Skeptics: Do you want to be alone in the Universe?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


So you and others participate in alien discussions chiming in we need proof. What good does that comment make?

Are you and others doing anything to look for proof?

I haven't had time to verify your numbers about nearby stars because you have listed out some numbers on regards to our neighbors in space. So I would count that as looking into the subject.

game over man
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

You again....you refuse to talk about any of the subject matter with detail and reply to all my posts with a raised eye brow scolding me on you asked this but you should have asked this, etc etc....

Oh brother, yes me again.

I have repeatedly talked about "any of the subject matter", and so have the others.

Why can't you seem to remember that?

I went question by question from your OP in one of my posts. All for nothing else than to try to answer you.

Is it simply an attempt to keep your thread alive, this sudden forgetfulness and rehashing arguments already covered over and over???

reply to post by game over man

Are you and others doing anything to look for proof?

How many times must it be said?

Aside from flying around the universe like Space Ghost what else do you expect anyone to do?
Many of us are reading avidly about new findings and possibilities, new technology bringing new information and possibilities.

How does that equal giving up?

Many "skeptics" around the world are actively involved in the collaborative SETI project.
Not all, but some...just as in the rest of the population.

None of these have yet to provide anything as proof of aliens, ET, life outside of Earth.

Do you somehow expect "skeptics" to go to these moons, planets and stars personally and look??

You have made long lists of space programs. What is that trying to prove? Are you instrumental in these projects in your "looking"???

You have also made long lists of what you "believe", "think", "your opinion", "I feels"---what does that have to do with finding proof or even evidence?

As for ETs visiting the Earth, many people have opinions on that. As for UFOs many "believe" that there are UNidentified things in the skies.

Most of us in this thread seem to also "believe" in alien life, hope for it, "think" there is, have "opinions' that there is and read UFO and Aliens forum to find those one or two threads that can't immediately be discounted, but require further investigation and evidence.

None of those matter in the end if you are asking skeptics---there is NO PROOF.

I don't even care to count how many times I have had to type that in this thread.


Why does every answer have to be repeated ad nauseum in this thread for you??

game over man
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

So you and others participate in alien discussions chiming in we need proof. What good does that comment make?

Are you and others doing anything to look for proof?

You seem to miss the point of the skepticism. Skeptics say there is not (yet) proof of alien visitation. They are not in the business of creating that proof, but simply in the business of analyzing that proof. (BTW, I'm using "in the business of" euphemistically -- don't read too much into the use of that phrase).

I'm privy to the same available evidence that you are privy to. It's not like I don't know about the evidence for alien visitation. I simply don't think the available evidence (available to both you and me) PROVES that aliens are visiting Earth.

I'm not sure what you want me to do when you criticize me for not looking for evidence for alien visitation. What evidence am I going to find that isn't already in the public domain?


EDIT TO ADD:

And I DO IN FACT try to gather evidence for about the prospects of life elsewhere. I am personally very interested in astrobiology and the possibilities of what life on other worlds would be like. I read a lot of literature on this issue. As I have mentioned, I have created threads and posts discussing the evidence for life on Enceladus, Titan, and in the clouds of Venus.

So don't say I don't look for evidence for life elsewhere, because my track record shows that I certainly do -- or at least I like to learn about that evidence.

Here is a recent post where I gathered some evidence together (articles) abou the prospects for life on Enceladus and on Titan:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Here is a post from about 5 years ago where I discussed the potential for life in the clouds of Venus:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Here are a few threads I started about life elsewhere:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
(this one only peripherally discuss life elsewhere)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Soylent Green Is People

game over man
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

So you and others participate in alien discussions chiming in we need proof. What good does that comment make?

Are you and others doing anything to look for proof?

You seem to miss the point of the skepticism. Skeptics say there is not (yet) proof of alien visitation. They are not in the business of creating that proof, but simply in the business of analyzing that proof. (BTW, I'm using "in the business of" euphemistically -- don't read too much into the use of that phrase).

I'm privy to the same available evidence that you are privy to. It's not like I don't know about the evidence for alien visitation. I simply don't think the available evidence (available to both you and me) PROVES that aliens are visiting Earth.

I'm not sure what you want me to do when you criticize me for not looking for evidence for alien visitation. What evidence am I going to find that isn't already in the public domain?

I agree with you but for one point.

At this point in the thread, it would be impossible not to "catch on" to what skeptics are trying to explain to him.

The same thing has been explained an insane amount of times in this thread.

IMO it is intentional "forgetfulness" in an effort to keep the thread going, or some need to"bait the fish" and continue a leading thread that had no intention of ever listening to the replies.
Something approaching a breaking of T&Cs.

Chamberf=6

 

 

Well so much for using memes to get my point across on the topic of the "skeptical view" vs the "believer view".

I guess I'll let my above posts speak for me for now along with repeated answers and explanations from other members. They cover (yet again) the questions asked by the OP, just with words.

Sorry Mod if those (memes) were considered off-topic.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by game over man

 

After an all too brief respite, your comments seem to be directed back to skeptics (instead of unbelievers as you said for a page or two), over-generalizing them, assuming traits and actions and thoughts about them, etc.

This thread has seemed to have taken 3 steps back.

Who said there may not be life in oceans on moons or microbial life in our solar system?

Who said definitively that there is no life in the universe?

Why forget that light can only light (AND therefore radio waves) can only travel so fast, no matter the distances--be they immense or relatively short?

Once again, just because there is no proof yet, it doesn't mean anybody has "given up" or "stopped looking".

All of this been covered numerous times in this thread.

Is there a disease of memory loss in this thread?
...or does the OP just like to argue the same points repeatedly?

edit on 4/7/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

No Methane on Mars:
Nasa Link

No hydrocarbons:

Other scientists find most of the new results generally convincing, though they are skeptical that Curiosity has found hydrocarbons.

The scientists' arguments that the rover found more hydrocarbons than would be expected from contamination alone are "tenuous at best," says Jeffrey Bada, an emeritus professor of marine chemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, via e-mail. He says that if Curiosity really had stumbled on hydrocarbons, other kinds would've been detected, not just the few purified by the rover's chemistry set.

Others point out that living things have colonized much harsher environments on Earth than this gentle Martian lake, making it possible that microbes once called it home.

"If you give it an environment, life is going to spontaneously develop, so why not?" Johnson says. "But it's not proven, and people should realize that to actually prove it … is probably many years down the road."

Link

Nasa Mission:

On Earth, all forms of life need water to survive. It is likely, though not certain, that if life ever evolved on Mars, it did so in the presence of a long-standing supply of water. On Mars, we will therefore search for evidence of life in areas where liquid water was once stable, and below the surface where it still might exist today. Perhaps there might also be some current "hot spots" on Mars where hydrothermal pools (like those at Yellowstone) provide places for life. Recent data from Mars Global Surveyor suggest that liquid water may exist just below the surface in rare places on the planet, and the 2001 Mars Odyssey will be mapping subsurface water reservoirs on a global scale. We know that water ice is present at the Martian poles, and these areas will be good places to search for evidence of life as well.

In addition to liquid water, life also needs energy. Therefore, future missions will also be on the lookout for energy sources other than sunlight, since life on the surface of Mars is unlikely given the presence of "superoxides" that break down organic (carbon-based) molecules on which life is based. Here on Earth, we find life in many places where sunlight never reaches--at dark ocean depths, inside rocks, and deep below the surface. Chemical and geothermal energy, for example, are also energy sources used by life forms on Earth. Perhaps tiny, subsurface microbes on Mars could use such energy sources too.

Looking for Life Signs

NASA will also look for life on Mars by searching for telltale markers, or biosignatures, of current and past life. The element carbon, for instance, is a fundamental building block of life. Knowing where carbon is present and in what form would tell us a lot about where life might have developed.

We know that most of the current Martian atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide. If carbonate minerals were formed on the Martian surface by chemical reactions between water and the atmosphere, the presence of these minerals would be a clue that water had been present for a long time--perhaps long enough for life to have developed.

On Earth, fossils in sedimentary rock leave a record of past life. Based on studies of the fossil record on Earth, we know that only certain environments and types of deposits provide good places for fossil preservation. On Mars, searches are already underway to locate lakes or streams that may have left behind similar deposits.

So far, however, the kinds of biosignatures we know how to identify are those found on Earth. It's possible that life on another planet might be very different. The challenge is to be able to differentiate life from nonlife no matter where one finds it, no matter what its varying chemistry, structure, and other characteristics might be. NASA will also look for life on Mars by searching for telltale markers, or biosignatures, of current and past life. The element carbon, for instance, is a fundamental building block of life. Knowing where carbon is present and in what form would tell us a lot about where life might have developed.Life detection technologies under development will help us define life in non-Earth-centric terms so that we are able to detect it in all the forms it might take.

Nasa Mission

Europa:

In his novel 2010: Odyssey 2, a follow up to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Arthur C Clarke speculated that Europa’s oceans (technically one big ocean) could be home to life. If the ice is thin then enough sunlight could leak into the ocean’s upper few feet for photosynthesis to be possible. But a more promising source of energy would be undersea volcanoes, which could spew nutrients into the sea and act as oases around which strange lifeforms could thrive. On Earth, this happens around deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where giant worms and strange yellow organisms inhabit a biosphere completely detached from the solar?driven one on the surface.

Clarke speculated that Europa’s oceans could be home to large animals. Most scientists think this unlikely; there may not be enough energy available for anything more complex than microbes. But we don’t know; many scientists say we should send a follow-up mission to Europa to find out.

Li nk

Europa's oceans too acidic?

This level of acidity would be a significant challenge for life, unless organisms were to consume or sequester oxidants fast enough to ameliorate the acidification, researchers said. The ecosystem would need to evolve quickly to meet this crisis, with oxygen metabolisms and acid tolerance developing in only about 50 million years to handle the acidification.

The calcium-based materials that bones and shells on Earth are made from might dissolve pretty readily in such an acidic environment. However, "one of the interesting possibilities is that they might have used blue phosphates as their bone material instead to evolve large organisms," Pasek said. "If you have iron phosphates, you make a pretty blue mineral called vivianite."

Link

Alone in the Universe?

If life is found to have arisen independently on Mars, then scientists would be in a much better position to assert that, under the right conditions, the genesis of life is inevitable.

Link


After re-reading my OP, to rephrase and summarize it for everyone:

Those who are skeptical of making contact with technologically advanced life, advanced animal, plant, or alien life in the Universe due to the following issues:

1. No evidence
2. Ufology
3. No evidence from NASA or SETI
4. It will be many years before humanity will ever evolve to advanced space technology (wormhole/interstellar), and we will destroy ourselves by then.
5. The Universe is too big

Do you want to be alone?

Because some may argue, ufology has evidence, NASA and SETI has evidence, and humanity might have advanced deep space technology sooner than later.

Now do some people refuse to look at the possibilities listed by ufology, Nasa/Seti, and science and technology industry? Because what we are talking about are possibilities and not proof or fact? Do you purposely refuse to look because you are a fact only proof needed believer? Is this an attitude you want as your belief system? You choose to live the life of a fact only proof needed believer.

Or can you engage in the discussion of what if? The possibilities? Because some believe ufology and Nasa/Seti will prove it in our lifetime:

By 2040 or so, astronomers will have scanned enough star systems to give themselves a great shot of discovering alien-produced electromagnetic signals, said Seth Shostak of the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute in Mountain View, Calif.

Link

Shostak thus views the alien life hunt as a three-way race. The contenders are researchers looking for advanced, intelligent civilizations; scientists scouring solar-system bodies such as Mars and Jupiter's moon Europa for simple organisms; and researchers focusing on finding signs of microbial life on nearby exoplanets using future instruments such as NASA's $8.8 billion James Webb Space Telescope, which is scheduled to launch in 2018.

Now I believe once we have found extremophiles in our solar system, and prove life exists outside of earth, the chances increase of visitation or contact because we now have proof aliens do exist. Once we have proof of deep space travel, from our own advancements in technology and research, then we will have an even more stronger chance of visitation.

Here's an article on alien life:
Link

A lot of people in this thread still think the chances of finding advanced ET are extremely slim to not very likely to impossible/never, when I disagree. But apparently I have no skepticism in my believing...and I say this because I think some people claim skeptic but it's more of a want, because I honestly don't see the dialogue or hear the numbers as often as I believe I should here them with all the information that is readily out there. What real information and real dialogue I'm talking about, is far more compelling and abundant that hoax videos or stories. I just feel like the real conversation is getting overlooked a lot, and I'm not sure if that is done intentionally or not.

reply to post by game over man


Thanks for the links. Did you see all of my links (in a post above) to evidence for life on Enceladus, Titan, and the clouds of Venus? Still, it is evidence, but not proof.

As you can see from my links, I (just like many people you would probably refer to as skeptics) have a belief in life elsewhere, Many of the "skeptics" I know also and take an interest in the evidence for life elsewhere, and many of us have had open-minded discussion about the possibilities of that life. However, we also understand that the evidence for life on Enceladus, Titan, Mars, and the clouds of Venus is only circumstantial, and that evidence has not yet risen to the level of proof.

In fact, the evidence on non-Earth life from our own solar system only shows the presence of organic building-blocks of life (Enceladus, Titan, and Mars) and the presence of atmospheric gas inequilibriums (in the case of Titan and Venus). The presence of these organic molecules and the presence of these chemical inequilibriums can also have non-life explanations. A good scientist should not jump to the "life" conclusion quickly here until he finds evidence that can ONLY be explainable by the presence of life. That has not happened yet.

The evidence shows that Enceladus and Titan (and maybe Europa and Ancient Mars) certainly look like great places for life to have formed, but nothing we know about those places is PROOF that life exists there.


Personally, I find the evidence for life on Enceladus and Titan to be most compelling, such as mentioned in the articles below. The evidence is certainly exciting, but it is still only evidence, not yet proof. A good scientist (or even a good skeptic) may say that there is evidence that could suggest life on -- say, for example -- Titan. But that scientist should also do his due diligence and say that the evidence suggesting life could also be the result of non-life processes.

Is it Snowing Microbes on Enceladus?

What is Consuming Hydrogen and Acetylene on Titan?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Hi Soylent,

I did see your posts and thread links, good stuff. I obviously was not PC about this whole skeptic thing. The skeptic/believer debate is really important than a debate about ET life. As you can see and of course know because you've written, scientist postulate on a possibility all the time. Currently I don't know why anybody would want to rule anything out.

Yes this thread was an attention grabber. What I really want is a thorough report on why Mars will only have extremophiles. Same with the other potential life locations in our solar system. I feel a lot of important details are constantly being left out.

Skepticism towards alien life decreases with each new discovery. With our exoplanet research more people believe we are not alone. With our evidence pointing to habitats where we might find extremophiles also increases more to believe we are not alone.

In the dialogue about alien life do people still hold onto their old school skepticism? Now a common answer is about the unimportance of exoplanet detecting bio signatures or SETI detecting an intelligent civilization.

People are skeptical of the probability of one of these discoveries and or the value of such a discovery. This is the problem with shutting down the conversation with stating the obvious about the distance of space and time.

When searching for ET I believe skepticism is important but you still have to have some beliefs to keep up on the search for the unknown. Being skeptical towards one scenario just points you in the direction of a more plausible scenario.

In the case of ET, I think skeptical people rarely discuss an outcome of contact. I feel they have reached the conclusion because they need proof. To me that's being an atheist and not a researcher.

Are we alone and will we ever make contact is a huge question and if someone's participation in the debate is only and always we need proof, well that's obvious we don't have proof. So I think a proof needed person's input is unnecessary in the debate. It doesn't really get us anywhere with the we need proof reminder, it's kind of annoying in my opinion.

I feel like skeptical posts sound like the words of an atheist because they don't include their new beliefs after they've debunked a previous theory.

For example I'm skeptical of advanced alien contact, but if this were to happen then......bingo....some type of dialogue like this is needwd more frequently.

If the conversation is just shooting down everything with no opinion on what to look for next, then it seems like that person has given up.

I give up on this thread.

This does not mean I will give up looking, researching, analyzing possibilities, searching, keeping up with advancements, or want to be alone.

I just give up on the ever changing "what I actually meant" and "what I am actually looking for" ( why not just come out with in the first post?), rephrasing, rehashing, the back and forth between asking skeptic then unbelievers then skeptics, the assumptions, the lack of understanding why the OP was not "deep", the sudden change now of what the OP really meant, the unacceptance of concise answers (labeling them as those who "gave up") , etc.


On to more productive threads.
Sorry I ever cared enough to get involved.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


I keep having to reiterate because of you! Glad you're done. I've actually said the same thing over and over again. You commented on the thread on the first page and I replied back to everyone thanks for your comments!

reply to post by game over man

So you kept asking the questions over and over because of me? I have answered your questions.

You have asked varied versions of your OP questions ( and then completely revised ones) in response to others besides just me.

And about my first post, you criticized it a few pages back, and the very fact that I replied on the first page.

You've actually changed your tune many times in this thread ("rephrasing/augmenting what you really meant), railing against an complete over-generalization skeptics on some pages, then saying you're basically of the same opinion, etc.

You have not been reiterating the same thing over and over.

Have fun.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


You need proof.

Proof requires evidence.

Evidence requires looking

Looking requires an idea

All you're doing the whole time is taking the most simplest approach to the thread and then dissing me. You never indulged on any subject matter in any detail. You had one post where you wrote:

No
No
No
Yes
No

Wow thanks! Great convo! If the thread is too armature for you, then post somewhere else! Unless you secretly like my topic.

reply to post by game over man


The one post you bring up is where I was kind of treating you like a child and giving you answers like I would to a kid.

You need proof.

Proof requires evidence.

Evidence requires looking

Looking requires an idea

And?
You assume I don't think about these things. Your questions don't really draw out long complicated answers.

As I said I am done, have fun.

the thread is too armature for you, then post somewhere else!

1. What does "thread is too armature"? even mean?
2. Once again having to repeat myself, I already said I was moving to other threads.

I will not respond to you anymore as it's pointless, so congratulations, you get the last word and (probable) dis on me.

Chamberf=6I just give up on the ever changing "what I actually meant" and "what I am actually looking for" ( why not just come out with in the first post?), rephrasing, rehashing, the back and forth between asking skeptic then unbelievers then skeptics, the assumptions, the lack of understanding why the OP was not "deep", the sudden change now of what the OP really meant, the unacceptance of concise answers (labeling them as those who "gave up") , etc.

The format you outlined works for a good percentage of ATS UFO threads.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


You obviously missed my post where people like you are worthless in alien/UFO debate. You didn't add in anything except for talk to me like a child.

game over man
You obviously missed my post where people like you are worthless in alien/UFO debate.

You mean like people who call their detractors worthless in a debate?

reply to post by conundrummer


Yes he logged in and posted in my thread to correct me. I asked is there really no evidence? I went over various points of alien life and alien contact and he continued to be a fool and even posted a meme. Good grief.