It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Trying to associate probability to other life forms is pointless. They either exist, or they don't.
Originally posted by TroyB
The question in my mind is where did this energy come from? who/what created it?, and let's not forget the existance of 'dark matter' proof that everything must have a balance...good/bad light/dark etc...
Originally posted by Xtrozero
4. Just like distance is a factor, time is also a factor, and so creates a finite period to work with. When you take the earth as an example it took 5 billion years to make us and that is about a 1/3 the age of the universe. Hawkins went into detail on this and also suggested it took global catastrophe to get us started and we are due another one any day now, so it is hard to say if we will survive 100s of millions of years like the dinosaurs did. This just adds the rarity to life like us in it takes a long time to evolve to and easy to get rid of.
Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Measurements are inherently flawed by definition. Without getting too philosophical, they are fundamentally rooted in relativity. We have observed many phenomena within which relativity fails us ... quantum theory (subatomic particle behavior), infinity, black holes, string theory, even gravity cannot be clearly or completely defined with relativity. (forgive me if I err in any of those examples as I am not fluent in scientific knowledge but merely truing to make a point)
As I said earlier time itself is the most elusive of all our created relative concepts. To underpin a 'rare earth' theory on such constructs when there is ample evidence of the underlying flaw in reasoning seems a clear contradiction.
[edit on 16 Jul 2009 by schrodingers dog]