Do you believe in Aliens? (Page 6)

StuckInTheSixties:

Yes, but there's a difference:

Saying that there is a probability includes saying that there is a possibility.

Saying that there is only a possibility does not include saying that there is a probability.

Again, acknowledging a possibility doesn't require proof. Acknowledging a probability does.

That's the huge philosophical gap that I mentioned. That's the philosophical difference between a "so-called agnostic," and a non-agnostic.

StuckInTheSixties:

Up to and including page 4, you've been leaning HEAVILY on the probability. On page 5, you abandoned that.

StuckInTheSixties:

A good choice.

hellbhoy: AW SITS ha ha your just playing games when you actually know what I intended really.

In all probability there is a possibility that the possibility there is a probability that it is possibly
in probability that probability it is possible that it is possible is probably.See I can play word games too ha ha.

xapim:

xapim: god i watched this lamb of god redneck thing .....quit cool to me ?

StuckInTheSixties:

Good job, Adam!

hellbhoy says:
" your just playing games when you actually know what I intended really."

Yes, I think I do. And I described what I think you "intended really."

The business you brought up about me being "agnostic" shows just what you "intended really." You used that to make a contrast between my position as the "agnostic" ...

~ acknowledging the possibilities, but nothing more

... and your position as the "believer"

~ believing that there is a probability of life out there, and elaborating why you believe that in your various posts.

Another obvious indicator of this is who each of us tend to agree with in this thread. I agree with Lipton, who rationally refuses to acknowledge that there is any proof, or even indication, of extra-terrestrial life. You, on the other hand, agree with Azimuth_Predator, who is outspokenly "sure there is something out there." Are you turning your back on Azimuth now?

And when you brought up your mystery unknown Nobel winner, it wasn't because he said: "Maybe there is life out there, maybe there isn't. Who knows? But it's possible ..." It was because he said: "

Dude, I just read your words, and take them at face value. There's no "word games" being played ... by me.

Maybe you simply don't comprehend the philosophical and intellectual difference between possibility and probability. That would explain a lot ...

LiptonCambell: >>>Cause i have this slight idea that you don't know anything about life creation.

You would be correct

>>>You think only about photosynthesis i am sure.

....um....what?

I mean the point where the first single celled organism sprang forth from non-life. How did that happen? What circumstances, and how could it happen again.

These basic questions are ESSENTIAL when discussing the possibility of life. The answer to that question could change your hypothesis from billions upon billions of planets with life, to only a few dozen, if any.

>>>As for research we have done nothing extreme yet.

I'm sorry you find the advances to be insignificant. Might I suggest you contribute to our quest for knowledge, before you scoff that what is currently available isn't sufficient for you.

>>>Stop being a baby and just wait for crying out loud.

I can only presume you are asking me to wait for the evidence to pas judgement; now, the question becomes, wait till when?

Still, such a suggestion is rather odd- you aren't waiting to form an opinion- you've formed one, based on conjecture and "what-if" scenario's. Why would I take the advice of someone telling me I should wait to form an opinion.....but they won't wait themselves...

>>>Stop complaining about no facts! no facts!

Facts are the basis of my opinion. I'm sorry if that makes you angry, but that is my standard, and I don't intend to yield to the likes of you. Your beliefs are in contradiction and without even the simplest of evidence.

>>>Can we define proof for a second?

Physcial evidence. Proof that nearby planets once held life would be a powerful suggestion. Finding evidence that would suggest extrasolar planets have life would also be an important stepping stone, though how we would test such a thing only time will tell. So far, if my understanding is correct, we can't even detect if planets have water- all we can do is measure its distance from the sun and postulate that its possible- but a look at Venus and Mars proves that even that doesn't prove anything- both has the potential for liquid water(in fact, its still up for debate if Mars has liquid water- recent photos show clouds in the sky....)

What I can be certain of, I do not consider rough guess's "proof"- on one hand, we don't know how inanimate matter becomes animate matter- where molecules obligingly spring forth to life and begin forming ever increasingly complex lifeforms- and without that understanding, everything in that equation is insufficient. And on the other hand, the entirely opposite could be true- that life forms through an event entirely alien to our planet, and that life could form on planets you deem "uninhabitable"

Such a calculation is so flawed to render it worthless.

>>>because math has been used to proof a number of things before we could provide proof one of our senses can observe.

Gotta example? Cause most of those calculations are based on MEASUREMENTS.

>>>Please please please give me a link

Huh? Like, a link to all our research into the stars? Geeze dude try wikipedia. If 100% of planets found have been found to be uninhabitable.....thats evidence that, so far as the evidence supports, the universe is uninhabitable.

>>>Again, the proof is math, we calculated the existence of those planets. Is that proof or not?

The proof was in the observation of the planets. The Drakes equation would have to predict where or what planets are before observation for the math to had "calculated" it.

>>>And if we can't even proof said planets with something like a telescope so we can actually see, how do you conclude those planets are hostile to life?

Size, mostly. Most planets we find are much life Jupiter, only larger. Planets such as ours are more subtle.

Tigerlime: Hmm... So many Debates and Arguments here. I still think that the Possibility of Life in the Universe is there. And here is some Information that could lead to an wider Range of viewpoint.

First off, the Attempts and Argumentation of Life in the Universe with Hypothetical and Theoretical, as well as some things that have been done to Solve the Question if Life Exists elsewhere.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

I know it's a lot to Read. But I also found something Interesting too when it comes to Lifeforms with this Link. It's about a Bacteria that DOESN'T use Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus and Sulfur, but something else as it's "DNA".

http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life

Also some Information about how Life might have Evolved here on Earth.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100806093104.htm

So many things to Read. For the Lazy ones who want to Skip all the Reading, but the following Video doesn't got all the Information, here a Video. It's about the Current Knowledge on what we Understand of how Life is made from Matter. Skip to about 20 min in the Video to see how "far" we are in Turning Matter into Life. (If you are really Lazy).



And one more thing. Don't Argument too much, since it's a never Ending "Battle". Everyone got one's own Opinion. You either Influence others or not. Or they might Influence you.

I want to Believe. (X-Files Poster)

StuckInTheSixties:

Here's a little game you can play ...

Count the number of times Morgan says ...

"It's possible ..."

"Perhaps ..."

"Maybe ..."

"There might be ..."

... or variations on that.

Azimuth_Predator: LiptonCambell is still trying to convince me but he is failing. Keep crying dude. I like your negative effort...not.
I have had this convo a lot of times.

This extremely wise woman said to me once

"searched with what? radio? hubble? pure will power? crystal balls? lol
Still if they expect me to provide proof of aliens before they change their mind, provide me with proof they can not exist before i change mine.

So that last paragraph is my answer to the pessimists who would say that the glass is half empty.
I choose half full.

LiptonCambell: Thanks Tigerlime for the links! Its nice to see someone make an argument about the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox(ha! I didn't know such a thing had a name) without resorting to emotional geared responses! Far too many people on here take it too personally when their rough, incomplete estimates aren't taken as an absolute fact.

And I didn't know of that new theory of the origin of life- this "mica hypothesis" sounds interesting, though, lets be honest- we won't know for sure until we make our own, unique lifeform from non-life.

---

>>>LiptonCambell is still trying to convince me but he is failing.....

Is there a reason, or is it simply a matter of blind faith rules all?

>>>Still if they expect me to provide proof of aliens before they change their mind, provide me with proof they can not exist before i change mine.

Look at all our observations of the universe. Congrats! You've looked at proof that they cannot exist in all of the known universe. As our understanding changes, so may our stance- but that doesn't negate the fact that if 100% of the planets we've looked into are hostile to all forms of life, THAT IS EVIDENCE.

You want to hold out till either you're proven right(how is that "holding out" is beyond both me and logic, but whatever) or the entire universe has been scoured- I get it- but personally, just as you feel you don't need to wait for your great, great, great, great, great, great, grandchildren(Ha! 6!) to find out the truth of the matter before taking a stance, neither do I.

The only difference is, I'm willing to take a stance on what is known. You, however, are willing to take a stance on what you feel the universe oughta be. And from what we've learned about the universe, I feel that is a grave mistake.

>>>So that last paragraph is my answer to the pessimists who would say that the glass is half empty. I choose half full.

It has nothing to do with being positive or negative- it simply has to be about where the evidence leads us. As I've said earlier, I think it would be awesome for aliens to exist- I love sci-fi, with some of my favorite books, shows, movies, and games all being about aliens.

But I don't fall into the trap that because I feel something OUGHTA be, doesn't mean it is. People once thought that spit cured wounds, that mermaids roamed the seas, luring seamen to the deaths on rocky cliffs, that if a pregnant woman is happy and like to sing, she is having a girl, that you should carry around garlic to protect against "dirty power", and that if you see a white bird, someone you know will die soon.

There are so many leaps of faith made throughout the years, that only one universal conclusion can be made of them; humanity in general have a habit of getting everything wrong. The only way to be certain of something is to test it for accuracy. And you can't test Drakes Equation- or, if you do, the only results you get is its completely wrong, since nothing the Drakes Equation has predicted have been found...

LiptonCambell: Sarcasm doesn't go well over the internet...

xapim: i just watched that sciencedaily, my favorite parts were carbon12&13 ladylumps, these black eye pea things. the tree of life membrane, insane. and dont try this at home, this experiment could blow up. then it teaches on this lake and how very strange things evolve. then i thought of how something can come from nothing. something invisible like bacteria and well a dang gnat fly'n around . what if that invisible is there and comes to form and its not a gnat but a giant e.t. ?

xapim: i got this book...that may be twisted with budd hopkins and whitley strierber.....a hypothosis known as etv or ufo's....written in a book called "chariots of the god's".

Azimuth_Predator: That is an awesome book have heard. I have seen 2 documentaries based on what is written on that book.
Van Daniknen is the Author. He is a very intelligent and a very knowledgeable man.
I am impressed from his ideas,facts and researches.

xapim: iv knida just looked into it . any neat websites ?

Azimuth_Predator: Here is a link to my fav Van Daniken Documentary
Its with Spanish subs but i don't think you care lol





This is part one. There are 9 if i remember correctly.

xapim: awsome, "tell me all your toughts on god", gods a astronaught. my fav part was ancient aliens. the u.s video was pretty neat. nasa has got some neat stuff, i'm sure ther's a website with camera's we just might not beable to watch them yet ? aliens vs god bible story was quit neat and in these bks are they inspired ? most end up having skitzofrenia' or stuck in ocoma or something. is that imagination or an effect of thought controlling.....cool vid.

StuckInTheSixties: