Well like many who posted before me, I'll state that the Math speaks for itself.
Also, I'd like to add Jedimiller, that while 'life' has not been officially detected, the necessary requirements for life have been detected on
Even in our own Solar System, life as we know it is possible on Europa (moon of Jupiter) and seems to be indicated by the staining that is apparent on
the surface (found in the cracks in the surface ice). As someone who works with Algae a lot (I'm working with 'Chlamy' now
) I certainly feel
that the photosynthetic (appearing) staining most likely represents Algae, or another form of bacteria that resembles Algae.
Now, certainly, it has yet to be confirmed by us travelling to Europa, landing, and studying a sample of the stuff.
But to be perfectly honest, I've yet to read an alternate explanation for this staining that I find plausible. A Prioi predictions (not only mine,
but of other Scientists studying Europa) seem to indicate that what we're seeing on the moon's surface could be life. The tidal heating of the
planet (gravity induced as a result of the proximity of Jupiter and the other Gallilean moons) create a situation where the Moon may well in fact have
a liquid water ocean under the surface ice. The cracks (and on high resolution images the 'fresh ice' that has moved up as a liquid into the cracks
and frozen there, indicate that this is a strong possibility. Also, the 'weight' of the planet (as determined by NASA) really only makes sense if
we're looking at a frozen body with an internal liquid ocean (some say it's at least 60 miles deep, that's higher than the official 'border' of
space from the surface of the Earth, and plenty of room for life to take hold).
Aside from actually observations, and the Math based upon what we know of the Universe around us, there are 2 additional reasons I personally am a
proponent for the theory that Aliens exist (please note that there is no 'belief' stated in my conclusions).
1) The Battle of Los Angeles, and similar cases.
There is ample evidence to suggest (in many cases, but the BOLA serves as a well researched example) that craft built somewhere besides Earth has
visited our planet. In the BOLA case for example, the object in questions clearly displayed qualities not observed in Human built craft, even modern
day craft. In the 1940's this technology was surely WELL beyond the capacity of Humans to create. Further, if the object in question WAS a Human
built craft, why in the 60+ years since the event have we not been informed of this craft's existence? Why was the craft not utilized during WW2?
Or in ANY War since? This is clear evidence of a visit from something 'not of this world', as the evidence stands to date.
There are many other cases with tangible evidence. Phobos 2 comes to mind, among many other cases.
2) Personal sightings.
I have seen, firsthand, objects in the skies of Earth (all over North America, from coast to coast and from North to South) that behave in ways modern
Aircraft cannot behave.
Also, and this I find highly interesting, I find people argue against the possibility of Alien Life without any grounds to stand on.
People like myself (true proponents who have studied the phenomenon in depth) will be able to cite a list like I did above.
The pseudo skeptic will argue against the possibility simply because that person has not personally witnessed the phenomenon.
The true skeptic will not make a determination until there is evidence enough to make a strong case. I feel personally that there is evidence to make
the case for Life out there. I feel also that it is impossible to prove a negative (such as life doesn't exist outside of Earth).
Frankly, anyone willing to live under the assumption that Earth is the sole source of life in the Universe, is necessarily ignoring the fact that
Humans have never personally investigated even 1 world other than Earth. One only needs to understand the History of Mars (and the high likelyhood of
finding fossilized organisms in the soil that where once alive) to be able to reserve definitive judgement ruling out the possibility of life, at
least until Humans have set foot on Mars and collected soil samples.
The oppostition to life outside of Earth truly has nothing but ignorance (sometimes willful ignorance) as a defense.
We must remember at all times, that either way right now it's just a theory.
Theory 1 - There is life outside of Earth
Theory 2 - There is not life outside of Earth
Absence of Evidence does not translate into Evidence of Absence, ESPECIALLY when we've not even physically explored even 1 other world for ourselves.
Frankly, the evidence isn't in, so there isn't really an absence of Evidence other than the fact that we have yet to study the situation firsthand
and observe evidence.
Looking at the science, the math, and the visual indications of life (Europa is just one example) I find it foolish to become a proponent of the
Second Theory. The first theory looks MUCH more likely to be true, given what we know at this point in our evolution.
After typing about it in depth here, I'm actually wondering what the case is for Theory 2? How about it proponents of the negative? Care to
describe what evidence leads you to your determination?