It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We Are Babies: Why Any Aliens We Contact or Meet Are Likely to Be Very Advanced

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Given what scientist ascribe to, that we as a biosphere should not exist, or at the very least there are so many variables that had to be spot on for our planet to even begin to thrive. So given that thought how can we be the only ones to exist in this universe? We had to be scripted, programmed and nudged in the best possible situations for all of this existence to be possible.

For example a couple of truths:

How unlikely is it that our planet just happens to be the perfect distance from our sun? I know this reflects creationism, but how do we answer that?

Our atmosphere is perfect for us to breath, heavier in one element or another life would not be possible, just the amazing balance for beings to survive. Our magnetosphere protects us from the Sun's damaging rays, CME, solar wind etc. Is that just accidental?

We have everything we need on this Earth to support life. How did that happen? Amazingly perfect for us. So many unanswerable questions for sure, thanks for the thread.









posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TM62

Seven miles deep in the ocean next to a vent spewing superheated liquid smoke is just the perfect environment for some life.

Life is tenacious and adapts to any number of environments on just our planet alone. How does it happen that on our part of the planet everything is perfect for us? Because if it weren't we wouldn't be around to observe it. The ID/Creationism narrative puts the cart before the horse.

I think opinion is shifting to life springing up wherever conditions will allow. At this point we can't even rule out life elsewhere within our own solar system.
edit on 23-1-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

Evolution doesn't work on set timeframes. An earth could have existed for the longest time possible and only just evolved intelligent life (or none at all). Also, a younger earth could have evolved intelligence much faster than our earth. Looking at the age of our earth as a guideline for how advanced other intelligent species would be is flawed.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JadeStar

Evolution doesn't work on set timeframes. An earth could have existed for the longest time possible and only just evolved intelligent life (or none at all). Also, a younger earth could have evolved intelligence much faster than our earth. Looking at the age of our earth as a guideline for how advanced other intelligent species would be is flawed.


I have always found it interesting that for 3/4 (75%) of the history of life on earth (about 3 Billion of the 4 billion years life has been around), most of that life was not very complex. It wasn't until the final 25% of the history of life on earth (less than 1 billion years ago) that complex multi-celled organisms came into being.

What if multi-celled complex life on earth began earlier? What if it started much later? As you implied, we have no idea at what time frame Earth's complex life was "supposed to" evolve out of the more simply life before it. maybe it was later than average (the hypothetical average for all the life in the universe), or maybe it was earlier than that average.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TM62
For example a couple of truths:

How unlikely is it that our planet just happens to be the perfect distance from our sun? I know this reflects creationism, but how do we answer that?

Our atmosphere is perfect for us to breath, heavier in one element or another life would not be possible, just the amazing balance for beings to survive. Our magnetosphere protects us from the Sun's damaging rays, CME, solar wind etc. Is that just accidental?

We have everything we need on this Earth to support life. How did that happen? Amazingly perfect for us. So many unanswerable questions for sure, thanks for the thread.


Current life on earth evolved the way it did (liking the specific atmosphere we ha, and the specific day-night cycles we have, and able to resist/live with the amount of radiation we have) BECAUSE the current life on earth evolved on Earth under those conditions. i.e., life evolved to match the current conditions available; it didn't necessarily evolve because those conditions were right to do so.

For example, atmospheric conditions on Earth 2.5 billion years ago was quite toxic to the life on earth today. We humans and most other animals roaming the planet today would not be able to breath that atmosphere due to the lack of oxygen and the presence of toxic gasses. However, there was still life on Earth back then. That life evolved in that "toxic" atmosphere (toxic to us, but not to them), so it evolved to be able to thrive in those conditions.

If the Earth was different -- if it was colder, or hotter, or more radiation, or different day-night cycles, or had different atmospheric gasses, etc, there could still be life here -- even intelligent life. That life/intelligent life may be very different than us because of the different conditions, but that life could still exist and thrive, even under those different conditions.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
The lack of obvious signs that there are more advanced civilizations out there in the sky tends to suggest that it could be extremely rare for a civilization to advance enough to mitigate the vast distances (and stretches of time) of space.

If you look at humanity, we were explorers for a long time, but mostly driven by the need to find more resources. These days we're pretty much done physically exploring, and are quite happy to instead explore the unlimited inner realms of our minds rather than the immense coldness of space with drugs and simulations -- including the Internet. Very few of us feel a burning need to build huge spaceships so a few of us humans can physically fly around and try to find an Earth-like planet where they can have adventures. It's so much easier for us -- and more inclusive -- to just create artificial adventures that are fun and sexy and understandable that everybody can enjoy without having to fly through blackness for a thousand years.

So at some point, coming up soon, we're going to stop advancing. It's not too hard to imagine other civilizations doing the same.

Of course, it's folly to assume that other creatures would have the same kinds of motivations and emotions and desires that humans have. But that's all we have. And really all we care about. Our search for other civilizations is really about searching for civilizations and creatures like us. We can't deal with any other kinds, and they would only be either incomprehensible or terrifying to us.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: TM62

Seven miles deep in the ocean next to a vent spewing superheated liquid smoke is just the perfect environment for some life.

Life is tenacious and adapts to any number of environments on just our planet alone. How does it happen that on our part of the planet everything is perfect for us? Because if it weren't we wouldn't be around to observe it. The ID/Creationism narrative puts the cart before the horse.

I think opinion is shifting to life springing up wherever conditions will allow. At this point we can't even rule out life elsewhere within our own solar system.


Exactly the conditions must be met, it isn't so random for certain life forms I suppose. Thank you for clarification



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
We are all making certain assumptions about alien advancements and the speed of their advancements. There is no reason to assume that they advanced at the plodding or dramatic speed as our present civilization.
Politics and religion rear their ugly heads into the mess. You could have the smartest aliens restricted by many different methods. It could require a big fluke to let scientific advancement get past a few bottlenecks.
It's entirely possible we are so backwards the UFOs we see are just families out for a jaunt looking at the primitives. Just like uncontacted tribes in the wild wondering about the things that make smoke lines across the sky. They are presently beyond our comprehension. That should change positivity but for that we can only hope.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

Of course. However there doesn't appear to be anything remarkable about the pace at which we have developed. And in going with the Copernican way of thinking, we're probably average in our speed of development. Neither faster than normal nor slower than normal.


How could our own development possibly seem remarkable to us? All we have with which to compare it is that of the other species on our planet. In that respect, remarkable is an understatement.

What's "normal?" Is there a Universal standard established already?



It's a decent assumption to make because our Sun is an average star, our planet is pretty average as well.


Not to be antagonistic, but that doesn't seem like a decent assumption to me. It seems like an arbitrary one. We'd have to have alien races to compare and contrast, and know if their stars and planets are what you call "average" or not. Then we could determine if the size/age of the star has any bearing on intelligence. But that's the question raised by this thread.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   


It's a decent assumption to make because our Sun is an average star, our planet is pretty average as well.




The question is did we have an "average" amount of extinction events occuring, I'm thinking dinosaurs here.
There were an awful lot of chance occurences happening for us to be here.

Perhaps we should say intelligent life is rare, but not uncommon.

or is that oxymoronic?
edit on 24-1-2015 by korkythecat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
If an advanced alien race traveled to our planet and observed humans I think they must quickly come to the conclusion that we are primitive savages.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TM62
Given what scientist ascribe to, that we as a biosphere should not exist, or at the very least there are so many variables that had to be spot on for our planet to even begin to thrive. So given that thought how can we be the only ones to exist in this universe? We had to be scripted, programmed and nudged in the best possible situations for all of this existence to be possible.

For example a couple of truths:

How unlikely is it that our planet just happens to be the perfect distance from our sun? I know this reflects creationism, but how do we answer that?


We answered it with NASA's Kepler mission. That was its primary purpose which lead to this conclusion:




SEE: NASA - Odds are on Oodles of Earths

We are part of the lucky 22%


Our atmosphere is perfect for us to breath,


Because of plant life's emergence which generated oxygen. Our atmosphere wasn't always like this. Until 2.5 billion years ago you or I would have suffocated on Earth. Plant life created the oxygen so large animals like us could thrive.

In fact one of the ways we plan to detect life on other planets is to look for oxygen among other things because free oxygen doesn't like to hang out in a planetary atmosphere for long. It likes to hook up with other elements so if we find a large amount of free oxygen then there's a good chance some for of plant life exists on that planet.



heavier in one element or another life would not be possible, just the amazing balance for beings to survive. Our magnetosphere protects us from the Sun's damaging rays, CME, solar wind etc. Is that just accidental?


Not accidentally. It's chemistry and physics.



We have everything we need on this Earth to support life. How did that happen?


Its a process that took place over billions of years and as you can see from the chart in the original post, it most likely happened many times across many worlds long before our Sun and solar system formed.

On the cosmic calendar from Cosmos (where the entire history of the universe is compressed into 12 months) the first planets in our Milky Way formed in May. Our solar system didn't form until August. That leave a lot of time for other life to have developed way before w



Amazingly perfect for us.


It's not entirely perfect though, there are probably worlds even more habitable than the Earth.[/url]


So many unanswerable questions for sure,


They aren't unanswerable. That's what astrobiology is for, to learn more about the origins of life on Earth, its future and how prevalent life out there is.

A generation ago, just asking whether there were planets around other stars was considered "unanswerable" we now know that if we build the right instruments almost every question you posed is answerable. And as I showed one of them already has been answered.



thanks for the thread.


You're welcome



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JadeStar

Evolution doesn't work on set timeframes. An earth could have existed for the longest time possible and only just evolved intelligent life (or none at all). Also, a younger earth could have evolved intelligence much faster than our earth. Looking at the age of our earth as a guideline for how advanced other intelligent species would be is flawed.


It's not flawed at all.

We know how long it takes a planet to cool down from formation because we're watching those very things happen right now in the infrared.

We also know that life started on Earth as soon as the planet cooled but evolution is a SLOW process. There is no evidence that it can proceed much faster than it did on Earth. In fact on planets a bit more calm than the Early Earth it might actually take a little longer.

There is no evidence that the speed of evolution on Earth was anything but average so it's a decent assumption to make that it takes roughly the same time for chemicals to come together to form things like DNA because the laws of chemistry and physics are the same all over the universe.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JadeStar

Evolution doesn't work on set timeframes. An earth could have existed for the longest time possible and only just evolved intelligent life (or none at all). Also, a younger earth could have evolved intelligence much faster than our earth. Looking at the age of our earth as a guideline for how advanced other intelligent species would be is flawed.


I have always found it interesting that for 3/4 (75%) of the history of life on earth (about 3 Billion of the 4 billion years life has been around), most of that life was not very complex. It wasn't until the final 25% of the history of life on earth (less than 1 billion years ago) that complex multi-celled organisms came into being.

What if multi-celled complex life on earth began earlier? What if it started much later? As you implied, we have no idea at what time frame Earth's complex life was "supposed to" evolve out of the more simply life before it. maybe it was later than average (the hypothetical average for all the life in the universe), or maybe it was earlier than that average.


It couldn't have started much earlier because there had to be a certain amount of 'trial and error' by nature to eventually give us plant life around 2 billion years ago. Once the plants filled the atmosphere with oxygen then there was a new energy source available for life and multicellular life really exploded.

Could that trial and error have proceeded faster under different conditions. It's possible but very hard to imagine it would have proceeded at a clip 10 times what it was on Earth. And that's about the factor we're talking for it to really make a difference in terms of life beginning much earlier.
edit on 24-1-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: MoreInterior

originally posted by: JadeStar

Of course. However there doesn't appear to be anything remarkable about the pace at which we have developed. And in going with the Copernican way of thinking, we're probably average in our speed of development. Neither faster than normal nor slower than normal.


How could our own development possibly seem remarkable to us? All we have with which to compare it is that of the other species on our planet. In that respect, remarkable is an understatement.

What's "normal?" Is there a Universal standard established already?



Everything we've learned about the Earth and our place in the universe since the time of Copernicus has showed that there is nothing really that remarkable about our Sun (an average star, neither a giant nor a tiny dwarf), our planet (planets the size of the Earth are fairly common) and our capacity to support life (roughly 22% of planets around Sunlike stars are in similar positions as the Earth, not too hot, not too cold. When we extend that to dimmer M-class stars that percentage jumps to 48% or roughly half).

So while we don't know for sure whether the development on Earth is average all signs have been pointing to that probably being the case.





It's a decent assumption to make because our Sun is an average star, our planet is pretty average as well.


Not to be antagonistic, but that doesn't seem like a decent assumption to me. It seems like an arbitrary one. We'd have to have alien races to compare and contrast, and know if their stars and planets are what you call "average" or not. Then we could determine if the size/age of the star has any bearing on intelligence. But that's the question raised by this thread.


That's ok, I'd urge you to read Lineweaver's work as he explains it well. In absence of someone to compare ourselves to it makes sense thinking we are average rather than exceptional because everything about the environment which produced us looks fairly average.


edit on 24-1-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

These ideas are totally cool.

credentialed scientists of repute ridicule ANY chance that ufo sightings were objects from somewhere else.

kardeshev had ideas that fit in with your op. Higher levels of civilization and technology centurys ahead of us!!

Why are we like, sure dude, your ufo sighting was BS cos you were wrong. Its like on one hand nobody believes ufo reports and the other hand are saying civilizations will be "millions" of years advanced. i guess we can have one and not the other?? If one of those civilizations came a calling how would we know??



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: korkythecat




It's a decent assumption to make because our Sun is an average star, our planet is pretty average as well.




The question is did we have an "average" amount of extinction events occuring, I'm thinking dinosaurs here.
There were an awful lot of chance occurences happening for us to be here.


Great question!

We don't know!


However there are some who postulate that had the dinos not died out they might have evolved intelligence, there is some evidence to support this in species of dinosaurs called Saurornithoides and Troodons.






Perhaps we should say intelligent life is rare, but not uncommon.

or is that oxymoronic?


That not oxymoronic at all.

It's my 'hunch' as well. Simple life may be very common in our galaxy and universe but intelligent life may be rare. Still if intelligent life only evolves in one in a million worlds with life then that still leaves a Milky Way galaxy with around 10,000 intelligent species at any given time. (given a 500 million year life span) That would leave us with 1 intelligent species. for ever 1,000 light year sphere or 11 for every 2,000 light year sphere.


To put that in perspective, NASA's Kepler searched for planets in one direction out to a distance of about 3,000 light years. Were that search space a sphere (like NASA's TESS mission's 200 light year spherical field of view in 2017) rather than one direction then it would have possibly encompassed the homes of 39 intelligent species (including us).



Could intelligent life be rarer than 1-in a million? Sure. We don't know but that's what science is for, to try to answer that and other difficult questions.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: steamiron
a reply to: JadeStar

These ideas are totally cool.

credentialed scientists of repute ridicule ANY chance that ufo sightings were objects from somewhere else.

kardeshev had ideas that fit in with your op. Higher levels of civilization and technology centurys ahead of us!!


Good point about Kardashev. He thought of his system after looking at a similar fact, that a lot of stars in our galaxy were older than ours and that there were also galaxies beyond ours which as a whole are older than our Milky Way. He figured there may be those out there who reached our level billions of years ago and went on to try to quantify types of civilizations based on energy usage.



Why are we like, sure dude, your ufo sighting was BS cos you were wrong. Its like on one hand nobody believes ufo reports and the other hand are saying civilizations will be "millions" of years advanced. i guess we can have one and not the other?? If one of those civilizations came a calling how would we know??


Because UFOs in and of themselves do not appear to represent anything other than mistaken identity of things unfamiliar to the observer, stars, planets, satellites sometimes under unfamiliar circumstances/weather or aircraft (both open and secret) as well as outright hoaxes, and the like.

UFO simply means unidentified flying object. It doesn't mean alien spaceship.

I saw two UFOs myself. One of which turned out to be a rare weather phenomena known as sprites and another most likely was a secret high altitude plane or spacecraft operated by some earthly government.

Almost all UFOs end up becoming IFOs if enough data gets filled in. And this has been the case in study after study around the world by both governments and UFO groups. 90+ percent of UFOs are not mysterious at all. And of the remaining cases there usually isn't either enough data, high credibility or high strangeness.

If UFOs were mostly alien space craft we'd have a lot better evidence than what has been offered so far since 1947. Like I said, there are networks of wide angle cameras operated 24/7 which search the sky for meteors and in some cases near earth asteroids yet these UFOs which appear so brilliant to people do not show up on these cameras.

That tells us something about the UFO phenomena, it's probably more to do with something down here than out there.
edit on 24-1-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   
I was just watching an interesting doco on this stuff the other day with that annoying Prof. Brian Cox. He said you only need liquid water for life so any planet in the habitable zone orbit around a star could support life. As for intelligent life evolving we can only speculate about the possibility of what planetary conditions could allow intelligent life to evolve. According to the show there are billions of planets with liquid water in our galaxy and billions of other galaxies. So trillions of possibilities for intelligent life to evolve.

As for us on this planet we have evolved to suit the conditions on this planet so obviously we are well suited to it. The planet didn't evolve to suit us, it's the other way round. Life with some intelligence lives in a different environment than us under water such as whales and dolphins where we couldn't survive so the possibilities for life to exist and evolve may be quite a large range of conditions.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

Thanks for your reply



UFO simply means unidentified flying object. It doesn't mean alien spaceship.


true! and I wasn't saying they have to be "alien spaceships."


I was asking why people are encouraged to speculate about civilizations millions of years in advance of us and NOT allowed to speculate that some UFO reports might of been agents/technologys of that super-advanced civilization??



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join