Do you think life exists elsewhere in the universe?

[Scholar]

Answer the questions based on your belief.

If you do believe life exists elsewhere:

[MavsSuperFan]

I have heard there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on earth.

Many of those stars have planets that orbit them. I find it hard to believe we are the only planet in the universe that supports life.

Based on that Yes I think life exists elsewhere in the universe.

I hope we discover them in our travels. If the discover us, we are in trouble. It will be like when the european ships found native peoples.


Do you think we've ever been visited by extraterrestrials?

No I do not. Any species technologically advanced enough to travel the light years necessary to reach earth would have conquered us by now. Eg. Euros traveled to the new world, proving technological advantage over native americans. Euros ****ed them up.


Do you believe aliens crashed in Roswell, AZ?
No same reason.


Do you think those life forms look the way Hollywood depicts them or do you anticipate they look more human?
No i suspect they would look completely different. All life forms on earth evolved in the same environment so we have some similarities, and are mostly carbon based. These aliens could be silicon based, they could have 5 different genders for all we know.


Do you think we will ever be visited by ETs in such a way where everyone in the world knows about it? (eg. they appear in a large city & videos of them go viral)

If they get here, they came for a reason. Based on what I know of human history when someone comes for you, it isnt good for you.


Do you think ETs will be benevolent or are you expecting a war of the worlds to occur should aliens ever come to earth?
War of the worlds. Not so much war, as the would be much more advanced than us if they managed to come here. 1 sided beat down.


And lastly, will ET existence change your perspective of religion?
I am an atheist so no.

[andremiller07]

There has to be imo, In general majority of humans are not very smart I'm sure there is far superior beings out there.

[gigantes]

what is your real question, scholar?

that you'll never be alone at any stage of existence or non-existence?



nono, you'll never be alone, according to this man:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fmIw3SxrfeQ/TWYyycYkPJI/AAAAAAAAA2A/6D_mRyaKvYM/s400/mark-hunt.jpg

[Jello]

Sounds like a set of questions you get from a middle school student

[Scholar]

what is your real question, scholar?

that you'll never be alone at any stage of existence or non-existence?


I'm just curious about people's thoughts on the subject. I know a few people who truly believe we, humans, are alone in the universe and that there isn't any other intelligent life out there.

[knickballer]

When it comes down to it our earth is the size of ant. Our universe is just endless and endless. There's millions of planets out there. Oh and just because humans can't live in a certain planet because of the climate doesn't mean other life forms can't.. Too many people think if human life can't exist = no life at all.

So to the answer to your question, no doubt but of course we'll never know(atleast in our lifetimes)

-Sometimes I wonder the meaning though. Such as what if we are an experiment for some advanced civilization and we are basically some lab rats. What if the big bang was a controlled simulation?
-what if we are in a matrix?

But I can support the theory that "aliens" have visited us before although in the early civilization of man to help guide him and all. I can also support the theory that aliens gave life to us like in Prometheus.

There's so much theories that it just boggles your mind.

[OldSkoolball#52]

The secular crowd tends to support the "its so big, there has to be!" argument.

Then they deride creationists who believe earth/life is too intricate to have happened by chance. And usually in an arrogant manner, like "omgz ever heard of science, redneck? hahahah"


The "its so big, it has to!" So-called 'theory' has the same amount of empirical validity and logical reasonin as creationism.

Just remember that, you silly lil hypocrites.

[knickballer]

As for the war question I think once we are advanced enough as a specie we might have to defend our planet from invaders. Right now our civilization isn't lucrative for us to get invaded from some superior civilzation

[knickballer]

The secular crowd tends to support the "its so big, there has to be!" argument.

Then they deride creationists who believe earth/life is too intricate to have happened by chance. And usually in an arrogant manner, like "omgz ever heard of science, redneck? hahahah"


The "its so big, it has to!" So-called 'theory' has the same amount of empirical validity and logical reasonin as creationism.

Just remember that, you silly lil hypocrites.

What do you think exactly? How is that view different than the existence of god,"If you can't prove he doesn't exist...."?

It's a bit more logical to think there's life outside of earth when there's literally millions of planets and not to mention the fact that most of space is uncharted for us...

[OldSkoolball#52]

No I do not. Any species technologically advanced enough to travel the light years necessary to reach earth would have conquered us by now. Eg. Euros traveled to the new world, proving technological advantage over native americans. Euros ****ed them up.
.


If theyre so advanced what would they need to conquer a tiny rock for? Your answer inherently underestimates the vastness of space and insignificance of Earth. Europeans also discovered fruit flys and worms and ants in America, yet made no attempt to "conquer" them.


You remind me of gigantes. Pretentious intellectual, minus the intellect.

[MavsSuperFan]

If theyre so advanced what would they need to conquer a tiny rock for? Your answer inherently underestimates the vastness of space and insignificance of Earth. Europeans also discovered fruit flys and worms and ants in America, yet made no attempt to "conquer" them.


You remind me of gigantes. Pretentious intellectual, minus the intellect.

There were many insects people have tried to exterminate because they were a nuisance. Perhaps they would want our resources and consider us insects.

[OldSkoolball#52]

What do you think exactly? How is that view different than the existence of god,"If you can't prove he doesn't exist...."?

It's a bit more logical to think there's life outside of earth when there's literally millions of planets and not to mention the fact that most of space is uncharted for us...


I am agnostic about extraterrestrial life, just as I am about the existence of god. In neither case do I feel there is enough evidence to date to render even a "probably" in either direction.


Scientists cannot explain how the universe is speeding up its expansion. Its an impossibility given our understanding of physical law, yet its happening. Thy dont know why electrons behave like particles when you observe them, but waves when you dont. They cant understand why its impossible to determine BOTH an electrons location and its velocity, when mathematically it should be, but its not.

Reality seems to have certain locks on it that are thus far impenetrable. The generation of life on Earth is in that category. You dont even know definitively how life formed here, how can you say you know it exists somewhere else??? Bah. Its actually quite silly when you think about it.

[OldSkoolball#52]

There were many insects people have tried to exterminate because they were a nuisance. Perhaps they would want our resources and consider us insects.


If theyve gotten here from lightyears away, they regenerate their own resources. They do not need the MINISCULE amount of resources Earth contributes to the universe.



Unless day be like flossin dem gold chain$ n get dat shit on discount here at da Earf yo!

[MavsSuperFan]

If theyve gotten here from lightyears away, they regenerate their own resources. They do not need the MINISCULE amount of resources Earth contributes to the universe.



Unless day be like flossin dem gold chain$ n get dat shit on discount here at da Earf yo!
:wtf:

:lol looks interesting but I have no idea what you said.

[gigantes]

I'm just curious about people's thoughts on the subject. I know a few people who truly believe we, humans, are alone in the universe and that there isn't any other intelligent life out there.
i understand, but also take the point that they're suffering from terrible logic / neurosis / psychosis, etc.


so maybe the real question is-- "what to do with your crazy friends?" or do i have that wrong?

but if so, i'd recommend just working around their crazy belief systems. i mean yes, it's a total PITA, but i think it's kinda what we're tasked with upon the matter of friendship. but it DOES heavily suggest who's worth being friends with and who is not. are not. :D

[FiveRings]

Answer the questions based on your belief.

If you do believe life exists elsewhere:
• Do you think we've ever been visited by extraterrestrials? Do you believe aliens crashed in Roswell, AZ?
No.


• Do you think those life forms look the way Hollywood depicts them or do you anticipate they look more human?
Extra-terrestrials in general? No clue what they would look like.


• Do you think we will ever be visited by ETs in such a way where everyone in the world knows about it? (eg. they appear in a large city & videos of them go viral)
Highly unlikely. I think our best bet is finding other life on planets in our own Solar System, maybe on Europa or Titan, or maybe bacteria on Mars.


• Do you think ETs will be benevolent or are you expecting a war of the worlds to occur should aliens ever come to earth?
War, and we'd get destroyed.


• How likely are the odds that we'd even encounter ETs in our lifetime? Will humans bees we develop the ability to travel at the speed of light in order to reach distant solar systems within a reasonable time gap?
We might find evidence of bacterial life in my lifetime on a planet in our Solar System. I can't really say what the odds are of that happening.


• And lastly, will ET existence change your perspective of religion?
No. I'm already an atheist and assume life exists on billions of other planets, and probably in other universes, if other universes do indeed exist.



If you don't believe extraterrestrials exist elsewhere in the universe:
• What makes you think it's improbable?
I'll answer this for my parents. The Bible doesn't mention extra-terrestrials so therefore they don't exist (my parents don't believe dinosaurs ever existed either. Religion is brain rot).


• If they do exist, how different will your viewpoint be on religion?
It wouldn't change at all for my parents. They would claim the scientists are lying just like my parents already claim. If extra-terrestrials appeared before them, they would assume they were demons or some shit lol.


• How would you go about explaining there being stars similar to our sun with planets revolving around them similar to our solar system? And how much do you believe in your own odds against there being a planet similar to earth, in the sense that it is capable of sustaining life?
God made the stars so we have something pretty to look at up in the sky. The Buybull says God made all this for us hurr durr.

[embersyc]

If you do believe life exists elsewhere:
[b]

[FiveRings]

The secular crowd tends to support the "its so big, there has to be!" argument.

Then they deride creationists who believe earth/life is too intricate to have happened by chance. And usually in an arrogant manner, like "omgz ever heard of science, redneck? hahahah"


The "its so big, it has to!" So-called 'theory' has the same amount of empirical validity and logical reasonin as creationism.

Just remember that, you silly lil hypocrites.
Sorry, you're wrong. We KNOW that life can come to be. We don't need to know exactly how it happened to know that it happened. We're here so therefore it clearly happened. That's the difference between thinking there are probably ETs out there and believing in a magic sky man. There is zero evidence for any magic sky man. We KNOW life can arise because it happened on our planet.

You said you are an agnostic. Are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist? Creationism is not a debate any more. Life evolved and continues to evolve, and that's a fact equal to the fact of gravity and the fact that the Earth is round.

[DCL]

there are hundreds of billions of planets in the universe.

to make an absolute claim that we know for sure that no life form of any kind (even in the tiniest microbe form) exists anywhere else but earth is to make an absurd claim that we have tested all other planets and have concrete evidence and data for the entire universe.

that, of course, is impossible with our current technology.

many planets have already been obliterated long ago anyway, and all we have are traces of light to determine their once existence. we don't have the capacity to travel back in time nor in distance to those planets to understand what kind of state they were in before and whether or not they were able to support life.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Life evolved and continues to evolve, and that's a fact equal to the fact of gravity and the fact that the Earth is round.

Yes I realize species evolved over many years. But we do not know the PRECISE conditions under which life originally generated. How do you know the improbability of it? If you know anything about quantum physics, you'd know the saying "Nothing is mathematically impossibe. Only improbable." So how do you know the exact, EXACT conditions to generate a cell on Earth, down to the very nanoliter of methane, and carbon, the specific distance in milimeters from the sun, the parts per billion of salinity in the water... wasn't a one-in-a-googleplex probability that hasn't been replicated anywhere else? So far seven billion people on Earth and counting, and none with the same fingerprints. Even more snowflakes, and still no two alike. Even beyond the assumption that life can be physically and spontaneously generated by chance (and I agree that is valid as a theory) there is also the possibility that reality itself is far more complex than you can even imagine right now. You cited gravity as a physical law. What is this, 1950? You don't realize the law of gravity breaks down in certain instances and scientists have absolutely no idea how or why??

The fact is you don't know. Your romantic leap to "it has to be!" is no more grounded in evidential logic than someone claiming that there has to be a design to life because there are questions science can't answer. You're enticed by the idea of life out there, so you are racing ahead to that conclusion without the proper logistic backing, same as anyone else might do with a given religion.

[FiveRings]

Yes I realize species evolved over many years. But we do not know the PRECISE conditions under which life originally generated. How do you know the improbability of it? If you know anything about quantum physics, you'd know the saying "Nothing is mathematically impossibe. Only improbable." So how do you know the exact, EXACT conditions to generate a cell on Earth, down to the very nanoliter of methane, and carbon, the specific distance in milimeters from the sun, the parts per billion of salinity in the water... wasn't a one-in-a-googleplex probability that hasn't been replicated anywhere else? So far seven billion people on Earth and counting, and none with the same fingerprints. Even more snowflakes, and still no two alike. Even beyond the assumption that life can be physically and spontaneously generated by chance (and I agree that is valid as a theory) there is also the possibility that reality itself is far more complex than you can even imagine right now. You cited gravity as a physical law. What is this, 1950? You don't realize the law of gravity breaks down in certain instances and scientists have absolutely no idea how or why??

The fact is you don't know. Your romantic leap to "it has to be!" is no more grounded in evidential logic than someone claiming that there has to be a design to life because there are questions science can't answer. You're enticed by the idea of life out there, so you are racing ahead to that conclusion without the proper logistic backing, same as anyone else might do with a given religion.
Ok. So you meant to say intelligent design rather than creationism. Creationists believe life was created in it's current form and that we didn't evolve from other apes.

Not knowing exactly how life started on Earth does not make belief in a god any more rational. It simply means we don't know, which is ok to admit. Rather than plugging a god in this gap, who itself would be far more complex than the first self replicators (so this god would need an even bigger explanation for it's existence), we should admit that we don't know and that science is working on figuring it out.

I don't "believe" in extra-terrestrials. I think they probably exist because I don't see anything special about the planet we live on.

[nightprowler10]

Odds are there has probably been some life out there somewhere. I don't know if it's intelligent, on a micro level, or even if it still exists, but the universe is so vast it boggles the mind that it would be empty. Odds are, there is at least one other planet out there that can sustain life to some extent.

[nightprowler10]

As for the war question I think once we are advanced enough as a specie we might have to defend our planet from invaders. Right now our civilization isn't lucrative for us to get invaded from some superior civilzation
I just hope we're not too advanced by the time the reapers awaken for the next round.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Ok. So you meant to say intelligent design rather than creationism. Creationists believe life was created in it's current form and that we didn't evolve from other apes.

Not knowing exactly how life started on Earth does not make belief in a god any more rational. It simply means we don't know, which is ok to admit. Rather than plugging a god in this gap, who itself would be far more complex than the first self replicators (so this god would need an even bigger explanation for it's existence), we should admit that we don't know and that science is working on figuring it out.

I don't "believe" in extra-terrestrials. I think they probably exist because I don't see anything special about the planet we live on.


Yes I guess Intelligent Design was what I was referring to.

My point is just because something happens once, does not mean it happens more than once. You have to know exactly why/how it happened before you can confidently make further conclusions. If you see a hurricane happen in Florida, you dont just assume they must happen in Minnesota because the country is so big. You have to know specifically what causes it, and if those conditions are met in other places you are speculating about. Even then, it is not a gaurantee.

I am ok with saying life elsewhere is a "definite possibility" based on our scientific understanding of life and evolution so far. But saying "there has to be, because teh universe is big" is not science and is typically just wishful thinking poorly disguised as logic.

[FiveRings]

Yes I guess Intelligent Design was what I was referring to.

My point is just because something happens once, does not mean it happens more than once. You have to know exactly why/how it happened before you can confidently make further conclusions. If you see a hurricane happen in Florida, you dont just assume they must happen in Minnesota because the country is so big. You have to know specifically what causes it, and if those conditions are met in other places you are speculating about. Even then, it is not a gaurantee.

I am ok with saying life elsewhere is a "definite possibility" based on our scientific understanding of life and evolution so far. But saying "there has to be, because teh universe is big" is not science and is typically just wishful thinking poorly disguised as logic.
I'm open to the idea that we could be the only life in the universe. I don't think that is likely but I could be wrong.

Life hardly took any time at all to begin on Earth. The Earth is about 4 and a half billion years old and life's been around for 4 billion of those years. There are many, many ELPs out there, so I would be very surprised if life didn't arise on some of them given the age of the universe which is 14-15 billion years old, and it only took half a billion years for life to arise here. Almost 15 billion years is a long ass time for things to happen and for life to arise elsewhere. Life on Earth can survive in some pretty extreme conditions so there's a good chance there's life on non-ELPs as well. This is not even taking into account other possible universes that might also exist.

Like I said before, original creation by a god is not an idea that deserves to be taken seriously because a god would need a far greater explanation for it's own existence. This doesn't mean that I "believe" there is no god. God is a nonsensical idea, but I would be forced to change my mind in the face of real evidence.

[tpols]

Yes I realize species evolved over many years. But we do not know the PRECISE conditions under which life originally generated. How do you know the improbability of it? If you know anything about quantum physics, you'd know the saying "Nothing is mathematically impossibe. Only improbable." So how do you know the exact, EXACT conditions to generate a cell on Earth, down to the very nanoliter of methane, and carbon, the specific distance in milimeters from the sun, the parts per billion of salinity in the water... wasn't a one-in-a-googleplex probability that hasn't been replicated anywhere else? So far seven billion people on Earth and counting, and none with the same fingerprints. Even more snowflakes, and still no two alike. Even beyond the assumption that life can be physically and spontaneously generated by chance (and I agree that is valid as a theory) there is also the possibility that reality itself is far more complex than you can even imagine right now. You cited gravity as a physical law. What is this, 1950? You don't realize the law of gravity breaks down in certain instances and scientists have absolutely no idea how or why??

The fact is you don't know. Your romantic leap to "it has to be!" is no more grounded in evidential logic than someone claiming that there has to be a design to life because there are questions science can't answer. You're enticed by the idea of life out there, so you are racing ahead to that conclusion without the proper logistic backing, same as anyone else might do with a given religion.
well, you just posted that quantum physicists say that nothing is impossible only improbable.

So if there are others universes, and space is virtually infinite, it would be impossible for their not to be some type of life somewhere else.. no matter how improbable the chances.

[rufuspaul]

well, you just posted that quantum physicists say that nothing is impossible only improbable.

So if there are others universes, and space is virtually infinite, it would be impossible for their not to be some type of life somewhere else.. no matter how improbable the chances.


You can take that a step further and say that life exists elsewhere exactly like it is here. A perfect mirror image is possible given infinite probability.

[OldSkoolball#52]

So if there are others universes, and space is virtually infinite,

This is again speculative assumption. Thats called inductive reasoning, it is what Aristotle and Freud did. That has not been the scientific standard since the late 16th century thanks to Francis Bacons pioneering work developing the scientific method.

Multiple universes are possible. But there is no evidence of them right now. You are casually taking for granted conclusions that have NO supporting data. Again, that is called inductive reasoning and it is antiquated in the scientific community. It has been for hundreds of years.

You are drawing conclusions based on a premise that doesnt legitimately exist as far as the scientific method is concerned. Bacon is rollin over in his grave! Not to mention Copernicus, Newton, and Franklin. First gather your proof of infinite universe/multiverse. Then we can talk about it as a premise for the odds and probability of life.


Amateurs on ISH throwing around 'facts' that life long scientists have yet to definitively conclude. Its silly. If you consider yourself scientfically minded, be patient and wait for the data. Theres no gaurantee youll even live to see it, but if you proceed without it youll look like a fop.

Tread extremely carefully with absolutes. As Niels Bohr (or Heisenberg, I mix them up) said about studying the atom: "If you think youve figured it out, you did something wrong"

[-p.tiddy-]

This is again speculative assumption. Thats called inductive reasoning, it is what Aristotle and Freud did. That has not been the scientific standard since the late 16th century thanks to Francis Bacons pioneering work developing the scientific method.

Multiple universes are possible. But there is no evidence of them right now. You are casually taking for granted conclusions that have NO supporting data. Again, that is called inductive reasoning and it is antiquated in the scientific community. It has been for hundreds of years.

You are drawing conclusions based on a premise that doesnt legitimately exist as far as the scientific method is concerned. Bacon is rollin over in his grave! Not to mention Copernicus, Newton, and Franklin. First gather your proof of infinite universe/multiverse. Then we can talk about it as a premise for the odds and probability of life.


Amateurs on ISH throwing around 'facts' that life long scientists have yet to definitively conclude. Its silly. If you consider yourself scientfically minded, be patient and wait for the data. Theres no gaurantee youll even live to see it, but if you proceed without it youll look like a fop.
I haven't read the this thread yet, only this last post...but the thread title reads "do you THINK life exists elsewhere..."

not "is there scientific proof that life exists elsewhere..."

[rufuspaul]

Relax dude. It's all conjecture, but conjecture is often the starting point in scientific discovery.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I haven't read the this thread yet, only this last post...but the thread title reads "do you THINK life exists elsewhere..."

not "is there scientific proof that life exists elsewhere..."


Ok, but in this thread, and among the general population, the answer to that question is so often spoken declaratively, rather than speculatively. People answer the question like "Everyone chill, I got this. Ill put this question to rest for good." And then they proceed to unintentionally make a mockery of logic. Smh. People need to check themselves.

Also, even the people who say "I think there is life out there, because..." are often proceding to use a false or indetermined premise. So I took care to point that out in this thread, for anyone who may care to improve their perspective, rather than cling to it stubbornly.

[tpols]

This is again speculative assumption. Thats called inductive reasoning, it is what Aristotle and Freud did. That has not been the scientific standard since the late 16th century thanks to Francis Bacons pioneering work developing the scientific method.

Multiple universes are possible. But there is no evidence of them right now. You are casually taking for granted conclusions that have NO supporting data. Again, that is called inductive reasoning and it is antiquated in the scientific community. It has been for hundreds of years.

You are drawing conclusions based on a premise that doesnt legitimately exist as far as the scientific method is concerned. Bacon is rollin over in his grave! Not to mention Copernicus, Newton, and Franklin. First gather your proof of infinite universe/multiverse. Then we can talk about it as a premise for the odds and probability of life.


Amateurs on ISH throwing around 'facts' that life long scientists have yet to definitively conclude. Its silly. If you consider yourself scientfically minded, be patient and wait for the data. Theres no gaurantee youll even live to see it, but if you proceed without it youll look like a fop.

Tread extremely carefully with absolutes. As Niels Bohr (or Heisenberg, I mix them up) said about studying the atom: "If you think youve figured it out, you did something wrong"
Not saying I figured anything out.. this whole thread is based on what you think is out there.

Is it not somewhat logical to assume, that in the trillions of star life cycles that have ever existed with all of the rocks circulating them, that at some point, atoms, somewhere, sometime on one rock out of a gazzillion, didnt arrange into the right concoction of elements to form what we calll life? Even if the chances are preposturely small, can they be much smaller relatively than how big what we know of space and time is?


I just think its shortsighted to think were the only lucky rock out of the gazzilion that have floated around to have sprouted life..

We can baely investigate a rock RIGHT next to our own for life. Weve been digging mars for decades and are still teetering whether or not we agree it ever support life. There have been studies saying there is evidence of thermophiles, bacteria that live deep inside the planet in very unsustainable conditions, on mars but theyre still trying to mount more evidence.

So if its even possible thats mars has had simple life on it.. right next to us.. how low can the chances be that it has not came up anywhere on all the others so far away?

[Lebowsky]

Starface, the Law of Truly Large Numbers makes the fact that life exists elsewhere in the universe an very reasonable, educated, statistical assumption, given the vastness of the universe. Of course it will not be an irrefutable truth until life is actually observed outside of Earth, but it is logical and reasonable to assume life happens in other places.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Not saying I figured anything out.. this whole thread is based on what you think is out there.

Is it not somewhat logical to assume, that in the trillions of star life cycles that have ever existed with all of the rocks circulating them, that at some point, atoms, somewhere, sometime on one rock out of a gazzillion, didnt arrange into the right concoction of elements to form what we calll life? Even if the chances are preposturely small, can they be much smaller relatively than how big what we know of space and time is?


I just think its shortsighted to think were the only lucky rock out of the gazzilion that have floated around to have sprouted life..


Well, people are welcome to be as cavalier about scientific inferences as they want, I guess. I'm just telling you what's considered accepted practice in the actual scientific community.

What you described above races past mandatory steps in the scientific method for drawing a conclusion. I'll give you an example of how something like this SHOULD work:

Right now, the data we have about life and the rest of the universe, goes only so far as to suggest it is "possible". There is no 'probable' about it at this point, scientifically speaking. If you want to take a leap of faith, that's your prerogative. Just don't masquerade it as science, that's all I'm saying.

Now let's say we did discover a directly observable and measurable planet somewhere. And we noticed that the the carbon in the atmosphere of the planet had been gradually rising over the years, in a pattern similar to ours. That would be the first type of step needed to BEGIN to suggest a probability. However that is STILL not a conclusion. Then suppose we observed terrain that was very unlikely to have occurred naturally (such as a Mt. Rushmore type of deal). Now we're getting pretty warm. However, without directly observing life itself, we still are not at a fact. But at that point, we could likely say "It seems pretty evident..." and so forth.

The scientific method is hypothesis, experimentation, observation, data analysis, conclusion. You have gone straight from hypothesis to conclusion.

There are countless examples of this in the history of science, and the things people 'knew' ended up clearly wrong. The 'its so big, there has to be' argument is no different than early man seeing the sun go from one end of the sky to the other, and declaring that it's going around us.




We can baely investigate a rock RIGHT next to our own for life.

Exactly right. And yet we are concluding about its existence throughout the universe?

You guys seem to think I'm trying to debunk the possibility. I'm not. It's ENTIRELY possible. But we don't even know specifically how life originated here. Yet we are theorizing about how it 'must' exist somewhere else? That's not science, that's a leap of faith. And my issue is with the hypocrisy of those who deride the leaps of faith among others, but boldly proclaim their own to be true here.

It seems like most people here are mildly acquainted with what we DO know about the universe; i.e. it's really big, there's like stars and stuff. Very few people know much about the issues that are confounding scientists to this day. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, spooky action at a distance, "dark" or "missing" matter/energy. The most dedicated and learned scientists grapple with the reality of what reality even is or how it came to be, and yet armchair astronomy guy "knows there's life out there, cause the universe is real big."

Again, I can't spend all my time trying to convince those who wish to be adamant. But people are way ahead of themselves scientifically with the "its so big" slogan. Right now, it is at best 'possible.' There is nothing legitimately supportive of any measure of probability. Unless someone here wants to throw out a random percentage and describe how they calculated it based on 'its so big'.

And again, if life is discovered somewhere tomorrow, people will come back to this thread and lob "I told you soooo!!!" at me til they're blue in the face. Those are the people who will have been completely incapable of comprehending what I've been saying.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Of course it will not be an irrefutable truth until life is actually observed outside of Earth, but it is logical and reasonable to assume life happens in other places.


Ok, to me and I think to most people, this SOUNDS like a conclusion. You can argue that it's 'technically not' but it's clear you are stating a high degree of confidence in this assertion.

The Law of Large Numbers would only be relevant if you first KNEW exactly what you're dealing with when it comes to life origins. If you KNEW it was generated from a lightning spark into salt water in an atmosphere of methane and carbon, then you could proceed to theorize further.

But we still don't know how life started. There have been so many theories throughout the course of science where people were making progress toward the expected conclusion, getting warmer, getting warrrmerrrrrr... and then poof, it was completely wrong. This could EASILY be the case with suppositions about how life started. We are not close to knowing where it came from, in fact we likely never will. Even if we recreate it in a lab. Guess what, we can create oxygen in a lab. Does that mean oxygen first appeared in the atmosphere the same way we replicated it in laboratories? Probably not.

Nobody even knows how the universe itself formed. Where did the singularity come from? Why did it blow up? How did its contents suddenly become hydrogen atoms?

It is WAY WAY WAYYYYY to early in our understanding to be declarative about conclusions that are based on premises we aren't even sure of. You have to at least be sure of the premise with probability. If ____, then the likelyhood of ____ is such and such. But nobody even knows if the first "If" is accurate! We are taking it for granted too cavalierly IMO.

[TheMarkMadsen]

If ETs exist, they aren't traveling long distances, their going through worm wholes.

If UFOs are extraterrestrial i think it's more logical to assume those are not manned but are more "drones" than anything.

Also if life evolved or was created on another planet, there's no way of predicting what they look like, it could be something we can't even comprehend.

Also, if a species has mastered worm holes and space travel chances are they are way past the point of being savages, would be spiritually evolved to a point where material items are irrelevant. Consider that a species with the technology to travel to earth, assuming they can, and go basically undetected.. Their goin to have the technology to where recourses would be abundant and easy to come by/create. They wouldn't be fighting over land and killing their own species for profit..like we do.

Just my 2cents

[OldSkoolball#52]

Also, if a species has mastered worm holes and space travel chances are they are way past the point of being savages, would be spiritually evolved to a point where material items are irrelevant. Consider that a species with the technology to travel to earth, assuming they can, and go basically undetected.. Their goin to have the technology to where recourses would be abundant and easy to come by/create. They wouldn't be fighting over land and killing their own species for profit..like we do.



Yes. The concept of traveling through wormholes is so incomprehensibly advanced (and not even necessarily possible) that if anyone was doing it, they likely wouldn't even be able to remotely resemble any Earth life physiochemically. One would think they would almost have to be metaphysical. And this is of course playfully supposing wormholes can even be created and physically traveled through by anything.

I think the public underestimates how many atomic and astronomic "facts" are actually best-guesses so far. Even when in many cases the scientists themselves would readily tell you that the information is still at best a theory, the public at large consumes much of it as conclusive fact. I see evidence of that any time questions like the OP's come up.

I enjoy studying this kind of stuff, as obviously a lot of others do too, but I think it's common to at the beginning take the things you learn at face value. The deeper you go into it, the more you begin to think like a scientist, and realize that the one thing you truly know is that you don't actually KNOW.

[Lebowsky]

Ok, to me and I think to most people, this SOUNDS like a conclusion. You can argue that it's 'technically not' but it's clear you are stating a high degree of confidence in this assertion.

The Law of Large Numbers would only be relevant if you first KNEW exactly what you're dealing with when it comes to life origins. If you KNEW it was generated from a lightning spark into salt water in an atmosphere of methane and carbon, then you could proceed to theorize further.

But we still don't know how life started. There have been so many theories throughout the course of science where people were making progress toward the expected conclusion, getting warmer, getting warrrmerrrrrr... and then poof, it was completely wrong. This could EASILY be the case with suppositions about how life started. We are not close to knowing where it came from, in fact we likely never will. Even if we recreate it in a lab. Guess what, we can create oxygen in a lab. Does that mean oxygen first appeared in the atmosphere the same way we replicated it in laboratories? Probably not.

Nobody even knows how the universe itself formed. Where did the singularity come from? Why did it blow up? How did its contents suddenly become hydrogen atoms?

It is WAY WAY WAYYYYY to early in our understanding to be declarative about conclusions that are based on premises we aren't even sure of. You have to at least be sure of the premise with probability. If ____, then the likelyhood of ____ is such and such. But nobody even knows if the first "If" is accurate! We are taking it for granted too cavalierly IMO.

This is not correct. You can formulate the Law of Truly Large numbers in layman's terms (not the Law of Large Numbers, mind you) as: given a certain experiment, even the most unlikely outcomes are bound to happen after enough repetitions. Consider this example from wikipedia:


For a simplified example of the law, assume that a given event happens with a probability of 0.1% in one trial. Then the probability that this unlikely event does not happen in a single trial is 99.9% = 0.999.

In a sample of 1000 independent trials, the probability that the event does not happen in any of them is 0.999^{1000}, or 36.8%. The probability that the event happens at least once in 1000 trials is then 1 − 0.368 = 0.632 or 63.2%. The probability that it happens at least once in 10,000 trials is 1 - 0.999^{10000} = 0.99995 = 99.995 %.

This means that this "unlikely event" has a probability of 63.2% of happening if 1000 chances are given, or over 99.9% for 10,000 chances. In other words, a highly unlikely event, given enough tries, is even more likely to occur.

You're getting stuck on the fact that it is currently unknown how life appeared on earth, but that's irrelevant. The specific contiditions under which life originated on Earth don't matter at all. The fact that life appeared is infinitesimaly likely, but the fact that the universe is infinitely large brings the probability of life happening infinitely close to 1. Life may have happened just like it happened on Earth (however that may be), or in a completely different manner. Scientists look for life in Earthlike planets because we know life somehow appeared under our conditions, not because it's the only way it can happen. Targeting any other set of conditions would be a blind, fruitless endeavour.

[Lebowsky]

Forgot to add that, by that, I don't mean ET life must have happened without a doubt, I mean that it is statistically and logically sound to assume so.

[OldSkoolball#52]

This is not correct. You can formulate the Law of Truly Large numbers in layman's terms (not the Law of Large Numbers, mind you) as: given a certain experiment, even the most unlikely outcomes are bound to happen after enough repetitions. Consider this example from wikipedia:



Yes, the ol' "tennis ball through the wall" concept, i.e. quantum probability. I'm familiar with it, in fact I was drunkenly trying to explain it to a chick at a bar (not even kidding about this) just a couple weeks ago.

But:



You're getting stuck on the fact that it is currently unknown how life appeared on earth, but that's irrelevant. The specific contiditions under which life originated on Earth don't matter at all. The fact that life appeared is infinitesimaly likely, but the fact that the universe is infinitely large brings the probability of life happening infinitely close to 1. Life may have happened just like it happened on Earth (however that may be), or in a completely different manner. Scientists look for life in Earthlike planets because we know life somehow appeared under our conditions, not because it's the only way it can happen. Targeting any other set of conditions would be a blind, fruitless endeavour.


This is where I see a faulty premise.



Is The Universe Infinite? Not Likely, Say Physicists
February 19, 2013


Lee Rannals for redOrbit.com — Your Universe Online

Scientists at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) told reporters the universe may not be infinite after all.

Joseph Lykken, a theoretical physicist with FNAL in Batavia, Illinois, spoke to reporters at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in Boston, saying recent calculations show its “bad news” for the future of the universe.

“It may be that the universe we live in is inherently unstable and at some point billions of years from now it’s all going to get wiped out,” Lykken, who is also on the science team at Europe’s Large Hadron Collider, or LHC, told Reuters.

[continues]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112787040/universe-not-infinite-after-all-021913/


Scientists at the LHC do not even know if the universe is infinite, nor if a collection of multiverses exist. You cannot use that as a definitive premise. That's the road tpols went down and was really the crux of my disagreement. It is an unproven assumption.

[Lebowsky]

Yes, the ol' "tennis ball through the wall" concept, i.e. quantum probability. I'm familiar with it, in fact I was drunkenly trying to explain it to a chick at a bar (not even kidding about this) just a couple weeks ago.

But:




This is where I see a faulty premise.




Scientists at the LHC do not even know if the universe is infinite, nor if a collection of multiverses exist. You cannot use that as a definitive premise. That's the road tpols went down and was really the crux of my disagreement. It is an unproven assumption.

I agree there is not a consensus, but most evidence points in the direction of the universe being flat and infinite. Check out this link from NASA. (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html)

Of course the jury is still out on these matters, and we won't probably have answers to all these questions in our lifetime (if ever at all), but for now we have to go with what logic hints, and I believe it does hint in the direction I tried to show.

[Jello]

Stop bringing irrelevant topics about what scientists don't know. The observable universe is so large that the probability of life occurring on another planet is almost 100%.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I agree there is not a consensus, but most evidence points in the direction of the universe being flat and infinite. Check out this link from NASA. (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html)

Of course the jury is still out on these matters, and we won't probably have answers to all these questions in our lifetime (if ever at all), but for now we have to go with what logic hints, and I believe it does hint in the direction I tried to show.


I certainly don't discount it. But for me personally, when someone makes the argument for life elsewhere based on the vastness of space (and only vastness can be proven, not endlessness) the strongest endorsement I can give it is a solid "maybe so". For me there is not enough right now to go beyond that. Maybe I'm being extra cautious, but in science that's no crime.


edit: Because how big do you want to go? If we are talking about spontaneous life generation being probable due to large numbers, then is there a replication of our entire planet, centimeter by centimeter, of water and terrain? Somewhere out there that has the Alaskan coast shaped exactly like ours and at the same latitude, while also having the Madagascarian coast shaped and located the same way??? If we are theorizing based on probabilities and infinites, there has to be. What about our exact solar system? So many trillions of galaxies, is there an exact copy of Earth, equidistant to an exact copy of Mars, equidistant to an exact copy of Jupiter, etc?

IMO you just don't know that. It's getting way too speculative. It is not a sound argument IMO to state any of those things definitively, including the supposition about life. Especially with no proof that the universe is truly "infinite." Infinity itself is not even a completely graspable concept in the physical world.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Stop bringing irrelevant topics about what scientists don't know. The observable universe is so large that the probability of life occurring on another planet is almost 100%.



:lol





http://cdn.pophangover.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/good-job-good-effort-kid-e1339021157881.jpg

[DaSeba5]

I'd be shocked if there wasn't. There's too many planets out there in the universe that we humans can't possibly comprehend. There's no way Earth is the only planet in the universe with life IMO.

[Lebowsky]

I certainly don't discount it. But for me personally, when someone makes the argument for life elsewhere based on the vastness of space (and only vastness can be proven, not endlessness) the strongest endorsement I can give it is a solid "maybe so". For me there is not enough right now to go beyond that. Maybe I'm being extra cautious, but in science that's no crime.

That is certainly a sensible standpoint, absolutely nothing wrong with it. When statistical analysis is your bread and butter you tend to see statistical certainty as fact, which is my case here.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I'd be shocked if there wasn't. There's too many planets out there in the universe that we humans can't possibly comprehend. There's no way Earth is the only planet in the universe with life IMO.


Just to be clear, I'm ok with these kinds of statements. I can accept your personal inclinations even if I am not nearly as confident in them. It's just when people are spouting things with certainty and don't even realize how scientifically unsound they're being as they wax triumphantly, is what I think is pretty silly.

Anyway, good fun topic. I gotta scram now, but enjoyed the dialogue.

[DaSeba5]

Just to be clear, I'm ok with these kinds of statements. I can accept your personal inclinations even if I am not nearly as confident in them. It's just when people are spouting things with certainty and don't even realize how scientifically unsound they're being as they wax triumphantly, is what I think is pretty silly.

Anyway, good fun topic. I gotta scram now, but enjoyed the dialogue.

Nobody knows for sure until we have proof. Anyone who claims they know is full of shit.

[OldSkoolball#52]

That is certainly a sensible standpoint, absolutely nothing wrong with it. When statistical analysis is your bread and butter you tend to see statistical certainty as fact, which is my case here.


Yep, and I totally understand that. But my thing is that its become evident so far that there are no truly unbreakable laws in physics. Guys like Einstein and Heisenberg have created extremely precise probability equations that guarantee precise results for predicting things like atomic movement or galactic interaction... and yet when they do the measurements, the universe behaves differently. There is no certainty.

Statistics are obviously a math thing, and math gives us some of our most nearly unbreakable laws. As you said, things that happen with such near certainty, it approaches infinite. So I can def see how a stats buff would be especially skeptical. But the one thing that trumps even math has been shown to be universal uncertainty. It's bizare but true. That's why you have to be extremely wary about things in the physical world until you see them with your own eyes. Obviously the physical world and mathematics are extremely closely connected... but not identical.

[Jello]

Starface is too stupid to realize that making a statement of probability is not a definitive statement. As usual, he just misconstrues another poster's argument so he can push his shallow understanding of science.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Starface is too stupid to realize that making a statement of probability is not a definitive statement. As usual, he just misconstrues another poster's argument so he can push his shallow understanding of science.


:wtf:











:lol





http://cdn.pophangover.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/good-job-good-effort-kid-e1339021157881.jpg

[rufuspaul]

Just to be clear, I'm ok with these kinds of statements. I can accept your personal inclinations even if I am not nearly as confident in them. It's just when people are spouting things with certainty and don't even realize how scientifically unsound they're being as they wax triumphantly, is what I think is pretty silly.

Anyway, good fun topic. I gotta scram now, but enjoyed the dialogue.


I'm not sure if I can take polite, analytical Starface. This might be proof positive of the existence of a parallel, opposite universe.

[-p.tiddy-]

Nobody knows for sure until we have proof. Anyone who claims they know is full of shit.

it isn't impossible that some people know for fact

[OldSkoolball#52]

it isn't impossible that some people know for fact




http://www.zawarudo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/mind-blown-2_thumb.gif

[SpurrDurr]

It surely exists since the universe is pretty much infinite. But at the same time it's most likely that we ll never meet any other form of extraterrestrial life given the universe's dimension.

[Scholar]

Thanks for taking a decent "thinking" discussion and turning it into a dumbass argument where you call everyone with a different opinion than you out, osb#52. That's what people love on message boards. They love having some random poster try and debunk their OPINIONS.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Thanks for taking a decent "thinking" discussion and turning it into a dumbass argument where you call everyone with a different opinion than you out, osb#52. That's what people love on message boards. They love having some random poster try and debunk their OPINIONS.



Umm, you're welcome f@ggot

[AlphaWolf24]

Yes...although I think complex Lifeforms are extremely rare throughout the Universe . The universe is so vast that it could contain many Earth-like planets. But if such planets exist, they are likely to be separated from each other by many thousands of light years



Other Thoughts..

- the fundamental blueprint for life...is the same.....anywhere in the Universe.


water in the liquid state...:
galactic habitable zone,
a central star and planetary system having the requisite character, the circumstellar habitable zone,

a right sized terrestrial planet, the advantage of a gas giant guardian and large satellite, conditions needed to assure the planet has a magnetosphere and plate tectonics, the chemistry of the lithosphere, atmosphere, and oceans,

at least they need a pretty darn close equation to get multicellular life forms



would they look like us..IMO most likely....slight aesthetic differences.....but a similar skeleton structure

religion? - not sure how I would feel.....I believe in many different religions.....it would be really cool if the ET's had giant Cross when they landed....or a Jade Buddha....or their own similar religious beliefs........I would LMAO.

[dr.hee]

religion? - not sure how I would feel.....I believe in many different religions.....it would be really cool if the ET's had giant Cross when they landed....or a Jade Buddha....or their own similar religious beliefs........I would LMAO.

Yeah, maybe a spaceship will land, an alien steps outside...and hands us the Book of Mormon...

[DCL]

i don't think i'd jump out of my seat in utter disbelief if some scientist discovered that out of hundreds of billions of planets, there was or were another planet(s) that had oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and out from environment, life in the tiniest form developed. it's not a conviction based on evidence because there is no evidence. it is conjecture based on imagination, and that's why the title of the thread was "DO YOU THINK" instead of "DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT...."

[ihoopallday]

Who knows. There's probably some other living creature on another planet asking the same question. This is just one of those subjects that we'll probably never have an answer to. Sucks when you have a problem and no solution whatsoever.

[Gifted Mind]

For those who even for a second thought OldSkoolball#52 was making some sense, I am here to tell you most of his thinking was logically flawed. You can breathe now.

[Akrazotile]

Yes I realize species evolved over many years. But we do not know the PRECISE conditions under which life originally generated. How do you know the improbability of it? If you know anything about quantum physics, you'd know the saying "Nothing is mathematically impossibe. Only improbable." So how do you know the exact, EXACT conditions to generate a cell on Earth, down to the very nanoliter of methane, and carbon, the specific distance in milimeters from the sun, the parts per billion of salinity in the water... wasn't a one-in-a-googleplex probability that hasn't been replicated anywhere else? So far seven billion people on Earth and counting, and none with the same fingerprints. Even more snowflakes, and still no two alike. Even beyond the assumption that life can be physically and spontaneously generated by chance (and I agree that is valid as a theory) there is also the possibility that reality itself is far more complex than you can even imagine right now. You cited gravity as a physical law. What is this, 1950? You don't realize the law of gravity breaks down in certain instances and scientists have absolutely no idea how or why??

The fact is you don't know. Your romantic leap to "it has to be!" is no more grounded in evidential logic than someone claiming that there has to be a design to life because there are questions science can't answer. You're enticed by the idea of life out there, so you are racing ahead to that conclusion without the proper logistic backing, same as anyone else might do with a given religion.


I agree with this dude.

[Akrazotile]

For those who even for a second thought OldSkoolball#52 was making some sense, I am here to tell you most of his thinking was logically flawed. You can breathe now.


Dis fool :lol

[JohnFreeman]

Yes, the Malaysia plane is floating in space somewhere
Don't hate me

[Josh]

I believe life exists elsewhere in the universe. The question is, what type/level of life. If we can all agree the universe is some 13.7 billion years old (and that's a pretty firm number) that would mean all life elsewhere if it does exists means they're subject to the same time clock we are. So that life could possibly be (even likely) way more primitive than us. Think about it, we're just now evolving to the level we are today and that was 4.6 billion years in the making. I can't say for sure, but I believe hearing somewhere we belong to a relatively older star / solar system out there, more than most.

On the other hand, it's possible we're way behind a single or perhaps thousands (or even more there's just no way of knowing) of extraterrestrial species out there. It's possible they could have mutated and evolved at a much quicker rate than we have. Think about how much we furthered ourselves in the past 200 years alone; now imagine some extraterrestrial species / civilization out there who's endured their own "industrial revolution" a thousand times over to our one. Perhaps they didn't need a massive species like the dinosaurs to exists first and be eliminated before making way for a more sophisticated / advanced species similar to us, perhaps much better.

"Flash the message - something's out there!"

[outbreak]

I believe there is some form of life or has been in the past. It's not logical to assume life will have taken the same path we have, you need to consider the fact that there's many different organisms on earth that have been far more successful at survival (which is all evolution cares about) than humans have been. It's also a little silly to assume that if there is intelligent life it would happen to be around in the tiny window of time that the human race has been around. We're just a tiny speck in the timeline of earth let alone other solar systems and planets. With the regularity of extinction events on earth it'd be a big con incidence to have another intelligent race be knocking around at the same time as us.

[chosen_one6]

Some humans are so self-centered that they actually believe we're the only planet in the universe that has life.

F***ing idiots.

[RoseCity07]

I'm confident that yes life exists somewhere else in this universe. I would go as far to say I guarantee it. All the elements needed for life to exist are scattered throughout the universe. All our metals on this planet were created in our Sun. The gold and silver. The iron in our blood.

The universe is filled with stars like our sun and surrounded by planets. Statistically one of those planets had to have been formed in a similar manner at just the right distance. That would probably mean that as the planet cooled life formed in some body of water. First single celled organisms acted on by natural selection.

[RoseCity07]

Some humans are so self-centered that they actually believe we're the only planet in the universe that has life.

F***ing idiots.

This happens when children are indoctrinated. When you're told as a child that something is true, and that anyone that tells you otherwise is wrong, you don't really have a chance. That's why forcing religion on children is child abuse. Telling something what to think instead of how to think is sick.

[chosen_one6]

This happens when children are indoctrinated. When you're told as a child that something is true, and that anyone that tells you otherwise is wrong, you don't really have a chance. That's why forcing religion on children is child abuse. Telling something what to think instead of how to think is sick.

I agree. It's ironic that we have licenses and tests that need to be passed for some of the most simple and also difficult tasks in life, yet no license or test is needed to be deemed worthy of raising a child/family.

[Myth]

If there is a 1-in-a-billion chance that a given planet has life on it, than conservative estimates would suggest there are 100 planets with life on them within the Milky Way alone.

http://www.voanews.com/content/galaxy-100-billion-planets-caltech/1577962.html

[step_back]

I'd say it's impossible that there isn't life elsewhere in the universe. When people talk about Aliens we automatically think of advanced green men in flying saucers. This could be true however something as simple as marine life like fish would confirm Alien life.

I don't think we've ever been visited. A conspiracy like that would get leaked. I think places like Area 51 are so secretive because of what man is creating.

[mr.big35]

im surprised that rambo has not posted on this thread yet

[Akrazotile]

This happens when children are indoctrinated. When you're told as a child that something is true, and that anyone that tells you otherwise is wrong, you don't really have a chance. That's why forcing religion on children is child abuse. Telling something what to think instead of how to think is sick.

:lol

This is funny. Coming from the guy who guarantees life is somewhere else.

"The man who thinks he is wise, is a fool. Only the man who knows he is a fool, is wise" - Socrates


You dont even know what the universe is. You dont know what creation is. You dont know how life started.

Yet here you have proclaimed "We are not alone in this Universe!"

:oldlol:

You have watched a documentary or two on the size of space and digested it as gospel. You have not given thought to what the information and contradictions of life could possibly mean. There are theories with a fair amount of gravitas within the scientific community that suggest an infinite number of slightly different parallel universes. If this is true, who is to say we are not within one of the variations wherein only Earth has evolved life in the universe? If there are infinite possibilities, surely that is one of them. But no, "I guarantee we are not alone!"

Consider that atoms technically do not even have STRUCTURE until we observe them. Who is to say you or I am not a being who only perceives the reality we live in, and the rest does not exist? If that is true, and we do not have aliens here, then there is nowhere else for them to be.

"Mich Kaku told me teh universe is THISSSSSS big! (Holds hands a part). Since Im not like a little christian sheep, i figureded out its like, we CANT be alone! I can guarantee it on the internet right now!"



:roll: This foolish, try-hard intellectual dweeb. Keep polishing up your "Thats racist!" political talking points and your "I know teh science, man!" intellectual affirmation crutch. You are literally the perfect liberal. You think you know everything, while somewhere (perhaps) Socrates is laughing at your stupid ass.









"I guarantee it!"

[Akrazotile]

I'd say it's impossible that there isn't life elsewhere in the universe. When people talk about Aliens we automatically think of advanced green men in flying saucers. This could be true however something as simple as marine life like fish would confirm Alien life.

I don't think we've ever been visited. A conspiracy like that would get leaked. I think places like Area 51 are so secretive because of what man is creating.


Its sad that even the wisest mind, a grain of sand on an endless beach, is still Mt Kilimanjaro compared to some of yours.

[Akrazotile]

Rose City condemns people who read the bible and accept its conclusions on all of existence.

Then he goes and watches a space program, and accepts its conclusions on all of existence.

:oldlol:


Heres a tip, you silly f@ggot: Try reading or watching something, and then thinking.


:pimp:

[step_back]

Its sad that even the wisest mind, a grain of sand on an endless beach, is still Mt Kilimanjaro compared to some of yours.

And what are you basing your scientific theories on? Well I can't see it so it ain't there?

Stephen Hawking's has talked on many occasions about the possibility of life in our own Solar system. That isn't even a spec in our own galaxy. We estimate that the Universe is around 13.7 billion years old however that is just what we can see meaning it's the observable universe.

I'm sticking with the professor on this issue.

[Akrazotile]

Stephen Hawking's has talked on many occasions about the possibility of life in our own Solar system.


And you and Rose City just kind of "finished his thought" for him by guaranteeing it, huh?

:oldlol:

[step_back]

And you and Rose City just kind of "finished his thought" for him by guaranteeing it, huh?

:oldlol:

That's funny, because I thought I entered a thread asking for peoples opinions?

Is this not a thread asking for peoples opinions? :eek:

[Draz]

Life exists here on ISH, that's all that matters.

[Akrazotile]

That's funny, because I thought I entered a thread asking for peoples opinions?

Is this not a thread asking for peoples opinions? :eek:


Is a guarantee a statement of fact or opinion?

[step_back]

Is a guarantee a statement of fact or opinion?

I said I think it's impossible that life doesn't exist elsewhere in the Universe. That's my opinion. Did I say I guaranteed it? No I didn't.

You seem to think I did, so I guess you won't have trouble quoting me then.


P.S You didn't answer the question I asked you. Is this not a thread asking for peoples opinions. It's a really easy answer....

[Akrazotile]

I said I think it's impossible that life doesn't exist elsewhere in the Universe. That's my opinion. Did I say I guaranteed it? No I didn't.

You seem to think I did, so I guess you won't have trouble quoting me then.


P.S You didn't answer the question I asked you. Is this not a thread asking for peoples opinions. It's a really easy answer....


Ok. Your stated opinion, about to be registered on the record, is that it's "impossible" there's no other life in the universe. Rose City said he "guarantees" there's life somewhere else.

If you want to push your credibility over that cliff, I won't stop you. I just want to make sure you're certain. Rose City has always been a fool and a poser, so for him there's nothing to lose. He might as well just throw stupid shit out there. It's too late for him.

But you, Step Back... I am less familiar with you. I want you to understand the company you're about to join by affirming your silly supposition. You are unaware of what a massive leap you are taking by assigning your infinitesimal scope of reality to far flung corners of the universe that have never been observed nor understood. Some scientists took a few measurements and said "This shit is really big!" and you are jumping the gun with an eager proclamation that "Ohhhh shit, we all up in this bitch wit dat science n shit, life be e'rrrrrwhere!" as if you even understand what life and reality are. You don't.


So I'm just telling you. Drink from the goblet of hubris if you wish. But just realize, it is filled with a nectar that will satiate you and stunt your growth. You will be a chubby kid with fudgesicle on his face who must endlessly defend what he "knows" and attack those who "know" the opposite. You will become a prole. Locked in an ant farm with Rose City and all the other servant combat drones working to maintain the idea of what they "know."



Make your choice, Step Back. The moment is here.

[lakers_forever]

This happens when children are indoctrinated. When you're told as a child that something is true, and that anyone that tells you otherwise is wrong, you don't really have a chance. That's why forcing religion on children is child abuse. Telling something what to think instead of how to think is sick.


Come one, Rose. What a straw man. I was raised religious and still am (i'm catholic) and no one ever forbid me of questioning anything. There lots of debates in my religion classes in my catholic school. And, please, there's no child abuse. Most of us were raised religious and we are just fine. We were not abused in anyway. I hate that sectarianism of some atheists. We should just get along and respect our worldviews. I understand the dislike for the fundamentalists that reject science and try to impose their worldview on all (even those who don't follow their religion), but a lot of religious people are not that at all.


I'm confident that yes life exists somewhere else in this universe. I would go as far to say I guarantee it. All the elements needed for life to exist are scattered throughout the universe. All our metals on this planet were created in our Sun. The gold and silver. The iron in our blood.

The universe is filled with stars like our sun and surrounded by planets. Statistically one of those planets had to have been formed in a similar manner at just the right distance. That would probably mean that as the planet cooled life formed in some body of water. First single celled organisms acted on by natural selection.

That's kind of odd. The same guy who rejects religion saying that. I mean I've heard atheists ridiculing faith and saying it is just "believing in something without any evidence". How can you be sure and, worse, guarantee that there is life outside our planet if we don't have any evidence for that? All we have are arguments and probabilites. And, BTW, that's fine.

My own opinion is that there probably is some primitive kind of life out there (of course I can't prove it, just a guess based on probablities) . But I don't think there is intelligent life. The thing is intelligent life is not some "goal" of evolution. Several unusal things had to happen, against all odds, since the beggining of earth, so that we could be here. I don't think that's likely. You should read about the rare earth hypotesis.

And even if the rare earth hypotesis is wrong. Where is the evidence of intelligent life? I mean. There can be billion of planets like earth. Odds would be that at least a few of them could develop civilizations with the tecnologoy to travel here or at least send some kind of message. That's where the fermi paradox enters. If it is so likely to be intelligent life, where's the evidence?

Cheers.

[Akrazotile]

I'm confident that yes life exists somewhere else in this universe. I would go as far to say I guarantee it. All the elements needed for life to exist are scattered throughout the universe. All our metals on this planet were created in our Sun. The gold and silver. The iron in our blood.

The universe is filled with stars like our sun and surrounded by planets. Statistically one of those planets had to have been formed in a similar manner at just the right distance. That would probably mean that as the planet cooled life formed in some body of water. First single celled organisms acted on by natural selection.


Holy crap, I only just noticed that part now. Not only is this guy completely self-unaware, but he is a downright academic ignoramus. Jezus. :facepalm

[step_back]

Ok. Your stated opinion, about to be registered on the record, is that it's "impossible" there's no other life in the universe. Rose City said he "guarantees" there's life somewhere else.

If you want to push your credibility over that cliff, I won't stop you. I just want to make sure you're certain. Rose City has always been a fool and a poser, so for him there's nothing to lose. He might as well just throw stupid shit out there. It's too late for him.

But you, Step Back... I am less familiar with you. I want you to understand the company you're about to join by affirming your silly supposition. You are unaware of what a massive leap you are taking by assigning your infinitesimal scope of reality to far flung corners of the universe that have never been observed nor understood. Some scientists took a few measurements and said "This shit is really big!" and you are jumping the gun with an eager proclamation that "Ohhhh shit, we all up in this bitch wit dat science n shit, life be e'rrrrrwhere!" as if you even understand what life and reality are. You don't.


So I'm just telling you. Drink from the goblet of hubris if you wish. But just realize, it is filled with a nectar that will satiate you and stunt your growth. You will be a chubby kid with fudgesicle on his face who must endlessly defend what he "knows" and attack those who "know" the opposite. You will become a prole. Locked in an ant farm with Rose City and all the other servant combat drones working to maintain the idea of what they "know."



Make your choice, Step Back. The moment is here.

:facepalm

Yeah, that's not even what I said. Also what does Rose City's opinion have to do with mine? We're not debating each other.

And what can you possibly teach me or anyone else for that matter about life? If you have the audacity to claim I know nothing about it then you must have a profound understanding of what it means. This is your platform Star Face start preaching.

[Akrazotile]

:facepalm

Yeah, that's not even what I said. Also what does Rose City's opinion have to do with mine? We're not debating each other.

And what can you possibly teach me or anyone else for that matter about life? If you have the audacity to claim I know nothing about it then you must have a profound understanding of what it means. This is your platform Star Face start preaching.


You and Rose City are now inexorably linked at the mind, and at the pelvis. Siamese twins of abstract destitution, jointly pursuing Billy Corgan's long elusive Siamese Dream. You will eat together. Bathe together. Belch, and blow the digestive gas into each others faces for all eternity. You will play in the sand with shovels and pales together at the beach, outfitted in a custom one-piece with two neckholes. Though you have two heads, you have but one mind at all times. You are bound to this man and he is bound to you. You will play joyless games of patty-cake while daydreaming about the sweet release of suicide. When you eat a hot pepper, he will cry and sneeze. When he eats a hot pepper, you will cry and sneeze. Your minds are an eternal repetition of the beginning sequence in Pink Floyd's video for "Money." Life no longer has meaning... but was there ever a time that it did? You can't remember. Rose City is listening in on your telephone conversations, but he can't help it. His head is next to yours. Why don't you ever call him by his real name?? His name is your name, too. Billie Jean is your lover. This much we can be certain of.

Hello, friend. I'm Jim Nantz.

[step_back]

You and Rose City are now inexorably linked at the mind, and at the pelvis. Siamese twins of abstract destitution, jointly pursuing Billy Corgan's long elusive Siamese Dream. You will eat together. Bathe together. Belch, and blow the digestive gas into each others faces for all eternity. You will play in the sand with shovels and pales together at the beach, outfitted in a custom one-piece with two neckholes. Though you have two heads, you have but one mind at all times. You are bound to this man and he is bound to you. You will play joyless games of patty-cake while daydreaming about the sweet release of suicide. When you eat a hot pepper, he will cry and sneeze. When he eats a hot pepper, you will cry and sneeze. Your minds are an eternal repetition of the beginning sequence in Pink Floyd's video for "Money." Life no longer has meaning... but was there ever a time that it did? You can't remember. Rose City is listening in on your telephone conversations, but he can't help it. His head is next to yours. Why don't you ever call him by his real name?? His name is your name, too. Billie Jean is your lover. This much we can be certain of.

Hello, friend. I'm Jim Nantz.

Predictable and lame:sleeping

You can try to squirm your way out of it all you want but I'll give you another shot though because I believe in second chances. What can you teach me or anyone else about life that we don't know?

P.S I know this is futile, but it's funny to watch you continue to dig yourself a hole.

[Akrazotile]

Predictable and lame:sleeping

You can try to squirm your way out of it all you want but I'll give you another shot though because I believe in second chances. What can you teach me or anyone else about life that we don't know?

P.S I know this is futile, but it's funny to watch you continue to dig yourself a hole.



http://i.minus.com/ixbw5UOj74pZa.gif




Just because I toy with you before addressing you, does not mean I am evading.



The answer to your question is there is nothing I can teach you. I can just give you information for you to compute on your own. Just like Steven Hawkins can. Just like your computer does not put images into your head, it just displays crystalized pixels of light. Your mind is what conceptualizes them. Stephan Hawkins can offer to you his best mathematical approximation of how big the universe is. He can't tell you if there is life over there. If you are looking to him for that answer, you are asking the wrong question. That is not the information he is providing you.

Others don't teach us. They just transfer information to us, the accuracy of which varies. We teach ourselves, based on those transmissions. But what we teach ourselves is hardly fact. For even the slightest bit of newly acquired information can alter what we already believed to be fact. Nobody has all the information in the universe. So how can you presume to know a fact? It's logically incomplete. FACT.

Even principles we are 99.9999% certain of, such as "OP's a ******", can not be validated without the composite confirmation of all bits of universal knowledge. If there is even just one missing bit, we do not know that that's not the bit that changes the puzzle.

You have not acquired as much information as I have about the measurements of atoms and the possibilities of reality. If you had, you'd be confused, as I am. Only in light does the ambiguous concept of "direction" take shape. When it is dark, everything looks the same.

[step_back]

So now you can't actually teach me anything. :rolleyes:

If you claim to know more about me, then the least you can do is have proof rather than just your word. Otherwise don't make an outrageous claim. It sounds like all you have to base this on is The Universe Box set which features a particular scientist you like. Neil Tyson. This is me speculating however, you might have actually studied at University however I find that doubtful. Also the link below adds some evidence to what I just said.

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=327878

All you've posted about me is pure speculation. This is because you consistently dig yourself a hole and resort to belligerence as a tactic for debating. It gets you no where and continually makes you look stupid. Not that you should care because honestly you shouldn't. Just worth a thought that's all.:cheers:

[Akrazotile]

So now you can't actually teach me anything. :rolleyes:

If you claim to know more about me, then the least you can do is have proof rather than just your word. Otherwise don't make an outrageous claim. It sounds like all you have to base this on is The Universe Box set which features a particular scientist you like. Neil Tyson. This is me speculating however, you might have actually studied at University however I find that doubtful. Also the link below adds some evidence to what I just said.

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=327878

All you've posted about me is pure speculation. This is because you consistently dig yourself a hole and resort to belligerence as a tactic for debating. It gets you no where and continually makes you look stupid. Not that you should care because honestly you shouldn't. Just worth a thought that's all.:cheers:


:biggums:



This made



http://www.theawl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/literally-headlines-e1343916120474.jpg


no sense whatsoever.

[Dresta]

Come one, Rose. What a straw man. I was raised religious and still am (i'm catholic) and no one ever forbid me of questioning anything. There lots of debates in my religion classes in my catholic school. And, please, there's no child abuse. Most of us were raised religious and we are just fine. We were not abused in anyway. I hate that sectarianism of some atheists. We should just get along and respect our worldviews. I understand the dislike for the fundamentalists that reject science and try to impose their worldview on all (even those who don't follow their religion), but a lot of religious people are not that at all.

And even if the rare earth hypotesis is wrong. Where is the evidence of intelligent life? I mean. There can be billion of planets like earth. Odds would be that at least a few of them could develop civilizations with the tecnologoy to travel here or at least send some kind of message. That's where the fermi paradox enters. If it is so likely to be intelligent life, where's the evidence?

Cheers.Teaching a child religious principles may not in itself be a form of child abuse, but forcing a child to conform to such principles, and doing so with the threat of eternal damnation if they do not follow the rule book is certainly a form of emotional abuse. And this is something religious people have been doing for centuries (and which many continue to do). It is the same as if i demanded my child do what i say with the threat of beating him within an inch of his life if he does not follow my instructions and constantly illustrating the plethora of torments lying in wait for him if he dares to contravene my law. It is also emotional abuse to teach children to feel guilt and shame over what are natural human impulses (usually sexual).

As for your final paragraph: odds are there wouldn't be any evidence even if there was intelligent life elsewhere due to the vast distances involved. Even if a species 10x more intelligent than humans existed somewhere, the likelihood is that they would be millions of light years away, which is a distance that even such increased intelligence couldn't possibly overcome.

[chosen_one6]

Teaching a child religious principles may not in itself be a form of child abuse, but forcing a child to conform to such principles, and doing so with the threat of eternal damnation if they do not follow the rule book is certainly a form of emotional abuse. And this is something religious people have been doing for centuries (and which many continue to do). It is the same as if i demanded my child do what i say with the threat of beating him within an inch of his life if he does not follow my instructions and constantly illustrating the plethora of torments lying in wait for him if he dares to contravene my law. It is also emotional abuse to teach children to feel guilt and shame over what are natural human impulses (usually sexual).

As for your final paragraph: odds are there wouldn't be any evidence even if there was intelligent life elsewhere due to the vast distances involved. Even if a species 10x more intelligent than humans existed somewhere, the likelihood is that they would be millions of light years away, which is a distance that even such increased intelligence couldn't possibly overcome.

Well said :applause:

[MavsSuperFan]

The secular crowd tends to support the "its so big, there has to be!" argument.

Then they deride creationists who believe earth/life is too intricate to have happened by chance. And usually in an arrogant manner, like "omgz ever heard of science, redneck? hahahah"


The "its so big, it has to!" So-called 'theory' has the same amount of empirical validity and logical reasonin as creationism.

Just remember that, you silly lil hypocrites.

The problem with your analogy is many parts of creationism and the bible are already provably false.

[Draz]

We haven't even researched what 90% or more of our own waters.

[DukeDelonte13]

Teaching a child religious principles may not in itself be a form of child abuse, but forcing a child to conform to such principles, and doing so with the threat of eternal damnation if they do not follow the rule book is certainly a form of emotional abuse. And this is something religious people have been doing for centuries (and which many continue to do). It is the same as if i demanded my child do what i say with the threat of beating him within an inch of his life if he does not follow my instructions and constantly illustrating the plethora of torments lying in wait for him if he dares to contravene my law. It is also emotional abuse to teach children to feel guilt and shame over what are natural human impulses (usually sexual).

As for your final paragraph: odds are there wouldn't be any evidence even if there was intelligent life elsewhere due to the vast distances involved. Even if a species 10x more intelligent than humans existed somewhere, the likelihood is that they would be millions of light years away, which is a distance that even such increased intelligence couldn't possibly overcome.




get over yourself dude. Equating raising a kid with religion in his/her life is not child abuse. It's what the individual parents make of it. Your gimmick sucks and you just sound stupid.

[lakers_forever]

Teaching a child religious principles may not in itself be a form of child abuse, but forcing a child to conform to such principles, and doing so with the threat of eternal damnation if they do not follow the rule book is certainly a form of emotional abuse. And this is something religious people have been doing for centuries (and which many continue to do). It is the same as if i demanded my child do what i say with the threat of beating him within an inch of his life if he does not follow my instructions and constantly illustrating the plethora of torments lying in wait for him if he dares to contravene my law. It is also emotional abuse to teach children to feel guilt and shame over what are natural human impulses (usually sexual).

I see, Dresta. Thanks for the reply. But I think that's more of a critique of religious fundamentalism. I certanly was never taught that non christians or those who don't literally follow the Bible are going to suffer eternal damnation.

If we make those kind of assumptions. One can argue that it may cause great harm for a child to be taught by their parents that their grandpa is now nothing but worm food and that he just does not exist anymore and no one will ever see him again or even "feel his presence". Wouldn't that be an abuse as well? Is that a straw man version of the story? I admit it is. But so is your view of how a child is raised to be religious... You can have religious stupid parents, just as you can have stupid atheist parents. No Child abuse just by being raised religious at all...





As for your final paragraph: odds are there wouldn't be any evidence even if there was intelligent life elsewhere due to the vast distances involved. Even if a species 10x more intelligent than humans existed somewhere, the likelihood is that they would be millions of light years away, which is a distance that even such increased intelligence couldn't possibly overcome.

The likehood? How do you measure that? How can you tell if a different kind of tecnology could not exist to allow moving such vast distances? Maybe one civilization out of billions could develop that. In the end, I think you will agree that we can't know for sure...

[lakers_forever]

The problem with your analogy is many parts of creationism and the bible are already provably false.

But it still has a point when talking about religion. The same people who reject faith (because it is just believing without evidence) still claim to be sure that there's alien life...

Same with muLtiverse in my opinion. How the hell could you even prove that other universes exist? It's a non scientific claim. And some atheists, who claim to reject faith, still believe in multiverse without any evidence? A kind of hypocrisy there IMHO.

Like the great physicist Paul Davies says:

"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."

[Dresta]

I see, Dresta. Thanks for the reply. But I think that's more of a critique of religious fundamentalism. I certanly was never taught that non christians or those who don't literally follow the Bible are going to suffer eternal damnation.

If we make those kind of assumptions. One can argue that it may cause great harm for a child to be taught by their parents that their grandpa is now nothing but worm food and that he just does not exist anymore and no one will ever see him again or even "feel his presence". Wouldn't that be an abuse as well? Is that a straw man version of the story? I admit it is. But so is your view of how a child is raised to be religious... You can have religious stupid parents, just as you can have stupid atheist parents. No Child abuse just by being raised religious at all...

The likehood? How do you measure that? How can you tell if a different kind of tecnology could not exist to allow moving such vast distances? Maybe one civilization out of billions could develop that. In the end, I think you will agree that we can't know for sure...
You weren't, but many people are, and it was standard practice for centuries. Look, i don't have a problem with people teaching religious principles to their kids, provided they don't force their acceptance through coercion, physical or psychological. I lived with a guy at uni who said if his kids weren't muslim he'd disown them - holding something like that over your kids is a form of psychological abuse, as is telling them they better believe lest they burn in hell. You can have bad religious parents and bad irreligious parents, i agree, but that has nothing to do with what i said.

I do agree we can't know for sure, but i also think the chances of a species from another planet (if they did exist) finding our spec of rock in a vast universe is pretty infinitesimal.


get over yourself dude. Equating raising a kid with religion in his/her life is not child abuse. It's what the individual parents make of it. Your gimmick sucks and you just sound stupid.
Learn to read dipshit.

I said it does not necessarily equate to child abuse, but telling a child they are going to burn in hell if they *********e or have sex or think unclean thoughts is child abuse. So of course it is dependant on the individual parents, i never said otherwise.

I don't have a 'gimmick' but what's yours? Being an illiterate retard?

[lakers_forever]

Look, i don't have a problem with people teaching religious principles to their kids, provided they don't force their acceptance through coercion, physical or psychological. I lived with a guy at uni who said if his kids weren't muslim he'd disown them - holding something like that over your kids is a form of psychological abuse, as is telling them they better believe lest they burn in hell. You can have bad religious parents and bad irreligious parents, i agree, but that has nothing to do with what i said.



I agree with you on that one. I certainly reject all that as well.

[Josh]

You have watched a documentary or two on the size of space and digested it as gospel.

:oldlol:

But no, "I guarantee we are not alone!"





:roll: This foolish, try-hard intellectual dweeb. Keep polishing up your "Thats racist!" political talking points and your "I know teh science, man!" intellectual affirmation crutch. You are literally the perfect liberal. You think you know everything, while somewhere (perhaps) Socrates is laughing at your stupid ass.


Socrates and Sir Isaac Newton. Maybe even Einstein too since he was passionately open to the possibility of there being a Creator behind the universe's design. He referenced God, Creator, etc hundreds if not thousands of times in his work.

Einstein has a birthday coming up too - March 14th!

[Josh]

We still can't say for sure there's any intelligent life in this universe, including us. Below is concrete scientific proof.

:lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG3kKMiG78Y

This is the future. At some point or another there'll be zero intelligent life on this planet, much less there "maybe" being other so-called intelligent life out there on some distant planet we don't even know for sure life exists on or not.

[Akrazotile]

All our metals on this planet were created in our Sun. The gold and silver. The iron in our blood.
.



All your metals are belong to us!



:lol :lol :lol :lol :facepalm

[JohnFreeman]

It's more possible there is more life in the galaxy then not.

[Akrazotile]

It's more possible there is more life in the galaxy then not.


That's fine if you believe that and choose to speculate on the implications of probability. Just don't throw out ridiculous and supercilious "guarantees" about a topic that humans still have an extremely primitive collective understanding of, i.e. the genesis of life and the methods of the universe. Otherwise you'll sound like Rose City claiming our sun has produced gold and silver and the iron in our blood.

[JohnFreeman]

I guarantee there is life on another planet. Don't give me any God bullshit either

[Akrazotile]

I guarantee there is life on another planet. Don't give me any God bullshit either


I WANT YOU OFF tHE ****ING THREAD YOU PRICK

[JohnFreeman]

People still believe in God and religion..lol. Religion was created purely for money and to scare people.

[Akrazotile]

Boy. You try and do a Christian Bale bit with a guy. But you can't get no reciprocity.

Shame.

[TylerOO]

what happened to Scholar?

[Akrazotile]

what happened to Scholar?


Died of auto erotic asphyxiation like the guy from INXS.

[ace23]

what happened to Scholar?
He made a thread announcing that he was leaving a few months ago.

[Dresta]

[SIZE="5"]

Socrates and Sir Isaac Newton. Maybe even Einstein too since he was passionately open to the possibility of there being a Creator behind the universe's design. He referenced God, Creator, etc hundreds if not thousands of times in his work.

Einstein has a birthday coming up too - March 14th!

Einstein rejected the idea of a personal God as 'child-like' and felt closer to being a Spinozean Pantheist than anything else.

The other two are also bad examples because, Socrates (at least the one you are referring to) = largely a creation of the hopelessly idealistic Plato, and Newton = plagiarising wannabe alchemist.

[Akrazotile]

Einstein rejected the idea of a personal God as 'child-like' and felt closer to being a Spinozean Pantheist than anything else.

The other two are also bad examples because, Socrates (at least the one you are referring to) = largely a creation of the hopelessly idealistic Plato, and Newton = plagiarising wannabe alchemist.


Socrates may well have been a construct in terms of his historical legend. Still had some gems tho. Whether they were really 'his' or Play-dough's, and I agree Play-dough had some philosophical clunkers, but his Socrates stuff was pretty good IMO. The Apology of Socrates is a great read/listen.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Of course. I don't think it exists in this solar system or that Aliens have ever visited us but definitely somewhere in the universe there is life.

[Akrazotile]

Of course. I don't think it exists in this solar system or that Aliens have ever visited us but definitely somewhere in the universe there is life.


Wow, ISH has a lot more members of the JV Science team than I realized.


Freshmen :oldlol:

[Akrazotile]

give dis thread a BUMP :banana:

[RoseCity07]

I love how when someone tells me they are religious they think it gives them more credibility. I'm likely to stop reading what you wrote if you write something like, "I'm religious but...":oldlol:

It's like saying, "I'm not that much of a thinker, but you should listen to me".

[Akrazotile]

I love how when someone tells me they are religious they think it gives them more credibility. I'm likely to stop reading what you wrote if you write something like, "I'm religious but...":oldlol:

It's like saying, "I'm not that much of a thinker, but you should listen to me".


You had by far the most ignorant, naive, and flat out embarrassing contributions in this thread. Every time you make another post it gets worse.

It's always very easy to tell who actually thinks about what they've learned, and who just goes around repeating it to show off. Usually those are the people who are so dumb they can't even actually repeat it correctly.

You are one of those people.

[RoseCity07]

You had by far the most ignorant, naive, and flat out embarrassing contributions in this thread. Every time you make another post it gets worse.

It's always very easy to tell who actually thinks about what they've learned, and who just goes around repeating it to show off. Usually those are the people who are so dumb they can't even actually repeat it correctly.

You are one of those people.

You seriously questioned nucleosynthesis. Your argument was that I learned about it from watching a movie about it.:oldlol: How desperate are you for people to take you seriously? Your parents must have ignored you as a child.

Let me explain it to you. The number protons in the nucleus of an atom determine the identity of the element. If you could fuse together 79 hydrogen atoms (1 proton each) you would have gold. This happens in stars. The sun is a star.

[Patrick Chewing]

what if theres another insidehoops out there? :eek:


With the ability to post Youtube videos?? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Akrazotile]

You seriously questioned nucleosynthesis. Your argument was that I learned about it from watching a movie about it.:oldlol: How desperate are you for people to take you seriously? Your parents must have ignored you as a child.

Let me explain it to you. The number protons in the nucleus of an atom determine the identity of the element. If you could fuse together 79 hydrogen atoms (1 proton each) you would have gold. This happens in stars. The sun is a star.


Our sun will never produce anything as heavy as gold and silver you fakkit, and even IF it could it wouldn't happen until very late in its lifetime. Thus, none of the "gold and silver and iron in our blood" was produced by our sun you ****ing rube, our sun right now "produces" nothing but helium and perhaps insignificant traces of light elements that do not coalesce into planets :facepalm You were basically wrong two times in one sentence.

You tried to drop scientific knowledge and managed to screw up a simple concept in practically half a dozen ways within one sentence. And then proceeded to pretend you had somehow TKO'd religion by absolutely butchering a simply theory of cosmology you heard and tried to repeat.

Moreover your simplistic and cringe-worthy guarantee of extra terrestrial life in the universe solidified you as a certified FOLLOWER of those who preach concepts to you which you take for granted without analyzing or critiquing. You are exactly what you claim to 'hate' and you are a completely AVERAGE human who rationalizes himself while condemning others of the same casting because you utterly lack self awareness. You and fundamentalists are simply m&m's of different colors. Frivolous exterior distinction, exactly the same inside. You are not an intellectual leader, but a PURE BRED FOLLOWER.

Your lack of self awareness is truly a thing to behold. The smugness with which you bleet your uncritiqued dogma juxtaposed against what an actual jackass you sound like to everyone but yourself makes me want to stand up and :applause: like that .gif of the Rock and then take a baseball bat and do this :hammerhead: to you immediately afterward.

You are an imposter of the highest order.

[RoseCity07]

Our sun will never produce anything as heavy as gold and silver you fakkit, and even IF it could it wouldn't happen until very late in its lifetime. Thus, none of the "gold and silver and iron in our blood" was produced by our sun you ****ing rube, our sun right now "produces" nothing but helium and perhaps insignificant traces of light elements that do not coalesce into planets :facepalm You were basically wrong two times in one sentence.

You tried to drop scientific knowledge and managed to screw up a simple concept in practically half a dozen ways within one sentence. And then proceeded to pretend you had somehow TKO'd religion by absolutely butchering a simply theory of cosmology you heard and tried to repeat.

Moreover your simplistic and cringe-worthy guarantee of extra terrestrial life in the universe solidified you as a certified FOLLOWER of those who preach concepts to you which you take for granted without analyzing or critiquing. You are exactly what you claim to 'hate' and you are a completely AVERAGE human who rationalizes himself while condemning others of the same casting because you utterly lack self awareness. You and fundamentalists are simply m&m's of different colors. Frivolous exterior distinction, exactly the same inside. You are not an intellectual leader, but a PURE BRED FOLLOWER.

Your lack of self awareness is truly a thing to behold. The smugness with which you bleet your uncritiqued dogma juxtaposed against what an actual jackass you sound like to everyone but yourself makes me want to stand up and :applause: like that .gif of the Rock and then take a baseball bat and do this :hammerhead: to you immediately afterward.

You are an imposter of the highest order.

You are without a doubt the biggest try hard wannabe intellectual I've ever seen on this bored. I doubt you've even taken a high school chemistry course. I don't care to read what you read in your young earth creationists pamphlet.

You creationists are hilarious. You think because you read a Yahoo Answers post you're some f*cking scholar now?:oldlol: You tried to pull out a quote from Socrates like we're going to think you're some Harvard professor now.:oldlol:

Do you even know how to read you f*cking you troll? I said there is almost certainly life in the universe. Even if there is a single celled organism living in your mom's v*gina it is a form of life. After all, you're here aren't you? Whether that life evolves to the level that humans have I don't know.

Religion is the most nonsensical load of bullshit humanity has ever created. It's the shame of humanity. There has never been any evidence that the universe or the earth was created by a god. Believing in what you hope is true does not make it true. What matters is evidence. If you're going to come up with an explanation for how the universe was created you better come up with more than "god must have done it". I've really wasted too much time writing to a sh*t stain like you.

[Akrazotile]

You are without a doubt the biggest try hard wannabe intellectual I've ever seen on this bored. I doubt you even taken a high school chemistry course. I don't care to read what you read in your young earth creationists pamphlet.

You creationists are hilarious. You think because you read a Yahoo Answers post you're some f*cking scholar now?:oldlol: You tried to pull out a quote from Socrates like we're going to think you're some Harvard professor now.:oldlol:

Do you even know how to read you f*cking you troll? I said there is almost certainly life in the universe. Even if there is a single celled organism living in your mom's v*gina it is a form of life. After all, you're here aren't you? Whether that life evolves to the level that humans have I don't know.

Religion is the most nonsensical load of bullshit humanity has ever created. It's the shame of humanity. There has never been any evidence that the universe or the earth was created by a god. Believing in what you hope is true does not make it true. What matters is evidence. If you're going to come up with an explanation for how the universe was created you better come up with more than "god must have done it". I've really wasted to much time writing to a sh*t stain like you.


:roll:


Fakkit got EXPOSED and started to cry.

He even applied his go-to political strawman when he's made a fool of himself and has no logic to stand on ("yerrrr racissttttt!!!!") and used it in a scientific argument (yerrr creationsstttt!!!!") :oldlol:


Fortunately, that proved my point. You naturally assume that because I'm not on YOUR side of ignorance, that I'm on the opposite side. Your brain is too diminutive to realize there's more than just two choices. This is why you're a hardcore Democrat. You picked a little ant colony and you assume anyone who isn't a Democrat, must be a Republican. You are a sheep and a follower. You're not intelligent. You're mindless. You're posing and trying to flaunt your team colors of tolerance and science, but not because they are a means for you to learn and discover, but because they are an end for you to feel superior and validated. You do not have the tiniest understanding of them. You're simply a bandwagoner, who thinks he knows but clearly doesn't have a clue. You literally could not even repeat a high school level astronomy fact correctly. :facepalm

[RoseCity07]

:roll:


Fakkit got EXPOSED and started to cry.

He even applied his go-to political strawman when he's made a fool of himself and has no logic to stand on ("yerrrr racissttttt!!!!") and used it in a scientific argument (yerrr creationsstttt!!!!") :oldlol:


Fortunately, that proved my point. You naturally assume that because I'm not on YOUR side of ignorance, that I'm on the opposite side. Your brain is too diminutive to realize there's more than just two choices. This is why you're a hardcore Democrat. You picked a little ant colony and you assume anyone who isn't a Democrat, must be a Republican. You are a sheep and a follower. You're not intelligent. You're mindless. You're posing and trying to flaunt your team colors of tolerance and science, but not because they are a means for you to learn and discover, but because they are an end for you to feel superior and validated. You do not have the tiniest understanding of them. You're simply a bandwagoner, who thinks he knows but clearly doesn't have a clue. You literally could not even repeat a high school level astronomy fact correctly. :facepalm

How many episodes of House have you watched this week?:roll: Seriously? Now you're trying to play the Hugh Laurie role of breaking me down with some psuedo-psychology. :oldlol: Is that what you do? You go onto message boards and accuse people of being everything you hate about yourself?

You aren't even good at it kid. I know your game and it's so tired. Putting other people down doesn't make people respect you. I doubt you've ever voiced your opinions in a college class room. You wouldn't dare be this arrogant in front of a professor. I'm glad you're getting it all out right here. I probably saved a small animal from being tortured to death. Come on, get it all out. I don't want someones dog to suffer because of you.

[Akrazotile]

How many episodes of House have you watched this week?:roll: Seriously? Now you're trying to play the Hugh Laurie role of breaking me down with some psuedo-psychology. :oldlol: Is that what you do? You go onto message boards and accuse people of being everything you hate about yourself?

You aren't even good at it kid. I know your game and it's so tired. Putting other people down doesn't make people respect you. I doubt you've ever voiced your opinions in a college class room. You wouldn't dare be this arrogant in front of a professor. I'm glad you're getting it all out right here. I probably saved a small animal from being tortured to death. Come on, get it all out. I don't want someones dog to suffer because of you.


Hey man. YOU'RE the one who guaranteed there was extra terrestrial life somewhere in a universe you don't even remotely understand, then called all creationists dumb WHILE pronouncing that our sun produced all the gold and silver on Earth. :oldlol: :oldlol:

I mean... I just laughed and pointed out how stupid you are.

If you're looking for someone to blame here... I think you're gonna need to consult the man in the mirror on this one.


And I've never watched an episode of "House" in my life. I spend that kind of time actually considering these subjects in depth, while you simply obtain a superficial "understanding" (which you can't even manage) so that you can show off to everyone how much smarter u are than teh religulous peeple. Apparently the rest of the time you spend watching network dramas. Hey, it just is what it is. You're a fugazi, and I'm just callin it like it is. It's alright bro. Jesus will forgive you. It's even in the beatitudes, "Blessed are the fake intellectual retards, for they will inherit all the gold and silver produced in the sun."


I'm goin to bed, Akrazotile out!

[RoseCity07]

Hey man. YOU'RE the one who guaranteed there was extra terrestrial life somewhere in a universe you don't even remotely understand, then called all creationists dumb WHILE pronouncing that our sun produced all the gold and silver on Earth. :oldlol: :oldlol:

I mean... I just laughed and pointed out how stupid you are.

If you're looking for someone to blame here... I think you're gonna need to consult the man in the mirror on this one.


And I've never watched an episode of "House" in my life. I spend that kind of time actually considering these subjects in depth, while you simply obtain a superficial "understanding" (which you can't even manage) so that you can show off to everyone how much smarter u are than teh religulous peeple. Apparently the rest of the time you spend watching network dramas. Hey, it just is what it is. You're a fugazi, and I'm just callin it like it is. It's alright bro. Jesus will forgive you. It's even in the beatitudes, "Blessed are the fake intellectual retards, for they will inherit the gold and silver produced in the sun."


I'm goin to bed, Akrazotile out!

So because I read that elements such as gold and silver form in stars, and I assumed that must mean our sun, that makes me stupid? You can't even make a simple correction? To you, the person made the biggest mistake:oldlol:

What is your deal with telling people that they are just repeating what they read? Are you f*cking retarded or something. That is how most people learn. Repeating what you read is not something to put down.

I guess my calc ii professor is going to write on my final, "answers are right but just repeating Taylor Polynomial def and Simpson's def. That problem, you learned that trig substitution from reading. Using integration by parts, not okay, you learned that from reading...all half credit sorry LOL"

I love satire. I'm a bit of a contrarian myself. You creationists really do believe the goofy shit you write. I don't think I'll ever understand people like you or how your brain works.

[dannywpt]

I believe we can't comprehend how huge the universe is, both in terms of size and time. If there is life out there both of those factors will stop us from ever crossing paths with other life.

First of all, one would probably have to travel for hundreds of years at the speed of light. Secondly, life on earth will only last for a small blink. There could already have been life searching for us or life that will search for us in the future, but they could miss us by millions of years in the short timespan man walks the earth.

[Meticode]

I think the universe is one of those things that we think we know what the hell we're talking about with the evidence we have, but in the broad reality of things it's no where near close to what we think we know. Just like apparently in the billions the of years the earth has seemingly been around, humans have lived on it only a fraction of a fraction of time. We thought everything revolved around the Earth, and we thought the earth was flat. In the end I think it's just one of those things where seemingly the more answers we get, we get twice as many questions.

Personally, I like to think and understand what we know is a very, very small part of the picture. Maybe when we look up at the sky and we feel so small because everything is so big is because it is that way.

Maybe the atoms of my body are small universes and the actual understanding of them are bigger than I know.

All I know for sure is I'm thankful that I get to experience what we call life. I love the challenge of life, the hardship, the joy of having a daughter, the experience of love and hate. It's all a delicate balance we try to do every day we wake up as the star dust that goes throughtout my body gets older and older until the day I'm not here anymore.

In the end when I'm on my deathbed I will worry less about if there is life somewhere else in some other part of our universe or some part of a multi-verse, and more so about what I experienced in my short gift of life.

[lakers_forever]

I love how when someone tells me they are religious they think it gives them more credibility. I'm likely to stop reading what you wrote if you write something like, "I'm religious but...":oldlol:

It's like saying, "I'm not that much of a thinker, but you should listen to me".

Being religious or not has nothing to do if someone's arguments are good or not. You sound just like any other bigot.

I guess guys like Charles Taylor, Freeman Dyson, Alvin Plantinga, John Polkinghorne, Rodney Stark, Christian Smith, John Lennox, Francis Collins (and many others) are not "that much of thinkers".

I don't know that Akrazotile guy, but he is right in a lot of things. The easiest way to pretend to be smart is to say you are an atheist and mock religion all the time. Since you don't seem too have much knowledge of science, philosophy and so on, you use the atheist anti religion persona to create a false image of an intelectual.

I'm not sure there are lot smart atheists and anti theists guys. But just being one does not make one smart. You are the living proof of that.

PS: Before anyone asks. No, I'm not saying religion is true because those guys are religious.

[Dresta]

Being religious or not has nothing to do if someone's arguments are good or not. You sound just like any other bigot.

I guess guys like Charles Taylor, Freeman Dyson, Alvin Plantinga, John Polkinghorne, Rodney Stark, Christian Smith, John Lennox, Francis Collins (and many others) are not "that much of thinkers".

I don't know that Akrazotile guy, but he is right in a lot of things. The easiest way to pretend to be smart is to say you are an atheist and mock religion all the time. Since you don't seem too have much knowledge of science, philosophy and so on, you use the atheist anti religion persona to create a false image of an intelectual.

I'm not sure there are lot smart atheists and anti theists guys. But just being one does not make one smart. You are the living proof of that.

PS: Before anyone asks. No, I'm not saying religion is true because those guys are religious.
See: Bill Maher.

Christopher Hitchens was a genius though.

[lakers_forever]

See: Bill Maher.

Christopher Hitchens was a genius though.

Bingo. Bill Maher is a perfect example. Mr anti-vaccines guy. I admit he is funny sometimes though.

Hitchens was a genius indeed. He was so good that I'm catholic and I loved his writing. He was my favourite among those famous "new atheists".

[Akrazotile]

I think the universe is one of those things that we think we know what the hell we're talking about with the evidence we have, but in the broad reality of things it's no where near close to what we think we know. Just like apparently in the billions the of years the earth has seemingly been around, humans have lived on it only a fraction of a fraction of time. We thought everything revolved around the Earth, and we thought the earth was flat. In the end I think it's just one of those things where seemingly the more answers we get, we get twice as many questions.

Personally, I like to think and understand what we know is a very, very small part of the picture. Maybe when we look up at the sky and we feel so small because everything is so big is because it is that way.

Maybe the atoms of my body are small universes and the actual understanding of them are bigger than I know.

All I know for sure is I'm thankful that I get to experience what we call life. I love the challenge of life, the hardship, the joy of having a daughter, the experience of love and hate. It's all a delicate balance we try to do every day we wake up as the star dust that goes throughtout my body gets older and older until the day I'm not here anymore.

In the end when I'm on my deathbed I will worry less about if there is life somewhere else in some other part of our universe or some part of a multi-verse, and more so about what I experienced in my short gift of life.


WTF you talking about, Rose City knows there's life in other parts of the Universe. Signed, sealed, delivered. He's liek teh expert on askronomy. He's guaranteed it and that's good enough for me bc the man's mind is worth its weight in gold produced by the sun.

[IamRAMBO24]

You are one dumb generic f*ck if you don't believe there are life on other planets.

Ofc, I'm one of the extreme ufologist around here: not only do I believe the universe is teaming with life, but I also believe aliens have visited this planet and there are life on Mars as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u-20g7Bwdw

[niko]

You are one dumb generic f*ck if you don't believe there are life on other planets.

Ofc, I'm one of the extreme ufologist around here: not only do I believe the universe is teaming with life, but I also believe aliens have visited this planet and there are life on Mars as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u-20g7Bwdw

Like single cell life? That would be one hell of coincidence if Mars had multii cellular life too.

[ace23]

People can't even agree on what life is. What do you mean by life?

[RoseCity07]

WTF you talking about, Rose City knows there's life in other parts of the Universe. Signed, sealed, delivered. He's liek teh expert on askronomy. He's guaranteed it and that's good enough for me bc the man's mind is worth its weight in gold produced by the sun.

Carl Sagan estimated 1 million civilizations in our galaxy alone. Yet I'm suppose to listen to a random scrub online. Now pull out your logical fallacies list and accuse me of appealing to authority.:oldlol: