Mathematicians say it is likely alien probes have reached earth.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
The idea that from billions of stars with x-billions of planets life evolved only here...is rather absurd.

Well, there are singular things in the universe.(1) And since we have no idea how non-living material on Earth magically formed itself into something with a point-of-view, we really can't say that the more planets we have the better odds we have of something similar happening.(2) So far, the hard evidence indicates that we are the only game in town.(3) That could change tomorrow. Or not.

and someone like you would say you have a better grasp of reality than I do lol

1: how do you know there are "singular things in the universe"? and what the hell are you talking about?
2:I don't get why you would think that just because WE don't know how mechanisms work throughout the universe then it must not happen. that's like saying "if I don't know what that is or how it works it don't exist".
3: you're one of those "hard evidence" / "zero evidence" / "linear thinking" kinda people who have no ability to see the "subtle evidence" nor an ability to trust/listen to your intuition. it's ok the world needs bean counters too.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

that's because the real evidence is past your ability to perceive or think of it

a reply to: krash661

according to whom ?

if we are staying on topic, main stream science. Other "evidence" is subjective.

look into panspermia.

I would rather not.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
that's because the real evidence is past your ability to perceive or think of it

I do "believe" that life exists out there but there is no way to determine likeliness. I like to keep mathematical probability separate from beliefs. It comes in handy if you have a gambling problem.

deleted post,
strange occurrences.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: krash661

according to whom ?

if we are staying on topic, main stream science. Other "evidence" is subjective.

look into panspermia.

I would rather not.

the first comment is incorrect

as for the second comment,
exactly.
no effort to actually look into what is being the best evidence to this incorrect claim of this poster.
this speaks volumes.

a reply to: krash661

the first comment is incorrect

darn it.

as for the second comment,
exactly.

it was a joke

no effort to actually look into what is being the best evidence to this incorrect claim of this poster.
this speaks volumes

likewise, thanks for your efforts. Next.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

well before you believe something you have to perceive it don't you? you guys can't perceive it because you are unable. cling to your linear ways, and believe what you believe. don't worry about it.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

how in the world can you say something is extremely rare as if we know all the examples? considering the amount of Earthlike planets out there I'd say it is highly likely there are at least several thousand distinct species of sentient beings. The universe is most likely teeming with it.

If the evolution of intelligent life was a routine process in the development of life in general, it would have arisen many more times on Earth. Earth is the perfect host, therefore the perfect example, for intelligent life to develop. Why do you suspect it only happened once in over 4 billion years? Why did it happen once in billions of life forms? Why has every other life form that has ever existed, had the sole purpose of survival and continuation of their species? There's obviously no path in nature for the evolution of high intelligence. Earth is the example of that. We're a fluke in the evolutionary process.

Even with that said, intelligent life can arise on a planet. We are the example of that possibility too. But as I've said, we are also an example of how rare that possibility is and how probable basic life will be. We're also an example of how a single species could kill off an entire planet of life. Destroying the possibility of progression to a higher intelligence. Another hurdle to get past just within the context of survival of intelligence on a planet. Not even addressing the next step of a realistic possibility of light year space travel for that species.

We still have zero absolute evidence that intelligent life has visited Earth.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

We still have zero absolute evidence that intelligent life exists or has visited Earth.

Yes. We certainly lack any persuasive evidence that any "intelligent life" exists on earth!

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

well before you believe something you have to perceive it don't you?

Not necessarily. People believe in god for example.

you guys can't perceive it because you are unable.

what "guys" and honestly how in the world do you know what I do or don't perceive?

cling to your linear ways, and believe what you believe. don't worry about it.

Why does it bother you guys so much?

a reply to: bluestreak53
In time to edit that slip. But, come to think of it...

originally posted by: krash661

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

a reply to: bottleslingguy



when every sample we have contains no evidence of life outside our planet?

according to whom ?



also,

look into panspermia.

So, you think bacteria and viruses are "sentient?"

Harte

a reply to: Harte

i think ,at least, the last five pages is nothing but incorrect data/information.

originally posted by: krash661
a reply to: Harte

i think ,at least, the
last five pages is
nothing but incorrect data/information.

I am not really good at guessing. Please share your knowledge. We are all here to learn.
The Drake equation that you mentioned was discussed in detail already. Its historically not based on real numbers. Panspermia is a theory that, as far as I know, has not been proven and the evidence for it is inconclusive at best.
So we are still stuck with zeros. Almost, seems like, assumptions, and possibility don't do much to change a zero to a one.
So what ya got?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: krash661
a reply to: Harte

i think ,at least, the
last five pages is
nothing but incorrect data/information.

I am not really good at guessing. Please share your knowledge. We are all here to learn.
The Drake equation that you mentioned was discussed in detail already. Its historically not based on real numbers. Panspermia is a theory that, as far as I know, has not been proven and the evidence for it is inconclusive at best.
So we are still stuck with zeros. Almost, seems like, assumptions, and possibility don't do much to change a zero to a one.
So what ya got?

what you think you know is incorrect
simple.

i have read parts of this topic,
it's the usual focused , lack of understanding/knowledge arguing nonsense.
i'm not going to sit here and explain, when no one is seriously interested in learning,
but interested in arguing only.
and it's always from want to be intellects and/or scientists.
same nonsense on this site , like all other physics/science/fringe forums/sites.

a reply to: krash661

what you think you know is incorrect
simple.

you're in good company my friend. Unfortunately, I remain correct. I still have no idea what you are referring to and I suspect that I will not get much further.

i have read parts of this topic,
it's the usual focused , lack of understanding/knowledge arguing nonsense.
i'm not going to sit here and explain, when no one is seriously interested in learning,
but interested in arguing only.
and it's always from want to be intellects and/or scientists.
same nonsense on this site , like all other physics/science/fringe forums/sites.

your contribution has been very enlightening. Thank you for your sharing your insights. We are all the better for it. Thanks.

i think the key word is 'likely'

as for our knowledge of the universe, it's mechanics and possible other inhabitants?
our scientists have made great advances in looking and learning.

but as Wittgenstein said, "explanations come to an end somewhere"

a reply to: Ectoplasm8
we are a fluke because we aren't a part of the natural process. we were created out of synch with the rest of life artificially and that's why we don't fit in with our natural surroundings. why not?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

well before you believe something you have to perceive it don't you?

Not necessarily. People believe in god for example.

you guys can't perceive it because you are unable.

what "guys" and honestly how in the world do you know what I do or don't perceive?

cling to your linear ways, and believe what you believe. don't worry about it.

Why does it bother you guys so much?

and those people will also say they perceive God. not in your way but in a way very real to them.

"you guys" refers to you "zero evidence" people and you are unable to perceive the likelihood that things are very different from what you believe/perceive.

it doesn't bother me at all