bound to be life somewhere out there.. there caan be something more advance than humans..

    what r ur views on UFO sightings in the past??
    Regards,

    Rash
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'm inclined to believe in UFO sightings. They're probably not too interested in making contact with the general public, though.

    They might be trying to groom us to become an equal trade partner. We might just be a "wildlife preserve", or maybe they're deciding if they're going to have to kill us. Or they might be looking to harvest some of Earth's resources in the simplest way possible: make a few demands.

    The famous day of radar sightings over Washington DC might be the day they made contact with the US government. Have their space ships do a few impossible maneuvers for the radar people just to make a point: fight with us and you'll lose.




    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I think intelligence is a "winner takes all" evolutionary trait. Once a single species makes it that far, they don't ever allow another one to surface.

    That said, you need hands first in order to evolve human intelligence, because without hands you can't build tools, and without building tools, intelligence is pretty useless. If it's useless it won't evolve, because that's not how evolution works.
    Well some birds will use sticks, and rocks as tools. They can build nest also, these don't require hands .

    Edit: just look at what termites and bees can build.
    Fair enough. There are some limits on the claim. Some people think dolphins are intelligent too.

    Basically, though, intelligence has to have a use first, and then it can evolve. It kind of works backwards of the way we tend to do things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    My opinions on UFO's are not set in stone, but I doubt we are or ever have been visited by other life. Possibly some kind probe or we have been observed from a distance, but even here I would wounder why.

    I am the first to question mass ever exceeding light speed or that energy, including light, is the fastest something now in existence. Never the less even with C speed or multiples, your talking a great deal of time to venture any place outside our solar system. Then you have acceleration, which would take several generation in TIME, for human or likely any life form to achieve. Our fighter plane pilots train for short spurts alone, as do astronauts and the idea of accelerations into days, week, months or years are just not conceivable. Our life spans and communication skills are also not that advanced, limited to 30-40 years of productive life an C speed in communication. Beyond this you have cosmic radiation, no telling what all that could go wrong on any journey, which our human frame and again most likely any life form would never have time to adjust to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    kojax; I have seen two UFO's. One was a bird, at least the size of my 1965 sedan, with a wing span twice that, in a South Texas fog. I checked this out for weeks, looking for any bird that size and of course, never found one. Then in the 1970's, I saw a blimp or cigar shaped object, which according to the clouds (party cloudy sky) had to be some distance away and above. The problem was its was very large, well over miles long, at least in my mind. What made it interesting, was a TV News Report, the next day, headlined Minnesota (1500 miles north) that a Large Cigar Shaped object was seen by hundreds, moving rapidly through the clouds. UFO's are rarely described in this manner. But, as explained to Rash, the reality of Space Travel and the knowledge of illusions, have led me to question there presence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Wolf

    Can your examples 'thread a needle' and/or 'swing a sledge hammer'?

    To All

    Before we can communicate with ET's, we will have to switch to 'digital' communication.

    It will be easy to determine signals that carry intelligence, but the biggest problem would be to decipher the meanings.
    Just detecting such signals that carry intelligence will be a major news item.
    I hope to see those headlines some day.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Wolf

    Can your examples 'thread a needle' and/or 'swing a sledge hammer'?

    To All

    Before we can communicate with ET's, we will have to switch to 'digital' communication.

    It will be easy to determine signals that carry intelligence, but the biggest problem would be to decipher the meanings.
    Just detecting such signals that carry intelligence will be a major news item.
    I hope to see those headlines some day.

    Cosmo
    why digital? analog signals seem like they would be much easier to dechipher.

    consider this, you can decipher an analog radio broadcast with the simplest antenna-amplifier-speaker configuration. do the same thing with an mp3 broadcast and what do you get? apparently random noise

    besides, radio signals from our planet are indistinguishable from the rest of the radio static in the universe within a few light years.

    i dont think we have a very good chance of being found... even more so considering the nearest intelligent life could easily be be 100 or more light years away
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63 wrong idea... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    41
    imagine space as a framework for life...above it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by medlakeguy
    analog signals seem like they would be much easier to dechipher.

    consider this, you can decipher an analog radio broadcast with the simplest antenna-amplifier-speaker configuration. do the same thing with an mp3 broadcast and what do you get? apparently random noise

    besides, radio signals from our planet are indistinguishable from the rest of the radio static in the universe within a few light years.

    i dont think we have a very good chance of being found... even more so considering the nearest intelligent life could easily be be 100 or more light years away
    I got the idea from my interpretation of EM waves.

    The standing waves radiated by a hydrogen atom are 'anolog'.
    No discernible intelligence here.

    Plancks photon pulses transmit the light that we see and I presume plants absorb.

    These photons are the forerunners of the digital technology.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Yeah, I think digital will be the most decipherable, because you can just look for a signal that turns off and on. If there's a signal at exactly one frequency that turns off and on in the right kind of pattern, that will make it stand out from the rest of the static. (Even if sometimes the static will hit that frequency as well)


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    kojax; I have seen two UFO's. One was a bird, at least the size of my 1965 sedan, with a wing span twice that, in a South Texas fog. I checked this out for weeks, looking for any bird that size and of course, never found one. Then in the 1970's, I saw a blimp or cigar shaped object, which according to the clouds (party cloudy sky) had to be some distance away and above. The problem was its was very large, well over miles long, at least in my mind. What made it interesting, was a TV News Report, the next day, headlined Minnesota (1500 miles north) that a Large Cigar Shaped object was seen by hundreds, moving rapidly through the clouds. UFO's are rarely described in this manner. But, as explained to Rash, the reality of Space Travel and the knowledge of illusions, have led me to question there presence.
    It's weird that the isolated sightings never get compiled in a proper way by anyone. I have a friend who saw do something weird over his car, but he doesn't like to talk about it.

    I think part of it is that people get ridiculed if they express their experience too openly, and part of it is probably deliberate disinformation on the part of the extra-terrestrials themselves to keep their presence semi-secret.

    The smartest way to hide something is in plain sight. If two very credible sightings surface one day, then deliberately create 15 not-so-credible sightings the next, and nobody will be able to believe the first two.
    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
  •