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.

 

Bill Nye Talks Extraterrestrial Life: 'It's Gotta Exist'

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Bill Nye the Science Guy talks extraterrestrials on Huffington Post.


"It's gotta exist outside the solar system," he told host Josh Zepps. "I mean there's 200 billion stars in this galaxy alone. Then you start talking about the hundreds of billions of galaxies. Hundreds of billions of galaxies, which in turn have hundreds of billions of stars, which in turn have tens of hundreds of billions -- trillions -- of planets. Come on!"


www.huffingtonpost.com...

I agree and the fact that there's growing evidence for Panspermia supports this as well. Also, the universe was fine-tuned for life to exist. Life didn't have to find it's way through chance based on the constants of nature. The universe had to exist the way it exists based on these constants.





This is why I think subjective models of the universe offer the only explanation that's in line with the Scientific Evidence. In other words, the universe exists for life to experience it.

There isn't any demarcation line between object and the observer. It's like the universe came together for life to say,"The universe is vast and beautiful." Or to say,"The universe is 13.82 billion years old." What does that mean without life to give it meaning?

So the universe is filled with life both microbial and intelligent.

So far the evidence points to the universe being designed. The reason a lot of atheist who are Physicist accept the multiverse because they know there's no other explanation outside of a Designer.

You will have to have an ENORMOUS force that cancels out vacuum energy to the precise value of the cosmological constant and you will also need to show these values naturally occur. For instance, when you roll a pair of dice, it's not random. The outcome is random but what outcomes can occur aren't random. They're limited to the numbers put on the dice by the designer of the dice.

This is the universe. The math tells us that universes that arise are limited to these numbers and this is why they're so perplexed and you get things like the Vacuum Catastrophe.


In cosmology, the vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement of over 100 orders of magnitude between measured values of the vacuum energy density and the theoretical zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory. This discrepancy has been described as "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."[1]


en.wikipedia.org...

So Bill Nye, Hawking, Kaku and others are right. It's obvious based on current Scientific understanding life exists outside of earth which supports Ufology. They will come looking for us the same way we will go looking for them as technology increases and our search will not have to be wide ranging. We will start to pin point with more accuracy the planets we should explore for signs of life.

Imagine if the bright spots on Ceres is from a primitive civilization. If they see Dawn they would think it was a U.F.O. If we were to discover a primitive civilization there, would we disturb it or let them evolve while we monitor their evolution?




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I agree Well said brother.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I think that life will be quite ubiquitous, intelligent life, not so much.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Ironicly perhaps we don't even fall under the universal measure of intelligent.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
Ironicly perhaps we don't even fall under the universal measure of intelligent.


Either way, intelligence is obviously not the penultimate outcome of life devolping on a particular planet.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Judging from our history, as the only history we may; the arrow points one direction, given enough time intelligent life could be abundant, on the same token,it certainly is not the standard amongst the various kingdoms or even amongst our selves Lol. I don't disagree with you.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
The only thing I agree with in your op is that life has to exist elsewhere in the universe (probably even in the galaxy). Everything else, not so much. It's all circumstantial reasoning, but the reason that the first statement is true is because probability pretty much makes it a certainty. The fine tuning argument is just a poor argument that assumes the universe has a purpose despite no scientific evidence for a purpose exists. It also assumes that life is the pinnacle of achievement in the universe. This clearly isn't true, because intelligent life is better than life, and I'd reason that artificial life (the likely next step) will be better than natural intelligent life. And even then, there may be even BETTER things out there that we haven't discovered yet.

The fine tuning argument is just an arrogant argument derived from similar reasoning like the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. It's just a dinosaur leftover from humans mistakingly believing that they are more important in the universe than they really are.
edit on 27-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The only thing I agree with in your op is that life has to exist elsewhere in the universe (probably even in the galaxy). Everything else, not so much. It's all circumstantial reasoning, but the reason that the first statement is true is because probability pretty much makes it a certainty. The fine tuning argument is just a poor argument that assumes the universe has a purpose despite no scientific evidence for a purpose exists. It also assumes that life is the pinnacle of achievement in the universe. This clearly isn't true, because intelligent life is better than life, and I'd reason that artificial life (the likely next step) will be better than natural intelligent life. And even then, there may be even BETTER things out there that we haven't discovered yet.

The fine tuning argument is just an arrogant argument derived from similar reasoning like the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. It's just a dinosaur leftover from humans mistakingly believing that they are more important in the universe than they really are.


Well said



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I am just wondering what percentage really do not believe that there is another form of life in the universe?

As for the rest of the OP, who is to say what is right and wrong? I am one who believes that each individual (if you are still perceiving reality as a duality) has a different perception of the "universe" around us. We can speak in classical and "earth" terms when we talk about measurements to compare this to that but that does make it right.

We can limit our universe by limiting our perception but we would be foolish to believe in an absolute.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TechniXcality
Ironicly perhaps we don't even fall under the universal measure of intelligent.


Either way, intelligence is obviously not the penultimate outcome of life devolping on a particular planet.


Saying intelligent life "obviously" isn't penultimate is a bit short sighted, imo. Since it has been so far for life on our little rock, so why not in the rest of the universe.

Then again, everything is just speculation until we have the technology to efficiently observe the stars outside of our solar system. Until that time its a Schrödinger's cat scenario, anything is both possible and not possible.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You say the fine-tuning argument is a poor argument but you don't offer anything to rebut it. Do you understand what it means for the cosmological constant to be at one part in 10/120? Do you understand how far off this is from from predictions?

Predictions were off by 100 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!!!

This is the furthest thing from a poor argument. It's the only argument unless you can show me the scientific evidence that shows what cancels out this energy and that these values are something that occurs naturally.

This is tied to entropy, gravity, the strong nuclear force and more. When people say it's a poor argument they're just repeating James Randi or Richard Dawkins who said he doesn't understand the issue.

The fine-tuning of the universe supports design. You have to go outside of physics to avoid this and even then you run into troubles.


originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: neoholographic

I agree Well said brother.


Thanks!
edit on 27-5-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Saying intelligent life "obviously" isn't penultimate is a bit short sighted, imo. Since it has been so far for life on our little rock, so why not in the rest of the universe.


It has? Why did it take billions of years and only happen due to rather narrow enviornmental parameters?

Why did it not devlop previously and with much more frequency?

It is very obvious that it is not the goal otherwise we would not have needed all the various twists and turns that brought us to this point.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic


I agree and the fact that there's growing evidence for Panspermia supports this as well.


Care to point me in the direction of the evidenced, any, growing or not.

I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

The fallacys of that fine tuning video are a few but the largest one is that they kept saying "If this value was just slightly different, none of us would exist". Well it is absurd to assume that no life at all would exist with slightly altered constants.


That fine tuning video assumes that humans are center and epi-point of all life potencies. I couldn't even finish it. If I wasn't on my phone I would dissect it further for you.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: neoholographic


I agree and the fact that there's growing evidence for Panspermia supports this as well.


Care to point me in the direction of the evidenced, any, growing or not.

I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”


There's growing evidence in support of Panspermia with the discovery of the building blocks of life on comets, meteorites and more. Here's more.


19 May 1995: two scientists at Cal Poly showed that bacteria can survive without any metabolism for at least 25 million years; probably they are immortal.
+ 24 November 1995: The New York Times described bacteria that can survive radiation much stronger than any that Earth has ever experienced.
+ 7 August 1996: NASA announced fossilized evidence of ancient life in meteorite ALH 84001 from Mars.
+ 27 October 1996: geneticists showed evidence that many genes are much older than the fossil record would indicate. Subsequent studies have strengthened this finding.
+ 29 July 1997: a NASA scientist announced evidence of fossilized microscopic life forms in a meteorite not from any known planet.
+ Spring, 1998: a microfossil that was found in a meteorite and photographed in 1966, was recognized by a Russian microbiologist as a magnetotactic bacterium.
+ Fall, 1998: NASA's public position on life-from-space shifted dramatically.
+ 4 January 1999: NASA officially recognized the possibility that life on Earth comes from space.
+ 19 March 1999: NASA scientists announced that two more meteorites hold even stronger fossilized evidence for past life on Mars.
+ 26 April 2000: the German team operating the mass spectrometer on NASA's Stardust mission announced the detection of very large organic molecules in space. Nonbiological sources for organic molecules so large are not known.
+ 19 October 2000, a team of biologists and a geologist announced the revival of bacteria that are 250 million years old, strengthening that case that bacterial spores can be immortal.
+ 13 December 2000: a NASA team demonstrated that the magnetosomes in Mars meteorite ALH 84001 are biological.
+ June 2002: Geneticists reported evidence that the evolutionary step from chimps to humans was assisted by viruses.
+ 2 August 2004: Very convincing photos of fossilized cyanobacteria in a meteorite were reported by a NASA scientist.
+ 25 January 2005: J. Craig Venter endorses panspermia.
+ 10 May 2007: E. O. Wilson endorses panspermia.
+ 18 April 2008: Richard Dawkins endorses panspermia.
+ 7 April 2009: Stephen Hawking endorses panspermia.
+ 2 May 2009: Freeman Dyson speaks favorably about panspermia.
+ 3 March 2011: NASA's Richard Hoover publishes excellent images of microfossils in carbonaceous meteorites.
+ January 2013: A meteorite that fell, 29 December, in Sri Lanka, is seen to contain fossilized diatoms.


www.panspermia.org...



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Legman
a reply to: neoholographic

The fallacys of that fine tuning video are a few but the largest one is that they kept saying "If this value was just slightly different, none of us would exist". Well it is absurd to assume that no life at all would exist with slightly altered constants.


That fine tuning video assumes that humans are center and epi-point of all life potencies. I couldn't even finish it. If I wasn't on my phone I would dissect it further for you.


Show me the Scientific Evidence that supports your assertion. I would like to read the published paper. Show me where life exists with slightly altered constants.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Saying intelligent life "obviously" isn't penultimate is a bit short sighted, imo. Since it has been so far for life on our little rock, so why not in the rest of the universe.


It has? Why did it take billions of years and only happen due to rather narrow enviornmental parameters?


Well, the time involved and narrow parameters involved is just pure perspective, isn't it?


Why did it not devlop previously and with much more frequency?


Maybe our planet doesn't have the ideal conditions for intelligent life to form. There for had to struggle for it.


It is very obvious that it is not the goal otherwise we would not have needed all the various twists and turns that brought us to this point.


Again, I think that's just perspective. If we study the process of evolution, there is no reason not to assume intelligent life wasn't inevitable.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Legman
a reply to: neoholographic

The fallacys of that fine tuning video are a few but the largest one is that they kept saying "If this value was just slightly different, none of us would exist". Well it is absurd to assume that no life at all would exist with slightly altered constants.


That fine tuning video assumes that humans are center and epi-point of all life potencies. I couldn't even finish it. If I wasn't on my phone I would dissect it further for you.


Show me the Scientific Evidence that supports your assertion. I would like to read the published paper. Show me where life exists with slightly altered constants.


There is no such thing because it is "unknown". Which cuts both ways as it slays your fine tuning video. You cannot make assumptions based on something being impossible of it is merely unknown.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You say the fine-tuning argument is a poor argument but you don't offer anything to rebut it. Do you understand what it means for the cosmological constant to be at one part in 10/120? Do you understand how far off this is from from predictions?

Predictions were off by 100 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!!!

This is the furthest thing from a poor argument. It's the only argument unless you can show me the scientific evidence that shows what cancels out this energy and that these values are something that occurs naturally.

This is tied to entropy, gravity, the strong nuclear force and more. When people say it's a poor argument they're just repeating James Randi or Richard Dawkins who said he doesn't understand the issue.

The fine-tuning of the universe supports design. You have to go outside of physics to avoid this and even then you run into troubles.


Refute it? I DID refute it. But here, let's try again. The fine tuning argument is the equivalent of looking at a tree diagram of different possibilities then following the one set of branches that actually happened to the present and determining what all the accumulated probabilities were to get to that point. But such a look pretends like THAT path was predestined. There is no argument that can be made or evidence put forth to show that path is predestined. Yes, the odds that all those things aligning as they did to produce us as the result is rather unlikely, but all that means is if things happened differently than the result would just be a different product.

That is just refuting it logically. There are other hints out there that the universe wasn't fine tuned. Namely that the universe is wildly inefficient, and it doesn't work to achieve efficiency in the most efficient manner either. For instance, evolution is the process where life takes a previous creation, builds on it with mutations and the most efficient mutation for the environment lives on. However that doesn't mean it is the most efficient way to do things. Meanwhile, when humans use directed breeding for things like dog breeding, we can target genes easier and make sure the ones we want to carry on, carry on. Directed evolution is MUCH more obvious than the evolution we witness in nature.
edit on 27-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why would an intelligently designed set of physical laws necessitate a purpose?

For what purpose does a child build a sandcastle?

For what purpose does an artist paint a picture?

How does that concept imply anything about life?

By what attributes do you conclude that humans are 'better' than the rest of the animals on this planet?

I'm inclined to argue the opposite point on that particular statement. Based solely on physical and mental abilities I would simply label us as different. The tendency of humans to consider themselves 'better', to me, makes us the lowest of the low.

Now, please tell me again who has the Earth-centric view?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join