Answer the questions based on your belief.
If you do believe life exists elsewhere:
Printable View
Answer the questions based on your belief.
If you do believe life exists elsewhere:
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.
[QUOTE]Do you think we've ever been visited by extraterrestrials?[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]Do you believe aliens crashed in Roswell, AZ?[/QUOTE]
No same reason.
[QUOTE]Do you think those life forms look the way Hollywood depicts them or do you anticipate they look more human?[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]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)[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]Do you think ETs will be benevolent or are you expecting a war of the worlds to occur should aliens ever come to earth?[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]And lastly, will ET existence change your perspective of religion?[/QUOTE]
I am an atheist so no.
There has to be imo, In general majority of humans are not very smart I'm sure there is far superior beings out there.
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:
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fmIw3SxrfeQ/TWYyycYkPJI/AAAAAAAAA2A/6D_mRyaKvYM/s400/mark-hunt.jpg[/img]
Sounds like a set of questions you get from a middle school student
[QUOTE=gigantes]what is your real question, scholar?
that you'll never be alone at any stage of existence or non-existence?
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.
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
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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...
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]
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.
.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]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.[/QUOTE]
There were many insects people have tried to exterminate because they were a nuisance. Perhaps they would want our resources and consider us insects.
[QUOTE=knickballer]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...[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]There were many insects people have tried to exterminate because they were a nuisance. Perhaps they would want our resources and consider us insects.[/QUOTE]
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!
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]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.
[B]Unless day be like flossin dem gold chain$ n get dat shit on discount here at da Earf yo[/B]![/QUOTE]
:wtf:
:lol looks interesting but I have no idea what you said.
[QUOTE=Scholar]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.[/QUOTE]
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
[QUOTE=Scholar]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?[/quote]
No.
[quote]• Do you think those life forms look the way Hollywood depicts them or do you anticipate they look more human?[/quote]
Extra-terrestrials in general? No clue what they would look like.
[quote]• 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)[/quote]
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.
[quote]• Do you think ETs will be benevolent or are you expecting a war of the worlds to occur should aliens ever come to earth?[/quote]
War, and we'd get destroyed.
[quote]• 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?[/quote]
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.
[quote]• And lastly, will ET existence change your perspective of religion?[/quote]
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.
[quote]If you don't believe extraterrestrials exist elsewhere in the universe:
• What makes you think it's improbable?[/quote]
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).
[quote]• If they do exist, how different will your viewpoint be on religion?[/quote]
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.
[quote]• 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?[/quote]
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.
If you do believe life exists elsewhere:
[b]
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=FiveRings]
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.[/QUOTE]
Yes I realize species evolved over many years. But we do not know the PRECISE conditions under which life [U]originally[/U] 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.
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]Yes I realize species evolved over many years. But we do not know the PRECISE conditions under which life [U]originally[/U] 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=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[/QUOTE]
I just hope we're not too advanced by the time the reapers awaken for the next round.
[QUOTE=FiveRings]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]Yes I realize species evolved over many years. But we do not know the PRECISE conditions under which life [U]originally[/U] 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=tpols]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.[/QUOTE]
You can take that a step further and say that life exists elsewhere [B]exactly[/B] like it is here. A perfect mirror image is possible given infinite probability.
[QUOTE=tpols]
So if there are others universes, and space is virtually infinite, [/quOTE]
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"
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]
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.[/QUOTE]
I haven't read the this thread yet, only this last post...but the thread title reads "do you [B]THINK[/B] life exists elsewhere..."
not "is there scientific proof that life exists elsewhere..."
Relax dude. It's all conjecture, but conjecture is often the starting point in scientific discovery.
[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]I haven't read the this thread yet, only this last post...but the thread title reads "do you [B]THINK[/B] life exists elsewhere..."
not "is there scientific proof that life exists elsewhere..."[/QUOTE]
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 [I]think[/I] 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.
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]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"[/QUOTE]
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?
Starface, the Law of Truly Large Numbers makes the fact that life exists elsewhere in the universe an very reasonable, educated, [U]statistical [/U]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.
[QUOTE=tpols]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.. [/QUOTE]
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.
[quote]
We can baely investigate a rock RIGHT next to our own for life. [/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Lebowsky]Of course it will not be an irrefutable truth until life is actually observed outside of Earth, but it is [B]logical and reasonable to assume[/B] life happens in other places.[/QUOTE]
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.
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
[QUOTE=TheMarkMadsen]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]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.[/QUOTE]
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:
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.