Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Do Aliens Exist?

284 replies to this topic

Poll: Does Alien Exist (349 member(s) have cast votes)

Does Alien Exist

  1. Yes (196 votes [61.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 61.64%

  2. No (33 votes [10.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.38%

  3. Maybe (89 votes [27.99%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.99%

Vote Guests cannot vote
stu
  • stu

    Ya filthy animal.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#121

Posted 03 July 2011 - 03:19 PM

Bacteria has been found in the harshest environments here on earth, from incredibly hot to incredibly cold, to acidic, to radioactive, to places of intense physical pressures. And not only living in those seemingly inhospitable environments, but thriving there. So if life can exist in such places here on earth, I see no reason why it's not possible on other earth like planets. In fact I personally believe life exists in our own solar system.

Enceladus which is a moon of Saturn has a surface thought to be made up of 99% water ice with a likely possibility of liquid water beneath. Large plumes of water vapour emanate from the surface, suggesting there is an active ocean. This ocean could circulate nutrients from the rocky molten core. If we find life in our solar system, or environments where life could be sustained, it would increase the case for life in the further universe. Enceladus is probably the best case, but there are many candidates in our solar system. It really fascinates me.



majorhawke
  • majorhawke

    The living-dead Kennedy's

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2010

#122

Posted 04 July 2011 - 11:49 AM

i really doubt it. Maybe in different galaxies.

Rafe
  • Rafe

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2002

#123

Posted 14 July 2011 - 12:50 AM

I hope not. If life exists in teh somewhere else in the universe then it's possible intelligent life exists somewhere else. If intelligent life exists somewhere else it is possible that it is more advanced then humans. If its is more advanced then human civilization and hostile then we may be destroyed.

I do, however, believe life exists somewhere else sad.gif

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#124

Posted 14 July 2011 - 07:22 AM

Well, here is the deal with that. Yes, there is a chance that somewhere out there there exists a civilization that is as advanced as ours. But they'd be way too far away to get here. But maybe they are more advanced? The probability of that is lower. So statistically, they'd be further away. So they'd need to be even more advanced to cross the distance (and less likely to find us). If level of intelligence does eventually catch up with the increasing distance of separation, there'd be so much else in that space for them to conquer that they'll probably never get to us.

In other words, I wouldn't really worry about hostile aliens invading Earth at the moment. Even if universe is absolutely swarming with life, the odds of that are still incredibly small.

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#125

Posted 14 July 2011 - 07:32 AM Edited by Miamivicecity, 14 July 2011 - 07:37 AM.

I've been whoring out a heap of documentaries over the last few weeks on space exploration and although I doubt there are "Aliens" in the form that Hollywood depicts I have no doubt life does exist out there even if it's a micro-scopic organism.

Who knows. Maybe there's an intelligent species that have known about us for millions of years and think we're the aliens. wow.gif

Actually there's a show on the History Channel (Over here at least) called "Ancient Aliens". It deals with ancient contact that stretches back 1000s of years ago. Really interesting if you're a history/science buff like me.

d0mm2k8
  • d0mm2k8

    ad infinitum

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2009

#126

Posted 14 July 2011 - 08:42 PM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, Jul 14 2011, 08:32)
and although I doubt there are "Aliens" in the form that Hollywood depicts

Hollywood depicts aliens that have similar features as humans and other animals on our planet. However, it is extremely unlikely that other life out there looks similar to life here since they've taken entirely different evolutionary paths from life on Earth, and maybe the only similarities will be the single celled organisms which will still have differences.

They've had different environmental factors that have pushed evolution in a different direction, which will then be pushed into entirely different directions due to the other species.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#127

Posted 15 July 2011 - 07:59 AM

We have a pretty diverse environment with a very diverse ecosystem. It'd be silly to expect all of the life out there to look like something here on Earth, but a fair share of it being at least similar is not really a stretch.

Killzone56k
  • Killzone56k

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2010

#128

Posted 18 July 2011 - 07:32 AM Edited by sivispacem, 18 July 2011 - 08:58 AM.

they mostly likely do exist, sure we'll never see 'em, let alone get sum actual proof in a few hundred years.

wut if our government is hiding sumthing due to mass hysteria?? the mostly likely are as well.

Hmmm.... there cud be sum type of life form in our solar system. think of the possibilities! they cud be bacteria, a solid thing, sea dwellers, air inhabitant's or even 4th dimensional beings..

Mod- Please don't double post

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#129

Posted 18 July 2011 - 08:59 AM

Do you genuinely believe that governments are hiding or harbouring the evidence of aliens? Statistically, the universe is so incredibly vast that, though it is very likely they do exist, they are unlikely to have come within several million light-years of earth since the dawn of human history.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#130

Posted 18 July 2011 - 02:30 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 18 2011, 04:59)
Statistically, the universe is so incredibly vast that, though it is very likely they do exist, they are unlikely to have come within several million light-years of earth since the dawn of human history.

First of all, statistics is kind of useless here. You can't build statistics on one data point. We know that universe is filled with habitable worlds, but we have absolutely zero data on what fraction of these is inhabited.

That said, I wouldn't bet on "million light years" either. Life on Mars (if there is any) could have easily gotten seeded from Earth, or vice versa. So even if they find anything there, unless it's drastically different from terrestrial life, it'd be kind of boring. Not enough to draw any kind of statistics about life in the rest of the universe.

But there could be completely alien life as close as Titan. There is evidence of a process on its surface consistent with metabolism. If we find life there, that would be big. Life forms capable of living on Titan would have to be completely different from anything on Earth and would almost have to evolve independently. Given that, it would force us to significantly expand what we understand to be habitable zone, and it would give us a basic estimate on odds of life evolving on habitable worlds. From that, we'd have to conclude that universe is absolutely swarming with life. If we find life on Titan, we can expect intelligent life within a few hundred light years. Perhaps, much closer.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#131

Posted 18 July 2011 - 03:10 PM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Monday, Jul 18 2011, 15:30)
That said, I wouldn't bet on "million light years" either. Life on Mars (if there is any) could have easily gotten seeded from Earth, or vice versa. So even if they find anything there, unless it's drastically different from terrestrial life, it'd be kind of boring. Not enough to draw any kind of statistics about life in the rest of the universe.

But there could be completely alien life as close as Titan. There is evidence of a process on its surface consistent with metabolism. If we find life there, that would be big. Life forms capable of living on Titan would have to be completely different from anything on Earth and would almost have to evolve independently. Given that, it would force us to significantly expand what we understand to be habitable zone, and it would give us a basic estimate on odds of life evolving on habitable worlds. From that, we'd have to conclude that universe is absolutely swarming with life. If we find life on Titan, we can expect intelligent life within a few hundred light years. Perhaps, much closer.

Admittedly, that wasn't the clearest estimate- it was more in relation to beings with the cognitive and technological ability to have reached earth, as that was what the post I was replying to was referencing. By "come within" I meant had the capacity to reach earth and therefore be discovered and hidden by the government.

Killzone56k
  • Killzone56k

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2010

#132

Posted 19 July 2011 - 05:50 AM

Another theory: Maybe mars, venus, saturn etc. are all already inhabited? We just can't come in contact with them. 4th dimensional beings???

It pisses me off when f*ckheads send signals to space in hopes off a return message. How??? they might not have any f*cking radios and whatnot.

Or when people think that ET's have the same requirements as us humans; water; oxygen; heat. f*ck that

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#133

Posted 19 July 2011 - 09:04 AM

QUOTE (Killzone56k @ Tuesday, Jul 19 2011, 06:50)
4th dimensional beings???

Isn't the "4th Dimension" spacetime, which is basically the three existing dimensional planes and time?

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#134

Posted 19 July 2011 - 01:22 PM

Best models we have rely on 4 dimensional space-time. (You can't really separate this into 3-space + time uniquely. It depends on coordinate system.) But it doesn't mean that's all there is. Or indeed, that even these 4 exist. Still, the "4th dimensional beings" are nothing but a result of someone watching too much sci-fi.

QUOTE
It pisses me off when f*ckheads send signals to space in hopes off a return message. How??? they might not have any f*cking radios and whatnot.

Or when people think that ET's have the same requirements as us humans; water; oxygen; heat. f*ck that

More ignorance is no substitution for some ignorance. First of all, any advanced civilization would be using radio telescopes. Why? Because everything of interest in universe emits EM radiation, and receiving and analyzing it is one of the simplest ways of studying the universe.

As far as assumptions on water, oxygen, heat, they have a good basis for it. Water is the simplest solvent you can make from abundant elements. Oxygen is the simplest oxidizer. Heat is required by anything living. That's an outcome of statistical mechanics and is a certainty. How much heat? That's a question. Can they do without oxidizer? Possibly. Could they use liquid methane for solvent? Assuming they can survive the cold, perhaps.

Granted, assuming that all life uses these things would be stupid. (Except heat, as mentioned). But it's the best guess we can formulate to let us look for something specific. Like I mentioned earlier, people are looking for life on Titan, and that isn't oxygen or water based life. But life on Titan, if exists, is primitive. Complex life requires higher energy flows, that means higher temperatures. So complex life can't live in methane environment. It almost certainly needs water. It also needs more complex fuel and oxidizers. Food will probably be carbon-based. That means oxidizer will be oxygen or sulfur. Oxygen can be atmospheric, which again, would be good for complex life. That narrows it down to very Earth-like environments.

Sure, we could be blind-sided by something advanced from completely different environment, but what do you propose looking for? Looking for oxygen-rich worlds with liquid water is a start. (Oxygen rich world by itself indicates life, and possibility of complex life.)

Killzone56k
  • Killzone56k

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2010

#135

Posted 19 July 2011 - 04:44 PM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Tuesday, Jul 19 2011, 13:22)
Best models we have rely on 4 dimensional space-time. (You can't really separate this into 3-space + time uniquely. It depends on coordinate system.) But it doesn't mean that's all there is. Or indeed, that even these 4 exist. Still, the "4th dimensional beings" are nothing but a result of someone watching too much sci-fi.

QUOTE
It pisses me off when f*ckheads send signals to space in hopes off a return message. How??? they might not have any f*cking radios and whatnot.

Or when people think that ET's have the same requirements as us humans; water; oxygen; heat. f*ck that

More ignorance is no substitution for some ignorance. First of all, any advanced civilization would be using radio telescopes. Why? Because everything of interest in universe emits EM radiation, and receiving and analyzing it is one of the simplest ways of studying the universe.

As far as assumptions on water, oxygen, heat, they have a good basis for it. Water is the simplest solvent you can make from abundant elements. Oxygen is the simplest oxidizer. Heat is required by anything living. That's an outcome of statistical mechanics and is a certainty. How much heat? That's a question. Can they do without oxidizer? Possibly. Could they use liquid methane for solvent? Assuming they can survive the cold, perhaps.

Granted, assuming that all life uses these things would be stupid. (Except heat, as mentioned). But it's the best guess we can formulate to let us look for something specific. Like I mentioned earlier, people are looking for life on Titan, and that isn't oxygen or water based life. But life on Titan, if exists, is primitive. Complex life requires higher energy flows, that means higher temperatures. So complex life can't live in methane environment. It almost certainly needs water. It also needs more complex fuel and oxidizers. Food will probably be carbon-based. That means oxidizer will be oxygen or sulfur. Oxygen can be atmospheric, which again, would be good for complex life. That narrows it down to very Earth-like environments.

Sure, we could be blind-sided by something advanced from completely different environment, but what do you propose looking for? Looking for oxygen-rich worlds with liquid water is a start. (Oxygen rich world by itself indicates life, and possibility of complex life.)

but then again we evolved on human ammenites. imagine if we we're breed underground, with no sun, no liquidated materials, no meat whatsoever. i highly doubt they wud need it, even by a strand.

Another theory: what if our government/world government (this an updated one from my before government theory) is keeping them hidden, wut if our government is in contact with them, like u sed k^2 they might be highly advanced and that we are mere cave men wen compared to them. they come here to import and export some materials etc.. lets say gold, maybe gold isn't really an earth-type object but an ET mineral. farmed here centuries ago in exchange for platinum, copper etc..

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#136

Posted 19 July 2011 - 05:21 PM

Any living entity needs an energy source. A sentient being needs a LOT of energy. The only sufficient and plentiful source is sunlight. So if we are looking for sentient life, we are almost guaranteed to find one on a planet covered with plants, or something analogous to plants. The said sentient life would either feed on these plants or on some other life forms that feed on plants.

With that in mind, there aren't a lot of options. Complex life must be built out of complex molecules. Your two options for backbone are carbon or silicon. Silicon doesn't naturally form anything that's easy to work with, so it's going to be carbon. If the higher creatures we are looking for feed off carbon-based life, they will have two options to derive energy from it. First, they can break it down to methane and hydrogen. Second, they can oxidize it. Later gives them a lot more energy per weight of food. So if oxidizer is available, they'll go with it. Options for oxidizer are oxygen or sulfur.

Lets analyze the environment. First, we are looking for a rocky world. A gas giant causes problems, because the "ocean" is so deep that very little light gets to it. We also need a solvent. Two options methane or water. Methane is bad, because on a rocky world it means low temperatures. So we are looking for a rocky water-world. This means that carbon dioxide is the dominant source of carbon for living things. That means the "plants" are going to be using solar energy to fix carbon from atmosphere and release oxygen.

Going back to our sentient being. It would be far more efficient if it uses oxidizer. Fortunately, it has to live on a world where carbon dioxide atmosphere has been converted into oxygen-rich atmosphere by local flora. So the creature is going to be feeding on carbon-based food and breath oxygen.


The thing about life in this universe is that while there are a lot of options for some form of life, there really aren't that many options for something complex and competitive. Yeah, sure, you can invent something completely different, but it won't be that efficient, so evolution will take care of it.


There is a slight caveat. So far, we've been talking about naturally evolved life. It needs certain conditions to arise on its own. But if we drop that constraint, we do see additional opportunities. I mentioned silicon. It's an excellent building material, but no life can evolve on it, because you need something very complex just to process it. Doesn't mean somebody can't create life based on silicon. Similarly the energy requirement. Solar energy is easy to use, but there are other forms of energy that life can't naturally reach. Universe is old enough for civilizations far more advanced than ours to have come and gone. They could have left behind technology that became a life form of its own. Organisms composed of other materials using who knows what for energy source.

Of course, if we run into a life form like that, we won't know what to expect, but their home world will still be in a habitable zone around a stable star, because whoever created these things would still follow the same rules as outlined earlier.


So in the end, we are still looking for a rocky world with plenty of liquid water and an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Because that's the world from which the kind of life we are interested in could have taken roots.



Finally, as far as advanced aliens go, there is nothing they could possibly want from us. A civilization that can travel between stars can synthesize anything they need from interstellar hydrogen. If aliens visit Earth, they'll either catalog us and move on, or exterminate us so that we don't get in the way.

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003

#137

Posted 21 July 2011 - 08:44 AM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Tuesday, Jul 19 2011, 10:21)
Any living entity needs an energy source. A sentient being needs a LOT of energy. The only sufficient and plentiful source is sunlight. So if we are looking for sentient life, we are almost guaranteed to find one on a planet covered with plants, or something analogous to plants. The said sentient life would either feed on these plants or on some other life forms that feed on plants.

With that in mind, there aren't a lot of options. Complex life must be built out of complex molecules. Your two options for backbone are carbon or silicon. Silicon doesn't naturally form anything that's easy to work with, so it's going to be carbon. If the higher creatures we are looking for feed off carbon-based life, they will have two options to derive energy from it. First, they can break it down to methane and hydrogen. Second, they can oxidize it. Later gives them a lot more energy per weight of food. So if oxidizer is available, they'll go with it. Options for oxidizer are oxygen or sulfur.

Lets analyze the environment. First, we are looking for a rocky world. A gas giant causes problems, because the "ocean" is so deep that very little light gets to it. We also need a solvent. Two options methane or water. Methane is bad, because on a rocky world it means low temperatures. So we are looking for a rocky water-world. This means that carbon dioxide is the dominant source of carbon for living things. That means the "plants" are going to be using solar energy to fix carbon from atmosphere and release oxygen.

Going back to our sentient being. It would be far more efficient if it uses oxidizer. Fortunately, it has to live on a world where carbon dioxide atmosphere has been converted into oxygen-rich atmosphere by local flora. So the creature is going to be feeding on carbon-based food and breath oxygen.


The thing about life in this universe is that while there are a lot of options for some form of life, there really aren't that many options for something complex and competitive. Yeah, sure, you can invent something completely different, but it won't be that efficient, so evolution will take care of it.


There is a slight caveat. So far, we've been talking about naturally evolved life. It needs certain conditions to arise on its own. But if we drop that constraint, we do see additional opportunities. I mentioned silicon. It's an excellent building material, but no life can evolve on it, because you need something very complex just to process it. Doesn't mean somebody can't create life based on silicon. Similarly the energy requirement. Solar energy is easy to use, but there are other forms of energy that life can't naturally reach. Universe is old enough for civilizations far more advanced than ours to have come and gone. They could have left behind technology that became a life form of its own. Organisms composed of other materials using who knows what for energy source.

Of course, if we run into a life form like that, we won't know what to expect, but their home world will still be in a habitable zone around a stable star, because whoever created these things would still follow the same rules as outlined earlier.


So in the end, we are still looking for a rocky world with plenty of liquid water and an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Because that's the world from which the kind of life we are interested in could have taken roots.



Finally, as far as advanced aliens go, there is nothing they could possibly want from us. A civilization that can travel between stars can synthesize anything they need from interstellar hydrogen. If aliens visit Earth, they'll either catalog us and move on, or exterminate us so that we don't get in the way.

Man, K^2, where did you get all this knowledge? I'm not exactly the most educated guy, but I'd like to think I'm far from an idiot... Yet you're constantly bringing up something I had no idea about; and somehow in so many different fields, from atmospheric sciences related to global warming, to C programming... Tell me something, man... You have a Ph. D right? Say yes, it will help me feel better about myself. tounge.gif

</ass kissing>


Seriously though, I've always wondered about the possibility of non-carbon life-forms, and have always realized that with the vastness of space it wouldn't make sense to look for life outside of the parameters we already know supports it, but the importance of complex molecules never really occurred to me. Chalk that up to never taking a decent biology course I guess.

One thing I'm wondering about... Why are carbon and silicon the only molecules complex enough? Just because they're the only ones whose constitutes can be broken down into something useful, or is it actually a matter of the complexity?

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#138

Posted 22 July 2011 - 08:37 AM

Carbon and silicon both have 4 out of 8 electrons on the outer shell. That means they can bind to just about anything, they can bind to several things at once quite easily, and they can form very strong bonds. So if you are building something with more than half a dozen atoms in it, you definitely want some of these guys.

In addition to that, both are very common. Carbon-12 nucleus happens to be ridiculously stable, and fuses easily from Helium-4, which is the product of fusion in the stars. I don't recall the details on silicon synthesis, but it also ends up being produced in fairly large quantities. Since abundance is definitely something you want in your building material, it's basically down to these two.

QUOTE
You have a Ph. D right?

Not quite yet. I still need to finish the dissertation and defend it.

chestycougth
  • chestycougth

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011

#139

Posted 24 August 2011 - 06:49 PM Edited by chestycougth, 24 August 2011 - 06:53 PM.

QUOTE (Struff Bunstridge @ Saturday, Dec 4 2010, 12:58)




Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but what nerner's quite rightly saying is that you are extremely unlikely to be correct; since the universe is large enough as to be reasonably defined as infinite (until someone definitively says otherwise), probability dictates that the conditions necessary for life similar to our own to evolve have been replicated elsewhere, and therefore there's a good chance life exists away from this planet.

This is, of course, to say nothing of life dissimilar to our own.

This forum's called Debates & Discussion - please use it to debate and discuss, not state your case and then proclaim yourself to be automatically correct. What's your basis for saying there's no life anywhere else? Given that your disrespect list contains "gay people", I can probably guess which angle you'll use, but humour me.

Edit: Incidentally, I'm willing to accept that you know lttle about probability, given that you think aliens vs no aliens is a straight 50/50 shot.

you know you dont have to write with long words and perfect spelling and grammar.
for instance instead of saying the above you could say.

"sure,your allowed your own view, but what nerner is saying is that your wrong, since the universe is large enough to be considered infinite.
probability says that the conditions needed for life like our own to evolve have happened on other worlds meaning life probably exists on them."
if you write like that then its quicker, simpler and easier for everyone to fully understand.

P.S although i personally beleive aliens exist i dont see why you have to spend ages talking about it.
its like the GTA V section of the forum. people spend ages talking about it when really it hasnt even been officially verified that GTA V is under development but unlike aliens, GTA V is relevant

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#140

Posted 24 August 2011 - 09:24 PM

QUOTE (chestycougth @ Wednesday, Aug 24 2011, 19:49)
you know you dont have to write with long words and perfect spelling and grammar.

Actually, it's better if he does. What he posted made far more sense than what you did. Hence why there's a guide to presenting arguments stickied at the top of the forum. I suggest you read it...

chestycougth
  • chestycougth

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011

#141

Posted 25 August 2011 - 12:36 PM

ok.
try reading any page in one of Richard Dawkin's books,here and then read a page of Bill Bryson here
many people here talk like dawkins and use long comlicated words when you could keep it nice and simple like bryson.
i dont have the ability to write in such a well ordered way as all of you but you probably know how to write something simple without dumbing it down like me.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#142

Posted 25 August 2011 - 04:14 PM

QUOTE (chestycougth @ Thursday, Aug 25 2011, 13:36)
ok.
try reading any page in one of Richard Dawkin's books,here and then read a page of Bill Bryson here
many people here talk like dawkins and use long comlicated words when you could keep it nice and simple like bryson.
i dont have the ability to write in such a well ordered way as all of you but you probably know how to write something simple without dumbing it down like me.

I've read Dawkins quite extensively, and seen him talk a couple of times. Whilst I agree with many things he has to say, he's an insufferable egomaniac with delusions of grandeur, who resorts to winning arguments by shouting down at others and generally just being offensive. It's a question of "like what your saying, but not how".

SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#143

Posted 25 August 2011 - 09:21 PM

You're a moron if you dont think there is other life out there, you may not have any comprehension of size but the universe is ridiculously big. The amount of star systems is inconceivable which means due to the law of averages that there has to be life. You are a nieve fool if you think otherwise.

Is there intelligent life? Most definately. Are some of those species capable of deep space travel? I would imagine so seeing as lots of these species would have evolved far beyond our interlect and are probably able to use elements different to those found on earth.

I'm gonna stop now before I get too deep and start giving myself a headache confused.gif .

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#144

Posted 26 August 2011 - 10:12 AM

SweatyPa1ms, you have a very poor concept of statistics. We cannot make any kind of prediction of how likely life out there is. Even though the number of habitable worlds out there is staggering, we have no way to estimate how likely it is for life to start on one of these. Given the size of the universe, even with extremely low odds, there could be life on our world. If that is the case, all other worlds might be empty. There is just no way to tell right now. We don't have a second point of data to use for statistics.

OysterBarron
  • OysterBarron

    You need a Pearl necklace? Hit me up ;)

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • United-Kingdom

#145

Posted 26 August 2011 - 10:58 AM

Well things i know.

nasa has sent certain different life forms into space some of witch can still survive in the vacum of space quite happily. so that answers the qiestion of life living in space!

the earth has roughly 85 million known plants and animals on it.

now there is no proof that ufo's or aliens exist.

water is a big building block of life. of witch can be observed in space as icy meteors. if that was to hit a planet with a very thin atmosphere then the ice could survive entry and be stored appon the planets surface. but personally i dont think its a question of if alien life exists its what started life in the first place and what sparked it into existence.

SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#146

Posted 26 August 2011 - 02:15 PM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Friday, Aug 26 2011, 10:12)
SweatyPa1ms, you have a very poor concept of statistics. We cannot make any kind of prediction of how likely life out there is. Even though the number of habitable worlds out there is staggering, we have no way to estimate how likely it is for life to start on one of these. Given the size of the universe, even with extremely low odds, there could be life on our world. If that is the case, all other worlds might be empty. There is just no way to tell right now. We don't have a second point of data to use for statistics.

No, I believe my understanding of statistics to be quite good...

The number of galaxies. An estimated 50 billion galaxies are visible with modern telescopes and the total number in the universe must surely exceed this number by a huge factor, but we will be conservative and simply double it. That's 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

The number of stars in an average galaxy. As many as hundreds of billions in each galaxy.

Lets call it just 100 billion.

That's 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy.

The number of stars in the universe.

So the total number of stars in the universe is roughly 100 billion x 100 billion.

That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, 10 thousand, billion, billion. Properly known as 10 sextillion. And that's a very conservative estimate.

You cant seriously believe that this is it. Really?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#147

Posted 26 August 2011 - 02:45 PM

The statistics on the number of galaxies or planets in the universe are pretty much irrelivent until we know the exact likelihood of material being formed in such a way to produce life, or the exact conditions under which that may take place. Without knowing the likelihood of either of those occurring, statistical discussion on the number of planets in the universe is essentially meaningless.

SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#148

Posted 26 August 2011 - 03:14 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Aug 26 2011, 14:45)
The statistics on the number of galaxies or planets in the universe are pretty much irrelivent until we know the exact likelihood of material being formed in such a way to produce life, or the exact conditions under which that may take place. Without knowing the likelihood of either of those occurring, statistical discussion on the number of planets in the universe is essentially meaningless.

Do you not think your being a bit too skeptical given the size of those numbers and the fact that were alive? That and we know that water, a combination of two common elements (hydrogen and oxygen) found in abundance within the universe can produce life.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#149

Posted 26 August 2011 - 03:54 PM

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Friday, Aug 26 2011, 16:14)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Aug 26 2011, 14:45)
The statistics on the number of galaxies or planets in the universe are pretty much irrelivent until we know the exact likelihood of material being formed in such a way to produce life, or the exact conditions under which that may take place. Without knowing the likelihood of either of those occurring, statistical discussion on the number of planets in the universe is essentially meaningless.

Do you not think your being a bit too skeptical given the size of those numbers and the fact that were alive? That and we know that water, a combination of two common elements (hydrogen and oxygen) found in abundance within the universe can produce life.

No.

For all we know, the odds of the conditions existing in such a way that life may be formed over a period of say, 1 billion years (as we measure it), are 50 sextillion to one. So little is known about the possible ways that life can come into fruition that any statistical discussion on the likelihood of it happening in a far off galaxy is basically meaningless.
Your attempt to simplify what is by all current research an incredibly complex proposition at the best of times into two simple elements is foolhardy. A combination of hydrogen and oxygen will not create life on their own.

SweatyPa1ms
  • SweatyPa1ms

    Flesh vehicle

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2009
  • None

#150

Posted 26 August 2011 - 08:56 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Aug 26 2011, 15:54)
QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Friday, Aug 26 2011, 16:14)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Aug 26 2011, 14:45)
The statistics on the number of galaxies or planets in the universe are pretty much irrelivent until we know the exact likelihood of material being formed in such a way to produce life, or the exact conditions under which that may take place. Without knowing the likelihood of either of those occurring, statistical discussion on the number of planets in the universe is essentially meaningless.

Do you not think your being a bit too skeptical given the size of those numbers and the fact that were alive? That and we know that water, a combination of two common elements (hydrogen and oxygen) found in abundance within the universe can produce life.

No.

For all we know, the odds of the conditions existing in such a way that life may be formed over a period of say, 1 billion years (as we measure it), are 50 sextillion to one. So little is known about the possible ways that life can come into fruition that any statistical discussion on the likelihood of it happening in a far off galaxy is basically meaningless.
Your attempt to simplify what is by all current research an incredibly complex proposition at the best of times into two simple elements is foolhardy. A combination of hydrogen and oxygen will not create life on their own.

Pfff, like trying to get blood from a stone. Do you honestly think that humans are the only intelligent lifeforms just because we dont have the technology to prove it. Open you mind a little bit, peace alien.gif .




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users