It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# E.T Skeptic. Looking For Other Views

page: 1
5
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:15 PM
Hey friends here at the Aliens and UFO board. I hardly venture this way, only because I don't believe in aliens. As some or maybe none of you know, I am a huge believer in the Paranormal, Cryptozoology, and other things out of this world. However, aliens just do not seem to get through my head. I suppose I am looking for evidence to sway my mind or open it more. Here is some evidence that is brought up by ET Supporters:

1) The Drake Equation
2) The Probability of Life
3) Different types of evolved Life Forms

Its only two, because I could list more, but I am half asleep and half awake. But I still have issues. They seem like solid evidence, for instance the Drake Equation states:

Well first of all:

The equation is,

N = ( R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc) x L

Each part of the equation comprised either a number or a factor and during the conference the team of scientists discussed each term in detail and made their best estimate of its value. The individual terms were then placed within the Drake equation to evaluate the number, N, of civilisations with whom we might communicate:...............

For example, let us suppose that such a civilisation comes into being about every 10,000 years. If such civilisations attempt to make contact with others for 1,000,000 years on average, then we would expect there to be around 100 in our galaxy from whom we might possibly detect signals.

How accurate is the current estimate of N?

The problem is that while some of the factors involved in the evaluation of Rcc are reasonably well known, we can only make educated guesses for others. Neither do we have any real idea of the typical value for L (More on L), so our final estimate for N is not expected to be accurate.

In fact it has been said that the Drake Equation is a way of encapsulating a lot of ignorance in a small space! Evaluations of N in the early days of SETI were probably on the optimistic side with values of up to 1,000,000 considered possible.

Some now say that intelligent civilisations will arise only rarely and thus that we might be the only one existing in our Galaxy at the present time. The true answer will no doubt lie somewhere in between and the SETI projects could perhaps be regarded as an experimental way of finding the answer of how often advanced civilisations arise.

The Drake Equation

A lot of people base there belief on this equation yet, according to recent findings:

The integers that are plugged into this equation are often subject to wide interpretation and can differ significantly from scientist to scientist. Even the slightest change can result in vastly different answers. Part of the problem is that our understanding of cosmology and astrobiology is rapidly changing and there is often very little consensus among specialists as to what the variables might be.

So if there is not a general understanding between scientist, how is this at any level or measure accurate. It just does not make sense.

Another major problem of the Drake Equation is that it does not account for two rather important variables: cosmological developmental phases and time

Again, since the equation does not seem to grow with science, rather its stuck in the past, has many different meanings and understandings between scientists. Time is highly important to any study, because everything changes with time and the cosmos certainly change over the spand of a few years. If anything the Drake equation is now a bust and a failed attempt to prove that life is on other planets or in other galaxies.
The Drake Equation Bust

And as I stated before the probability of Life is also used. Alien supporters often state that since we are here that means other life forms must be somewhere else as well. I mean its only logic correct? Well, when we disect what it takes for life to be here I come to this issue:

The simpliest form of life, scientist all agree, that was some sort of basic cell, most likely baterium, without a nucleus. But even the most basic cell needs to have the major components to function, DNA Molecules and amino acids. The DNA holds the nucleotides and the Amino Acids are the proteins. So if the first cell of life is going to start on another planet, what are the odds of this happening? Lets examine some more of what cells need to live and there structure:

- Chirality for example- Nucleotides in the DNA, base pairs must be the same orientation- left handed or right handed. All the amino acids in the DNA chain must be of the same orientaion, or it simply does not work. Therefore, if the chirality is not correct, the cell does not even start to function and does not even come into existence.

The very simplest bacteria that science can imagine will have approximatly: 100,000 nucleotides (however, science has never seen it before, but thats what they feel it will need to at least live). However, the smallest bacteria that science has seen and knows of is 500,000. And 10,000 amino acids, is the smallest amino acid that science knows of.

So simply put the cell would need a minimum of 100,000 nucleotides.
10,000 amino acids.
Add them up and we get 110,000. Now we have a 50% chance that the cell starts and a 50% chance that it does not. What are the odds? (using simple statistics 0.5x0.5
110,000 times) 0.5 to the power of 110,000 in base 10 equals the following: 1 in 10 to the power of 33,113. And the odds come out to 10 to the power of 33,113 for the odds of a Random Chirality Probability. A huge impossibility. Let me put this in some sort of perspective.

1 in 10 to the power of 33,113 is the same as winning 4700 state
lotteries in a row with only one ticket for each!

Another problem is the life specific amino acids- odds of this happening by chance- 10 to the power of 6,021. Correct Amino Acids in the right place one chance in 10 to the power of 13,010. Correct Genetic material placement: 1 chance in 10 to the power of 60,155.

So lets review:

1) Chirality= 10 to the power of 33,113
2) Life Specific Amino Acids= 10 to the power of 6,021
3) Correct Amino ACid placement= 10 to the power of 13,010
4) Correct Genetic Material= 10 to the power of 60,155
5) And most importantly, gene placement, correct gene placement= 10 to the power of 528

Add it up it comes to the total of 10 to the power of 112,827 and worst of all its 1 out 10 to the 112,827. 1 !!!!

1 in 10 to the power of 112,827 is the same as winning 16,119 state lotteries in a row with only one winning ticket.

Check out this probability.

This is like taking any selected electron. And I mean ANY, from the Universe, person, star, planets, galaxies, everyhing and anything. Now if you were to somehow lay that out on a table and have all those electrons just laid out before you all mixed up and such. You can choose one electron and have it hidden anywhere on the table. You have a better chance of picking that one electron than life starting on its own or life being on another planet. But wait its not over yet!

You have a better chance at picking that one electron 1,376 time in a ROW! And remember that is just for one cell, and all of this needs to be correct, just to get one dead cell.

And then I often here that Life can arise through different properties of life. I also have a problem with this.

For instance. Mirror based life, Arcenic Life, and Silicon life.

Now mirror based life is just like us, accept opposite amino acids. Thats easy to understand and put forth, however, that life would need similar conditions that we have on earth.

The only stumbling block to the idea is that arsenic-based DNA tends to break down quickly. "You don't want to build your DNA out of a compound with a half-life in the order of a couple of minutes," points out Steve Benner of the Foundation For Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Florida. Benner is a brilliant man. Highly intelligent. However, he points out that it could be a good thing in extreme cold, where chemical reactions move very slowly.

But how much cold can sustain life?

However, silicon is less abundant in the universe and its structures are much less stable and much more reactive than carbon's, particularly in the presence of oxygen where it produces a solid

Less abundent? Less stable? And much more reactive and oxygen is needed for ALL life, therefore if the silicon theory means solidifying the host, death is almost certain.

Back to the cold temperatures needed for the 2 life theories:

If water existed (on mars), it would have been locked up as ice. As a result, the formation and evolution of life forms would have been exceedingly difficult.

But if any of the life existed with these type of genetic and life forms a huge problem occurs to the Contact scenario. A big problem:

If these life forms were to come to earth, simply put, they would DIE. Arcenic needs Extreme cold to even be considered, but not to cold as to kill the life forms. Silicon needs so many things that it is almost impossible to think that they would even be alive.

I suppose I am looking for evidence on the contrary. I have not seen anything that screams ALIEN! But I have seen things that scream UFO! But UFO's to me are simply Top Secret Government Programs. It makes sense, it really does. Many people ask how can you not believe in aliens..lol.. they are shocked that, me, a person who believes in the far out does not believe in Aliens. I am not really sure why I don't, I just don't see the Possibility.

So help me out ET Support.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by TheMythLives

What kind of views? Are you looking to be persuaded that aliens exist somewhere in the infinite Universe or multiverse?

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

I think any evidence at all it will do or suffice.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:34 PM
I don't think you really need evidence to say whether or not aliens exist. The law of probability alone says they do.

When there are billions and billions of stars/possible planets that we can see, but not even get close to in order to examine, what are the odds that we're the special ones?

Plus, we are relatively young in the eyes of the cosmos. It's kind of like a baby being born in Africa and wondering if he/she is the only one in the world.

Now, if you want to know whether or not they visit Earth, or even know we are here, well that would require proof.

But to think that out of the trillion plus "things" in the universe could only yield one planet with life....to me makes no sense.

Just my thoughts.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by lpowell0627

Thanks for your views, I also stated the law of probability in my OP. And why it just does not seem to work for me. But hey, I appreciate your views mate!
Good to know where you stand.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:38 PM
Hello again.
It would seem statistically possible that life exists elsewhere other than Earth, but augment those statistics with something else and you have a real chance.
Modern human beings have only been around for "allegedly" 2 million years.
That being said, imagine within trillions of years of time the universe has been around, that at least one other alien species did in fact evolve and become advanced enough to leave their own planet. Not just that they left, but they decided to spread life around. That would up the odds a bit. Not saying that that happened, but it's fun to think about.

Another possibility, is that for the several hundred million years that Reptiles roamed the earth, not one of them developed into advanced intelligent life?
Again, we have been around for a few million years and look at us. Perhaps we only took over what they left behind.
Again, purely speculative.

The point is, despite our sincerest efforts to understand how life could exist elsewhere, there are always variables that we do not grasp. Humans have only been at this for the past 100 -150 years. We still have a lot to discover about ourselves, let alone, extra-terrestrial life.

Listen to what the collective of intelligences have to say, or draw your own conclusion.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by reticledc

Hey mate, I appreciate your kind words as well. The probability is a BIG argument. I respect that view, but I guess I just need more than that. Which maybe impossible to recieve.... I respect your opinions mate and I liked the way you layed them out, excellent.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by TheMythLives

oh no, the old ...convince me routine

UFO's to me are simply Top Secret Government Programs

i am sure that could explain alot but , until you have a close encounter like i did (don't ask for details) , you might not ever be convinced. i think that's normal and to be expected from most people.

this video might help you to understand that not all UFO's are secret goverment projects...

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by TheMythLives

Thank you. Always a pleasure.
Personally, I have at times believed, and at times not.
I guess I am still on the fence, but I would say I am leaning more towards the likelihood of existance than not.
I have had had a few experiences just as "easynow say so, but I still don't know what to make of it.
I don't think the world would mind either way though.

Personally, I don't think we are ready as a species yet, despite my sincerest interest in knowing personally.

A quote come to mind.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:16 PM
reply to post by TheMythLives

Well I will simply say this:

There are an estimated 27 sextillion stars in the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, that is a 27 followed by 21 zeros. The Universe is thought to be INFINITE, so there is constantly stars being formed, stars then accreted planets and so on. We have found over 350 exosolar planets so far with our primitive observational techniques. If you take that KNOWN EXOPLANET NUMBER alone and do some math you will see that it is 99.9% likely that nearly every star has a planetary system, celestial mechanics dictate this. So now let us take into account the very promising theories that we exist actually in a multiverse in a hyperspace of multiple,near infinite separate universes. In each universe there is infinite alternate realities as described by quantum mechanics. So if one takes all that into account (minus the UNREAL NUMBER of legitimate eyewitness, trace, radar accounts of unknown craft and beings) then the odds dictate that there MUST be other forms of life, in mathematics, especially statistics, really any form, if you have an infinite sized system then you will HAVE to have infinite variables, in this case that is life. Simple put, if the universe is infinite and there is an infinite number of seperate universes existing in the Bulk then there MUST be other forms of life, the odds and laws of mathematics dictate this reality. So at the least there is at least more than one intelligent life form created (at the most conservative) at some point in a universes or multiverse infinite existence. In fact that is not true, I am trying to disregard the math to be honest. If the universe is infinite than, including the odds against life, there must still be 1,000s of intelligent species spread out in the over 150,000,000 lightyear across (and expanding) universe, the infinite possible realities, and the near infinite separate universes being created in hyperspace.

I hope I did not confuse you to much blending in quantum physics, cosmology, and math. But that is the clincher for the existence of alien life SOMEWHERE in the Universe. Now are they visiting us? Well that is a whole other ballgame my friend.

[edit on 6/25/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:18 PM
reply to post by easynow

Well I mean, of course the U.S is not the only ones with UFO's. Seriously, nearly all the Countries have their own UFO's. Especially, if they are Spy planes or crafts which they are not going to be known by the government in which the spying is being done to. The Nazi's themselves were working on "UFO" technology and magnetic systems and air systems. And why do the aliens have to be aliens? Seriously, lets think about this. NASA has used animal astronaughts? Correct. So why would we not use genetically modify animals or a gentically engineered being that can have the intelligence to perform or operate the ship? I suppose to me there are more possibilities against, then there are for. And more possibilities for something else, then alien.

Also lets get a little a deeper. Aliens can also be used as a psychological weapon. My Cousin who has his masters in psychology wrote apaper for his Psych class in which he observed the affects of monsters in the human psyche and the affects on aliens in the human psyche. He got over 30 volunateers, mostly college students or his peers. And conducted an interview with each. The human psyche linked Aliens to monsters and linked Aliens to be a possible hostage situation type of deal. Holding the alien theory above the peoples heads will get them to dig for "evidnece" when no evidence is actually there. You create false evidnece and have them find that false evidnece, so they continue to search. Along the way your going to get people who will start to say that they were abducted, or that they witness to alien beings. All from one psychological trigger that stays in the back of the humans mind. That trigger is simple: We do not want to be alone, hence some of us will create a generally reality consuming the entire human world in which we need something to be their.

The ramifications of this are huge and fragile to a human psyche. I have theories for abductions and other things. And then I don't have theories at all, but questions. The human psyche is a greater monster than what we would like to think. Perhaps this is why I don't believe in aliens, because my psychological state does not know how to grasp the idea, but then again.....

You see where I ma going with this?

I respect your views, all I ask is that you respect mine, while showing evidence for yours.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by lpowell0627
I don't think you really need evidence to say whether or not aliens exist. The law of probability alone says they do.

Not so. Since we have absolutely no idea how life came to be in this universe, we have no idea how probable it is. If you know how a bunch of random chemicals magically formed itself into a living thing with a point of view, there are a lot people around who would like you to explain it.

As it is, life might be as common as stars, or it might be such an improbable fluke that in all the history of the universe, it only happened once (so far, at least), here on Earth. So far, we haven't found any solid proof of life anywhere but here. The same chemicals we're made of? Sure. But a batch of chemicals isn't the same thing as life.

As for other universes, that's all speculation until we find one. And even then, there are such things as singular events. Things that happen only once and never again. Life, on Earth, might be one of those things.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Nohup]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

I like that..lol.. But I still have issues with life itself starting as I stated in my OP. I suppose, I will just need to see it to believe it. But hey you definately gave me stuff to think about and I appreciate that.
Definately makes you consider, the possibility, but for me I need the probability... You did not lose me, I love quantum mechanics, which works along side with quantum physics. However, the universe as infinite? I am not sure about that either. After all if it had a beginning it has an end. For instance the Big Bnag Theory states that all matter was distibuted across the cosmos. Yet we see that the universe is expanding, if it was infinite it would not need to expand, because it would already be expanded. Unless, the expanding is the molding to other universes and the overlapping of altenrtaive areas? Interesting, you got me thinking Krog.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:27 PM
reply to post by TheMythLives

ok, i had a long drawn out reply for you but i decided to make it just a brief reply because there is , no proof that i know of that is available to the public that will prove to you that E.T.'s are visiting this planet. so why should i post any evidence when it will not be proof ? i could present a truckload of evidence but it will do no good. as i mentioned in my first post, most people are not going to believe unless they experience it themselves. if i did not have the encounter i did, i would be in your shoes. not knowing and having doubt about all evidence presented.

any rational thinking person is not going to accept circumstantial evidence as proof. there is nothing wrong with that, like i said before....it should be expected. however.... in my opinion any rational thinking person that has studied this subject and is aware of the evidence from the Sumerian culture, and accounts recorded in Biblical text and the centuries of UFO accounts would most certainly agree that not all UFO's are man made objects or just weather phenomena. the evidence is there, the proof is not.

bottom line is:

personal experience is the ultimate proof and until you have that experience you and many others will continue to have doubts.

I respect your views, all I ask is that you respect mine, while showing evidence for yours

oh i do respect your views, more than you might realize. i did present some evidence (the video i posted) but you obviously didn't even watch it and reply'd back to me saying to show evidence. how are you respecting my views if you won't even take the time to look at the video ?

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by easynow

how are you respecting my views if you won't even take the time to look at the video ?

Anyway, I suppose that each of us here has our own perception of things. Unfortunately, none of us hold the "truth"... yet.....

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:56 PM
"Truth" my friend, is a matter of perspective, as well as perception.

What I believe to be truth, may not work for you. Even as the truth stares you in the face, you may not see it. I also may not be able to comprehend that the so called "truth" I have come to know is not actually accurate.
This is the dichotomy we struggle with every day.
what's that saying from MIB?
"A person is smart.
People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.
Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew... the Earth was the center of the universe.
Five hundred years ago, everybody knew.... the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew..... that humans were alone on this planet.
Imagine what you'll know.... tomorrow."

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 08:00 PM
reply to post by Nohup

Kudos to you Nohup for pointing this out.

Myth, I understand your point of view. It is a bit of a leap to make for some people. Nothing wrong with that since the human mind functions differantly in differant people. However, Nohup has a very valid point that harkens back all the way to Socrates. All that we truely know is that we know nothing about the way life started on this planet and thus we have no way of knowing if it could even start on another planet.

Everything we have is guess work. I have never been abducted, nor have I seen anything that I could honestly say to myself was unexplainable. I still firmly believe that extra-terrestrial life exists and quite likely has developed to the point of sentience and maybe even advanced space flight.

DNA nucleotides in humans can replicate at 50 pairs per second per replication branch and that is considered slow. DNA replication is a multithreaded process, meaning that multiple threads occur at the same time, so even though it is slow 250 Million pairs can be replicated in 24 hours (with variance).

Now, assuming protien replication occurs on similar lines and replication is a realized 3000 units per second (250M/24/60/60 roughly), this means that in the life of the universe, a single DNA batch could have been replicated 1.419120 x 10^21 times. Increase that by the approximate number of stars (2.7 x 10^28) makes it 3.831624 x 10^49, which is pretty significant.. and remember that is based on the idea of only one replication process running per star in the universe.

We can't know at our current tech level all te possibilities that will make the existance of life possible. It may be even easier than our scientists think. But the sheer size of the numbers combined with the age of the universe is enough to convince me that it is likely.

Cheers!

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by reticledc

But truth never changed. For instance:

The Earth was thought to be flat. People percieved the earth as flat. But was the earth really flat? No it was Round. There perception of things changed. This guy explains it well:

Now just watch the vid. Even if it is about religions, just watch it. It makes its case about perception and truth. Its interesting.

reticledc, I like the way you think. You made me sit here and go, hmm, and then I came up with the above response. Let me know what you think, would love to hear it.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 08:02 PM
Here is an article on the BBC News Science & Environment section.

Number of alien worlds quantified

The current research estimates that there are at least 361 intelligent civilisations in our Galaxy and possibly as many as 38,000.

It might not help in swaying your opinion but its interesting nonetheless.

[edit on 25/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 08:05 PM
reply to post by rogerstigers

Awesome! Thanks for your input! You stated it well and explained quite well. I just lack the belief part for aliens. Its so true what you and Nohup said, we don't know how life started...

new topics

top topics

5