New published study concludes: Yes, There Have Been Aliens!

a reply to: Outrageo

I have no doubt there have been and are still Aliens in the Universe and Galaxy , as we discover more about the great unknown we discover more evidence that our Solar System is not unique and the conditions that led to the emergence of us are replicated out there.

Just yesterday a report was published by ESO on the discovery of an organic molecule methyl alcohol discovered for the first time in a planet forming disk around a Star much like our Sun.

The organic molecule methyl alcohol (methanol) has been found in the TW Hydrae protoplanetary disc. This is the first such detection of the compound in a young planet-forming disc. Its detection helps astronomers understand the chemical processes that occur during the formation of planetary systems and that ultimately lead to the creation of the ingredients for life.
www.eso.org...

The only question I have is have they ever been here.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: intrptr
The recently taken Newer Hubble Deep Field kind of alters Drakes equation, too. We can see that galaxies go as far as we can see in every direction. I'd be a fool to think the Universe isn't infinite, or had basically forever for life to spread literally everywhere…

Hubble sees a Legion of Galaxies

Wouldn't it be amazing if we could focus on a small dark patch of the Deep Field photo you linked to and find that it too contains thousands of even more distant galaxies! (I'd then start to think that we're in a mirrored hologram, or something.)

The problem with 'mirrored holograms' (looking back at ourselves) is that the image would be skewed, like a fun house mirror. Its not, Hubble reveals how perfectly focused these distant realms are.

I wish we could see further, too. If we put a Hubble on a planet in the furthest visible Galaxy in these images and looked even further in the same direction, we'd see more of the same, imo.

Edit: Btw, I like your way of thinking. Imagining whats further, always reaching past the limits placed in our minds.

It's impossible to refute a theory that has no objective evidence and no possible way to obtain objective evidence.

Of all the grains of sand on the earth, at least one must be alive and intelligent. Good luck proving me wrong.

a reply to: jjkenobi

How can you not say that a quartz crystal isn't alive? It grows and grows taking moisture and nutrients from its surroundings growing into a quartz rock. It may be a form of life that we don't recognize. Of course, its still a rock...

a reply to: [post=20862660]visitedbythem

Obama may very well be the AntiChrist. He is behaving like it so far/

What is he bombing abortion clinics or maybe he's rounding up Christians?
Correct me if I'm wrong but most laws are initiated by reps that people vote in.
Or is he governing by executive order?
What happened to the process of impeachment -

Do tell of some AntiChrist behaviours
This should be good

The scriptures talk of many types of aliens, some that look human and many that do not

and also destructive angels that look like animals (Revelations) LOL

a reply to: BO XIAN

You are 100% correct this time.

Every great once in a while, it IS correct to say that there is a religion of scientistm,
and this is one of the best examples.

Starred.

a reply to: Outrageo

With regard to whether technological civilizations can survive their own existence for more than a thousand years, how are they assuming that just because the human species is a irresponsible trainwreck of an animal, that ALL civilizations would be?

Sounds like more of the "if we can't do it, no one can" argument against intelligent alien life.

Our "technology" is only a couple hundred years old at best and we're lucky it's as good as it is, being primarily a war ape culture barely out of the jungle.

Our tendencies to slaughter one another aren't necessarily a universal thing.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I've NEVER found God Yehovah the least bit boring, myself.

Especially when "it" changes its mind so many times in the OT - genocides whole races and gives Israel virgin sex slaves - and then magically repents gives a pre-existing (extra-biblical-trinity) redeemer only to practise old world human sacrifice and blood redemption , by killing "its" (jehovahs) own flesh and blood, meanwhile promising a blissful after life singing hosannas.

Yep! Harry Potter at least is more consistent

Why are you trolliing - I thought this was about Aliens, Drake and technology - who invited faith/dogma into the discussion?

a reply to: uncommitted

Having said that, a termite or ant colony is arguably representative of a civilisation, so who knows

Having said that? No, no, no!

ants build colonies

only humans build.....civilizations

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

The stage of human social development and organization which is considered most advanced

a reply to: Urantia1111

Our "technology" is only a couple hundred years old at best

Wrong, more like thousands of years old - at least know what the word means before making "bold statements"

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: intrptr
The recently taken Newer Hubble Deep Field kind of alters Drakes equation, too. We can see that galaxies go as far as we can see in every direction. I'd be a fool to think the Universe isn't infinite, or had basically forever for life to spread literally everywhere…

Hubble sees a Legion of Galaxies

Wouldn't it be amazing if we could focus on a small dark patch of the Deep Field photo you linked to and find that it too contains thousands of even more distant galaxies! (I'd then start to think that we're in a mirrored hologram, or something.)

The problem with 'mirrored holograms' (looking back at ourselves) is that the image would be skewed, like a fun house mirror. Its not, Hubble reveals how perfectly focused these distant realms are.

I wish we could see further, too. If we put a Hubble on a planet in the furthest visible Galaxy in these images and looked even further in the same direction, we'd see more of the same, imo.

Edit: Btw, I like your way of thinking. Imagining whats further, always reaching past the limits placed in our minds.

That skewed-image thought had crossed my mind before posting about the potential of our living inside a hologram. Whatever the case, Hubble reveals magnificent construction far beyond my comprehension. It makes me wonder what all is out there that we can't see or sense. If nothing else, deep space images from Hubble should humble mankind's ego.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

By your response then, any ET life couldn't create a civilisation, but that's your opinion.

originally posted by: Outrageo
Are we all destined to wipe ourselves out with our own greed, malevolence, selfishness, or inability to control or contain the powers that we ourselves create?

I'll repeat it.

We're not going to destroy ourselves because we're "bad." We're going to destroy ourselves because we love and fight for our loved ones by attacking death and famine and disease and danger so much that it fills our planet with too many people and claws the resources from our planet. We'll be destroyed because we're clever enough to cure cancer and create artificial superintelligences, but not clever enough to figure out what to do with all of our loved ones that we saved.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Urantia1111

Our "technology" is only a couple hundred years old at best

Wrong, more like thousands of years old - at least know what the word means before making "bold statements"

No.

I don't consider anything earlier than the steam engine to be technology.

If you want to count sharpened sticks and stones tools, I suppose technically you're correct.

Certainly nothing that would contribute to space travel.

Like it or not, we're still in our infancy as a civilization.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Kandinsky

Personally,

I like reigning Dean of Ufology Stanton Friedman's vigorous shredding of the Drake equation as an absurd exercise in irrational silliness.

imho, it is a brazen exercise in FAITH . . . more or less FAITH in the Religion of Scientism

If you want to be accurate, it is an exercise in faith in statistics.
Drake's equation doesn't purport to establish the existence of anything, only the probability of existence of that thing.
I understand any reluctance to accept probability as actuality too. But that's not what this is, except (of course) in media reports of it, which are meant to generate headlines that sell media or provide internet hits.

Harte

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Thanks for your kind perceptiveness and words.

I'm about to post a 'sensibilities jangling' additional thread on the corruption behind scientific studies.

Stand by for 'exploding heads!'

The RELIGIOUS VIGOR triggered by such facts is still a bit incredible, to me.

More incredible is the utter lack of personal insight into their own RELIGIOUS level emotional sensibilities about things in science which essentially require a fierce RELIGIOUS FAITH to hold to so intensely.

Cheers.

a reply to: Harte

My Dissertation was rife with complex and simple statistics.

I'd hope anyone writing about statistics would be aware of the logic and mathematical rigor involved.

The DRAKE EQUATION

CANNOT

say anything sensible

about

PROBABILITIES

because

TOO MANY of the components are ABSOLUTELY OFF THE WALL BARE ARSED GUESSES!

BRAZENLY GUESSING, fantasy picking numbers out of thin air

IS

NOT STATISTICS.

It is not remotely anything sensible about probabilities or any other aspect of statistics.

However, I thank you for providing such a vivid image of THE RELIGION OF SCIENTISM AT WORK.

Sigh.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Shouting in red font and bold text has never won an argument. Otherwise we'd print Bibles in bright red caps and settle the conflict between religions in one easy step.

Peace treaties would be printed on giant pages in red text and we'd end all wars.

Children's crayon Christmas present lists would become legally binding

In reality, an argument is only useful when it's reasonable and no amount of colour and font sizes will ever change that fact.

The precise DRAKE TAKE A GUESS EQUATION
Rather hear a cat scream than read those words .

The issue I had with this article when I read it on Sunday was that it implies that intelligence is somehow part of the natural evolutionary process. I think we are a bit of a fluke in that regard and life can successfully evolve for hundreds of millions of years without the requirement of developing intelligent life.