Do you believe in Aliens?

Tigerlime: That's a Simple one. Yes, I do believe in Aliens. As far as I know they are even in our own Solar System. Extra Terrestrial Microbes and such. If we talk about Intelligent or more Complex Organisms then... Yes. The Universe is so Vast that the Possibilities are good that there are Intelligent beings out there.

calybonos:
I don't believe in Aliens.Call me prejudiced,or a pessimist,but I think they're all nothing but liars.

lavendar_star: Well I believe in aliens more than I believe in God but the evidence is pretty thin.

calybonos:
What I meant was,aliens are real...I live close to the border,I see them sneaking across every day.

..I just don't believe in anything they say.

LiptonCambell: I believe you are using flawed logic tiger.....the only evidence we have about outer space is it is entirely hostile to all known forms of life. Probability and size does not make fact- arguably, the probability of intelligent life being in our oceans is comparable- but there's no evidence of this life, and the same is true with aliens.

Tigerlime: I wouldn't Compare our Oceans with the Universe simply because there are estimates of about 200 Billion to 400 Billion stars in our own Galaxy. Let's say there are "only" 200 Billion. Out of 200 Billion Stars most of them wouldn't be Suitable for Life due to Various Reasons. To go safe, let's say 10% of those 200 Billion Stars are Suitable for Life. It is Estimated there are 50 Billion Planets in our Galaxy. Most of them aren't Suitable for Life. I got Bored with the Numbers. So I'm just gonna make it really Simple. Let's say 1 Planet in the Galaxy is Suitable for Life. There are more than 170 Billion Galaxies in the Observed Universe. So more than 170 Billion Planets Suitable with Life if 1 Galaxy has 1 Planet that is Suitable. So generally, there are more than 170 Billion Oceans out there in the Universe. I'm Confident there is Intelligent Life out there. Just that the Vastness is so Astronomical that it's really hard to find it. Sorry for the long Post.

StuckInTheSixties:

The point you're making, that the universe is large and complex, is true. And that makes for a strong suggestion of life elsewhere.

But that strong suggestion doesn't constitute PROOF.

I see no rationale for being sure of something for which there is no proof.

Hey, extra-terrestrial life might exist ... and it might not.

When that extra-terrestrial life is actually FOUND ...

Then I'll agree that it exists.

StuckInTheSixties:

There is no objective, tangible evidence of that happening, and I'm not inclined to "believe" in things for which there is no objective tangible evidence.

So in a word ... no.

LiptonCambell: ....I'm pretty sure 60's also denies the existence of God for the same reason he denies the existence of aliens.....so the whole "4 billion people can't be wrong" shtick probably won't work.

StuckInTheSixties:

Actually, I "deny" neither.

I just don't acknowledge the existence of either. Both may exist for all I know. But no proof is no proof ... either way.

And I've seen many of those "artifacts," etc. That sort of stuff is kind of like looking at cloud formations. Anyone with any imagination whatsoever can imagine them to be anything. Some of the things that have been cited as the kind of "artifacts" you mention are embarrassing laughable ... a rock with some cracks in it is "proof" of a map of Atlantis, that sort of crap.

calybonos: Absence of proof is not proof of absence

StuckInTheSixties:

Serabi says:
"One of several interesting web sites is www.world-mysteries.com."

I took a glance at that and saw that there was a reference to a video called "Ancient Aliens" offered by the History Channel. That says a lot to me, right there. The History Channel, despite the respectable sounding name, wallows in sensationalism, UFOs, channelers, The Shroud of Turin, Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, etc. etc. They always present their content the same way, the same cheezy dramatic music soundtrack, with the same kinds of purported "experts" (that have no significant standing), the same sort of pseudo-research (conducted unscientifically), etc. etc. always coming to the same "conclusion," something like:

"... although this profound mystery strongly suggests that [insert the topic here], there is still a need for more research before we will really know for sure ... The mystery remains ..."



It's junk science of the highest order

Serabi says:
"Watching a stone mason/artist admitting that he can't, with ultra modern equipment, cut marble as perfectly as certain stones in South America, does leave a question mark!"

It does. It makes me wonder why they can't find a better stone mason. It DOESN'T make me take a leap of faith and wonder if that was the work of ancient space aliens (any more than it would make me wonder if it was "magic" )

Serabi says:
"I did not mention particular artifacts, assuming that you know what I'm refering to is just being pompous."

You mentioned "artifacts." Something very non-specific. I referred to an example of the sort of "artifacts" I have seen referred to. I didn't specify that YOU were referring to that particular "artifact," did I? Why don't you provide us with some specific examples (beyond Machu Picchu)?

Serabi says:
"I will not deride others' religions, based on my viewpoint."

So ... this is your "religion"? Well, much of this way of thinking is, essentially, the same way of thinking that much modern religion has. Much of modern religion tries to force the square peg of science through the round hole of their dogma.

Serabi says:
"I just hope that they will open their eyes and realise that it is so unfounded. Egotistical, maybe... but not downright nasty, there is a difference!"

Oh puh-LEEEZE! Are you suggesting that if someone disagrees with your assessment that "artifacts" point to "ancient aliens", they're "nasty" and "pompous[ly]" "deriding" you?

Serabi says:
"I suppose a mind can be closed by religion as well as egocentricity. I have read enough to seriously doubt your ability to be objective if the idea/whatever.. did not originate in your own mind."

Wow! Taking this a bit personally, aren't you? You've mentioned this generality of "artifacts," and then only specified one, Machu Picchu, and are apparently citing the precision stone masonry there as an indication of "ancient aliens." Is that an example of what you think of as "objective" thinking?

(I note that you ignore, in my reply to Lipton, my acknowledgement of the possibility that you might actually be correct in your perceptions.)

Serabi says:
"I used to admire and respect most of the intelligent minds of WC. Now I pity a few."

(laughs) Wow! You really are taking his VERY personally, aren't you?

LiptonCambell: >>>I did not mention particular artifacts

Why don't you then? Certainly if you want us to CONSIDER POSSIBILITIES, then this wouldn't just be a good starting point- but essential.

>>>I do not base my belief in ANCIENT aliens on blind faith, therefore, not a religious belief. I....I will not deride others' religions, based on my viewpoint.

These statements seem to be contradictory. You claim your belief isn't a religious one.....but then chastise 60's for "deriding others' religions"

>>>Watching a stone mason/artist admitting that he can't, with ultra modern equipment, cut marble as perfectly as certain stones in South America, does leave a question mark!

Its not your question we're skeptical about- its your answer.

calybonos:
I would be willing to bet that if future archeologists were to somehow stumble upon the comments
made in Wireclubs forums,they would no doubt be convinced that ancient man was influenced
by an extraterrestrial.Possibly an exiled mental patient,or an anal probe gone terribly wrong.

LiptonCambell: If future generations were to stumble onto our conversations here, I feel I would not need to fear their judgement. I am basing my opinion on the information we currently have- not speculation. And frankly, I would imagine that future generations would respect that- I sincerely doubt that they would be impressed if I made assumptions about the world around me- especially ones that directly contradict our observations.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But that doesn't negate the fact that I'm basing my opinion on what we actually know and can prove- you're basing your opinion on speculation and assumptions....

calybonos:
I wasn't directing my comment to you...well,actually I suppose I wasn't excluding you,or me..
...or just about anyone else here that would even consider Wireclub as a 'Think Tank'.

StuckInTheSixties:

Serabi says:
"SITS - My apologies!"

??? No apologies needed, but thank you.

One Bar Says:
"If future generations study sites such as this they will have a hoot. Particularly at all the Jesus/allah bollocks."

They'll be amazed at the sort of "bullocks" placed in a "Science" Forum ...

.. cough cough astrology cough cough ...

P4IN: