Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Challenge Match: jkrog08 vs TheMythLives: "Is There Intelligent Life Somewhere In The Universe?"

page: 1
14

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Is There Intelligent Life Somewhere In The Universe?"

jkrog08 will be arguing the "Pro" position and will open the debate.
TheMythLives will argue the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Is There Intelligent Life Somewhere In The Universe?

Let me start off by wishing the best of luck to TheMythLives.

The debate we are having is a simple question that covers a broad area of space, is there other intelligent life in the Universe? I intend to show that there indeed is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe by using three points; Science, ancient accounts of extraterrestrial beings, and modern accounts of extraterrestrial beings. But before I begin I would TheMythLives to contemplate the following thought:

Imagine your on a beach somewhere and pick up one tiny grain of sand. Now imagine every tiny grain of sand that has ever existed on the planet. Finally imagine each grain of sand is a star. You would still not have enough grains of sand to account for all of the stars in the Universe!

I said that because as we all know for life to form as far as we know there must be a habitable planet, and for a planet to form and be habitable there must be a star. On that point I will ask my first question of you:
 

Question One

With all those stars in the Universe do you not think the odds are highly against only one average sized star in all of the likely infinite Universe having intelligent life?
 


Furthermore we can not ignore or dismiss the thousands upon thousands of cases of both ancient and modern contact with beings from other worlds. With the shear number of cases it is highly unlikely that every single case can be explained as something other than contact with an intelligent extraterrestrial biological entity. That fact, combined with the science and probability aspect of this very simple but very profound question is what I intend on debating with you. Again I wish you the best of luck and my best regards.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Before I start my ridiculous (and first) long opening. I want to thank jkrog08 for accepting this debate and good luck my friend. And I want to thank Semperfortis for setting this debate up as well.

The topic for debate is a simple one. Is there intelligent life somewhere in the universe? To prove their is no such life, I will being using mathematics, science and physics as well too prove my points.




With all those stars in the Universe do you not think the odds are highly against only one average sized star in all of the likely infinite Universe having intelligent life?


Actually I think the odds are really high against intelligent life somewhere else.

The probability of Life as jkrog08 mentioned above is often used by Alien supporters, who often state that since we are here that means other life forms must be somewhere else as well. I mean its only logical correct? Well, when we disect what it takes for life to be here I come to this issue:

Using baic calculations (provided by Ralph Muncaster, with added and updated calculations provided by me) we get the following:

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 the state lottery 4700 times in a row! with one winning ticket!

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 times 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.

_______________________________________________________

The cosmos. Yes, but what are the cosmos? Apparently science does not know.


DRIVING through the countryside south of Hanover, it would be easy to miss the GEO600 experiment. From the outside, it doesn't look much: in the corner of a field stands an assortment of boxy temporary buildings, from which two long trenches emerge, at a right angle to each other, covered with corrugated iron. Underneath the metal sheets, however, lies a detector that stretches for 600 metres.

For the past seven years, this German set-up has been looking for gravitational waves - ripples in space-time thrown off by super-dense astronomical objects such as neutron stars and black holes. GEO600 has not detected any gravitational waves so far, but it might inadvertently have made the most important discovery in physics for half a century.
Our World maybe a giant hologram


University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
Holographic Universe

Some scientist even believe that the world we are living is none other than an electronic universe, much like the matrix. Is the universe finite or is it Infinite? Did the big Bang accually happen? Or is the ekpyrotic universe true (Universe always been around)? Is the universe young as stated by young earth creationist? Or perhaps the The Inflation Universe Theories are better than the Big Bang. Not to mention many others, but I think the point has been made.

Socratic Questions:

1) Lets assume that life is on other planets. How do you know that it is intelligent?

2) What type of life forms are they? (The aliens). Are they of human genetic makeup? or something else entirely? etc. etc.

3) What is the universe, is it holographic? infinite? expanding? Electronic? Physical? etc. etc

4) What proof is their that what these ancients were seeing was not their imagination? Timetravelers? There technology? A different race of humans? etc. etc.

________________________________________________________

Again much thanks to jkrog08 and much thanks to Semper! And thank you readers and judges! I hope you enjoy the debate.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


Good rebuttal my friend, but there are several fallacies in it. I will first answer your questions, secondly counter your statements, and finally pose a few Socratic Questions of my own.
 


Answers To Your Socratic Questions

1) Lets assume that life is on other planets. How do you know that it is intelligent?


I do not “know” (such a strong word my friend) that there is intelligent life, but given the age and size of the observable Universe it is only logical to not only assume that life on the Earth was not some “miracle spark” of life in the 150 billion lightyears across, 24 sextillion star filled observable Universe; but it is also a logical assumption that the 13.7 (heavily agreed upon and pretty much confirmed by probes like the WMAP) billion year old Universe would have life that had at least a few billion year head start on our relatively young 4.5 billion year old planet. Considering once life appeared on Earth it only has taken 500 million years (nothing in the time frame of the Universe) to proliferate throughout the planet. In fact some current estimates say that one in three Earth-like planets should have life. From there, as we have seen here on Earth, the development from simple to intelligent life should happen fairly quickly.

.Thus it appears that, even as early as 3.5 billion years ago,microorganisms had become remarkably durable and sophisticated!

cmex.ihmc.us


2) What type of life forms are they? (The aliens). Are they of human genetic makeup? or something else entirely? etc. etc.


A fallacy here, Red Herring to be precise. Also you know I can not answer it but yet you ask. This question is irrelevant to this debate.


3) What is the universe, is it holographic? infinite? expanding? Electronic? Physical? etc. etc


Another fallacy, again a Red Herring. I did not create the Universe, nor am I the Universe so the best I can do is give you a theory based on currently accepted empirical evidence. So in effort not to take up the precious 10,000 character count I will not get into a Cosmological debate here, all though I want to.



4) What proof is their that what these ancients were seeing was not their imagination? Timetravelers? There technology? A different race of humans? etc. etc.


I highly doubt that human beings from all over the world would imagine the same thing. I can not speculate on time travel at this time as time itself is poorly understood. “A race of different humans”, now that is interesting, I suppose these humans thousands of years ago had the ability to fly in the sky as well? No, again I do not think that is as likely as alien beings when you consider Occam’s Razor.
 

Rebuttal
Chirality, Amino Acids, and Statistics OH MY!


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 !!!!


This originally comes from Dr. Ralph O. Muncaster? My friend, he is a PhD in Religious Education and Business Administration. I don’t think I need to even bother stating the obvious bias and lack of proper education in the field of biochemistry, genetics, and abiogenesis by a hardcore creationist! I am sure he knows more than PhD’s in biochemistry….

None-the-less I guess we can’t debate intelligent life without first debating simple extraterrestrial life first. I won’t get into the lack of credentials by your source as I think it is painfully obvious by a quick 'Google'. Firstly no one is saying life has to be common, but if there is even one more intelligent species out there then we are not alone. Secondly, basic biochemistry also explains how simple life can develop quite easily as the so called “miracle match” of organic molecules is actually a fundamental constant in biochemistry---simply put, it HAS to happen if certain chemicals are present. We also know that space is full of organic molecules(which are needed to form simple life, which then forms intelligent life down the line):

Materials that could jump-start organic evolution have shown up in interstellar dust clouds and dusty planet-forming discs around many stars. These findings fuel an increasingly strong suspicion that the raw material of planet Earth was primed for life.
The infrared-sensing eyes of NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope made the latest discovery. As NASA recently announced, Dan Watson and William Forrest at the University of Rochester in New York found "significant amounts of icy organic materials" around five young stars in Spitzer data.

Water, methanol, and carbon dioxide coat dust particles around these stars located 420 light-years away in the constellation Taurus. NASA notes that, while such materials have been found elsewhere, "this is the first time they were seen unambiguously in the dust making up planet-forming gases."
Such discs appear to be common in our galaxy. Infrared light penetrates dust, allowing astronomers to see into dusty areas. Spitzer - launched last August - can image these areas with unprecedented clarity and detail.

miquel.com

In addition to that there is no argument from nearly anyone that exosolar planets, probably similar to the conditions on Pre-Biotic Earth are quite common in just our galaxy alone. Further more it is also known that under a range of Ph, naturally occurring organic molecules do form by “spontaneously” growing and dividing, which obviously will lead to more complex organic molecules leading to cells and so forth. In fact many evolutionary traits are observed in simple organic processes (See LINK) .Life is not as rare as you would lead yourself to believe. It is also a fact (well unless you do not believe in basic astronomy and cosmology) that all building blacks of planets come from space. Now that we have found complex organic molecules in space one can easily postulate that the “building blocks” of life is throughout the Universe. As I have explained above the rest of the process is quite natural and expected, and very soon I expect abiogenesis will be proven beyond a doubt.

It is convenient you used the “electron in a table” analogy in your post. I am assuming you were using the Probability Theory and Superposition of an electron in an attempt to state how “impossible” extra terrestrial life is, considering those principles state that an electron has a probability to be at any given location at any given time within a system, you knew the odds of me capturing that electron 1,000 plus times in a row were QUITE SMALL. Well since you opened that door for me I will elaborate further on how that very principle actually pretty much proves that ET life must exist.

To counter your analogy I will say this:
According to those very principles the interpretation must be that considering an electron (or any particle) can be at anywhere within a system and its exact location is not known until it is observed one must then believe that (according to quantum theory) all possible positions for a particle(and thus an atom, molecule, DNA, etc) HAVE to occur. Now given the immense size of the Universe (which is likely infinite) what do you think the probability now becomes of that “miracle sequence” happening? Especially in an infinite(again likely and AGREED upon by both creationist and scientists) Universe? I think it is obvious then that not only has the “correct life sequence” AT LEAST happened twice, but that it MUST happen according to the very laws of physics.


The cosmos. Yes, but what are the cosmos? Apparently science does not know.


Irrelevant to this debate (and yet another Red Herring) and it does not matter anyways. Regardless if the Universe is Steady State, Big Bang, Holographic, Inflationary, etc that does not stop intelligent ET life from existing.
 

Socratic Questions

1. Given Occam’s Razor, what is more likely and why?
  • That in a 24 Sextillion star universe (likely twice that amount of planets) that only ONE planet “miraculously” developed life?
    OR
  • That life is quite common throughout the Universe and there is nothing all that special about Earth?

    2. Given the current evidence and models of an infinite Universe one must realize that there then becomes a 100% chance of another intelligent life form existing, considering the system is infinite. Also consider the quantum interpretation of probability. Your rebuttal to that?



  • posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 10:05 PM
    link   
    reply to post by jkrog08
     





    This originally comes from Dr. Ralph O. Muncaster? My friend, he is a PhD in Religious Education and Business Administration.


    Before we move on to the SQ's. I want to make something clear. Mr. Muncaster was actually an engineer for my uncles company. He was top engineer and came up with the mathematics from his brief biology background and from his engineering background. AFTER he developed his mathematic equations (which have yet to be debunked), he went back to school and earned a his degrees in Religious education, because before he was an atheist. I just thought it was necessary.

    _______________________________________________________




    1. Given Occam’s Razor, what is more likely and why?

    That in a 24 Sextillion star universe (likely twice that amount of planets) that only ONE planet “miraculously” developed life?
    OR

    That life is quite common throughout the Universe and there is nothing all that special about Earth?


    Occam's Razor states:


    "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."


    Now which one is simplier? One planet, one life, one. Rather than multiple.




    2. Given the current evidence and models of an infinite Universe one must realize that there then becomes a 100% chance of another intelligent life form existing, considering the system is infinite. Also consider the quantum interpretation of probability. Your rebuttal to that?


    Red herring, since I do not know what the universe is.. according to many differing models. I cannot answer your question.




    I don’t think I need to even bother stating the obvious bias and lack of proper education in the field of biochemistry, genetics, and abiogenesis by a hardcore creationist! I am sure he knows more than PhD’s in biochemistry….


    lol, he wasn't always a hardcore creationist, he was at one point a very stubborn atheist. He did study biology for a brief time, but decided to enter engineering instead.

    _______________________________________________________


    I believe that I may have seen some implications or implying leading to how many planets their are and the possiblity of life forms. The best theory that I know of this is the Drake Equation:

    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

    The Drake Equation Bust

    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.

    And as far as I know, this is the leading theory in probablity for life on other planets.

    And of course if ET's do exist. What life forms are they. I also seen some hinting to this and I believe that I will speak on them.

    For instance. Mirror based life, Arcenic Life, and Silicon life. The leading alternative life forms for other beings (Alien 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

    Mars too cold to sustain life?

    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.

    Same Link as Above (4)

    But if any of the life existed with these type of genetic and life forms a huge problem occurs to the Contact scenario (as hinted in jkrog08's OP). 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.
    __________________________________________________________


    Not so far as we know. There are 9 major planets in the solar system, and only one moon, Saturn's great moon Titan, which is known to have an atmosphere. With the exception of the Earth, however, no other planets or moons in our solar system are expected to have living systems. Titan and the atmosphere of Jupiter, however, may have a complex soup of organic molecules including some amino acids and simple proteins in a pre-biotic state. But no one seriously expects to see bacteria or single celled life anywhere else but on Earth.
    Astronomy Cafe


    Recent research argues that an atmosphere rich in oxygen is the most likely source of energy for complex life to exist anywhere in the Universe, thereby limiting the number of places life may exist.

    Professor David Catling at Bristol University, along with colleagues at the University of Washington and NASA, contend that significant oxygen in the air and oceans is essential for the evolution of multicellular organisms, and that on Earth the time required for oxygen levels to reach a point where animals could evolve was almost four billion years.
    Does life exist?

    _____________________________________________________

    SQ's

    1) Since you do not "know" if life is out their on other planets, what are you basing your belief on? Probability?

    2) Since you do not know what type of life forms they are, what evidence are you basing that they are intelligent?

    3) Since you do not know what the universe is, how can you come to the conclusion that we are not in the matrix? Not in a golographic universe? etc. The reason I ask is because what if the above is true, that means that aliens do not exist and that also means that what we are seeing is a massive illusion.



    posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:07 AM
    link   
    reply to post by TheMythLives
     


    Clarification on Occam’s Razor

    Actually the interpretation you gave has been misinterpreted and the real postulate is agreed upon as the following:
    Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

    This from Merriam-Webster:


    a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities



    Information concerning "Occam's Razor" cross referenced from:

    Yale Book of Quotations
    wikpedia.org
    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    merriam-webster.com


    So now that that is revised I think it is obvious what hypothesis is more likely. Of course that is that intelligent life is common in the Universe, rather than some ‘one in 10^2000000000’ chance occurrence happened to create life.
     

    Answers To Socratic Questions


    1) Since you do not "know" if life is out their on other planets, what are you basing your belief on? Probability?


    Of course, I have made that obvious from the beginning.


    2) Since you do not know what type of life forms they are, what evidence are you basing that they are intelligent?


    Probability of course, all things can be broke down into mathematics(and they are quite obvious), as I know you are aware my friend.



    3) Since you do not know what the universe is, how can you come to the conclusion that we are not in the matrix? Not in a golographic universe? etc. The reason I ask is because what if the above is true, that means that aliens do not exist and that also means that what we are seeing is a massive illusion.


    Fallacy(Post Hoc, False Dilemma, Begging The Question, maybe more), but I will still answer it. Simply put, why can’t the aliens be “in the matrix” too?
     

    Rebuttal


    The best theory that I know of this is the Drake Equation:


    Thank you, you just saved me some typing. Although I will say the Drake Equation is highly disputed (as you said) it still can be shown, even with current knowledge that it is still highly possible that multiple intelligent civilizations have, are, or will arise throughout the Universe.


    But if any of the life existed with these type of genetic and life forms a huge problem occurs to the Contact scenario (as hinted in jkrog08's OP). 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 do not know how I hinted at arsenic based life in my OP but yea, it is certainly possible. However, as I said in my last post, I think that the information we know so far pretty much can guarantee that life exists likely in carbon based form, as carbon is highly abundant in the Universe. I can not speculate about other elemental based forms of life but they are certainly possible.
     

    Further Evidence

    The following are some of the most compelling ancient evidence of intelligent ET life:

  • This is the 5,000 year old Kimberly, Australia cave paintings.
    Look familiar? Apparent depiction of "Grey’s" thousands of years before the first "modern" recorded sighting…


  • This is a wood carving from Nuremberg, Germany. It is depicting a “battle in the sky” in 1561 AD and is described by the witnesses as a “brilliant battle in the sky”. They go on to describe what can only logically be interpreted as an aerial battle of gigantic cylindrical and orb shaped ships firing beams and missiles at each other. They even describe a ship crashing to Earth, as you can clearly see in the picture.
    Link to more information



  • This last picture I want to show you is a close up of a painting called "The Madonna with Saint Giovannino". It was painted in the 15th century by Domenico Ghirlandaio (1449-1494 AD ) and hangs as part of the Loeser collection in the Palazzo Vecchio. Now what on Earth could that black, saucer shaped object that is illuminating lights be I wonder?

    All images can be found sourced in THIS ATS thread.

    As that very short set of pictures showed there is documented UFO and alien events ranging from the BC era in Australia to the Middle Ages of Europe. I suggest you visit that thread for further information and many more pictures showing evidence of something that appears to be very extraterrestrial in origin going on. Are they intelligent? Of course, that is logical since obviously they have been able to build apparently interstellar spacecraft before the United States was even founded. When viewing these portraits among other, more modern photographs of UFOs—as well thousands of witness accounts of contact with the very beings who reportedly occupy these craft I think the answer to this very debate is stunningly, stupendously, and spectacularly very, very obvious my friend---We are not alone, and have not been for quite a while, thus reaffirming my argument of the existence of intelligent alien life elsewhere in the vast Universe.
     

    Socratic Questions

    1. How can you explain the stunning resemblance of the Kimberly, Australia cave paintings to those of modern day “Grey aliens” thousands of years before the first modern reports?

    2. How can you explain the “Nuremberg Wood Carving” and the witness testimony of an obvious aerial battle in the sky?

    3. How can you explain the very obvious looking, self illuminating saucer shaped object in the background of the Ghirlandaio painting? What was it then?

    4. Since you dodged it before I will ask it again; Applying Occam’s Razor to this debate which seems more likely?

    -That some very unlikely “biochemical miracle” occurred on only one planet out of an incomprehensible amount?
    OR
    -Life on Earth is quite common and no ‘1 out of 10^2000000’ probability occurred?

    5. Finally, how can you explain the cross world ancient accounts of UFOs and drawings of beings that obviously look like a classic Grey alien by almost any account?


    As always, best regards my friend.



  • posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:49 PM
    link   


    1. How can you explain the stunning resemblance of the Kimberly, Australia cave paintings to those of modern day “Grey aliens” thousands of years before the first modern reports?


    You stated that: Apparent depiction of "Grey’s" thousands of years before the first "modern" recorded sighting…

    They look like ghosts to me. So since it is APPARENT, you do not know thats what it is for sure. It could be just bad paintings or resemeblences to ghosts. They look more like ghosts then anything. And is it that only UFO/Alien believers source these paintings and not a serious artist?



    2. How can you explain the “Nuremberg Wood Carving” and the witness testimony of an obvious aerial battle in the sky?


    Well I believe in advanced ancient technology, so I can explain it that way. Just because they are flying does not mean its alien. Humans are much smarter then people give them credit for.
    They built the pyramids. Built the Library at alexandria, built the Colossus of Rhodes, built the lighthouse of alexandria and so on and so forth.

    But their are other explainations such as solar waves or solar flares. The ancients described things all the time that they did not understand. And to reason with what they saw they would come up with extraordinary accounts. But I believe it happened.




    3. How can you explain the very obvious looking, self illuminating saucer shaped object in the background of the Ghirlandaio painting? What was it then?


    I really cannot believe this one is still discussed as a UFO. Its the sun or a star, or what the majority go with a cloud. Artist have already discussed this and came up with this one of two conclusions. The second conclusion is what the majority lean to, many religious and serious artist stated that while it maybe the sun it seems to represent an angel coming from the clouds and the sky. And most of the time the angel is accompied by gold rays shooting around him. Much like the painting that preceeded the one that you showed:



    Its from the same school. Also, it has been stated that the above and the next photo are from the gospel of john.



    The above is proof of an angel coming from the clouds. But most artist wanted the angels to remian in the clouds, because the average folk could not be seen.




    4. Since you dodged it before I will ask it again; Applying Occam’s Razor to this debate which seems more likely?

    -That some very unlikely “biochemical miracle” occurred on only one planet out of an incomprehensible amount?
    OR
    -Life on Earth is quite common and no ‘1 out of 10^2000000’ probability occurred?


    The first one.




    5. Finally, how can you explain the cross world ancient accounts of UFOs and drawings of beings that obviously look like a classic Grey alien by almost any account?


    Well lets see, their are same accounts of dragons all over the globe, accounts of unicorns all over the world, accounts that the world was flat ALL over the world, it is possible that these people had the same thinking process.

    _________________________________________________________

    I will demonstarte on of my personal favorite theories! The theory of randomness.

    Now the real question is probability, I believe that probability is the biggest factor in this. Yet, what is probabilities flaw? What is teh one thing probability cannot predict? That my friends is the theory of randomness. The theory of randomness states that everything is all simply coincidence that their is no grand meaning no basic pattern, no choosing, nothing. Its all unpredictable and cannot be solved through probability, because probability focus's on a pattern. For instance:

    Our body is here and we developed from the soup in the ocean years ago, so if they happened here, why can they not happen else where. This is what the theory of probability is, if it happened once, it can happen again. Yet the theory of randomness does not follow the same logic. Infact it follows nothing. Random changes in random molecules created the world and that same randomness pattern started evolution over a period of time and then through RANDOM changes as stated in evolution created the beings that we see today. Its all random.

    However, what the probability theory originates is through a "pattern" of some sort. The probability of life on other planets have been created by the life ON EARTH! Yet in our science it states specifically that:


    The molecular world is dominated by random events.
    Random Molecules


    Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment.[4] The other major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population.
    Random DNA, Evolution


    Genetic variation comes from random mutations that occur in the genomes of organisms.
    Evolution

    The real question is, is the theory of random singular (menaing does it only happen once). Well the fact it does. It only happens once and it only focus's in one direction for if it happened more than once it would not be random, it would be a pattern, which relates back to probability. Einstein stated that two objects cannot occupy the same space, the question is if their is life out their in the grand universe, would this be denying the two objects in one space scenario? Could we survive with others out their? The theory of randomness only happens once, only happens in one location to protect against a constant, and so on and so forth. With this knowledge we find that Randomness Is Unpredictability.

    But another quetsion must be asked can organization come from randomness, that fact is yes. Randomness does give rise to Probability Factors, but in way does that mean Randomness is a Pattern. For instance science proves that random changes happened to give rise to evolution, it was all random, but now as we humans are discovering more we begin to search for patterns to make sense of things, because randomness is not what we like, because we cannot track random. Its somewhere in our mind to search for patterns and to see patterns.

    Also in mathematics:


    A random number is a number chosen as if by chance from some specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these numbers reproduces the underlying distribution. Almost always, such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there are no correlations between successive numbers. Computer-generated random numbers are sometimes called pseudorandom numbers, while the term "random" is reserved for the output of unpredictable physical processes.
    Random Number.

    Random fills the world.

    But if the universe and ourselves came from randomness, how can one then say with any correct probability that life is on other planets, since the theory of randomness is singular?

    ______________________________________________________

    SQ's

    1) Why is it that their is no solid evidence of aliens visting earth, but assumptions from paintings? Because as we know paintings are not proof of anything. As I demonstared above.

    2) If aliens came here, how did they manage to travel?

    3) If they made CONTACT with people how did they not die? If their genetic makeup is different.



    posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:07 PM
    link   
    reply to post by TheMythLives
     


    Answers To Socratic Questions

    1) Why is it that their is no solid evidence of aliens visting earth, but assumptions from paintings? Because as we know paintings are not proof of anything. As I demonstared above.

    Good question, according to a poll taken about 80% of Americans think there is no solid evidence because the government is covering it up(LINK). I would have to agree with them, and there is much more than paintings, as you shall very soon see.

    2) If aliens came here, how did they manage to travel?

    Is this a fish market? LOL, just joking but seriously this is irrelevant to this debate.

    3) If they made CONTACT with people how did they not die? If their genetic makeup is different.

    Well that is pretty simple, I mean why don’t fish , insects, and birds die with human contact? You are assuming they are arsenic based and conform to the limited human understanding of genetics at that. Plus I do not see how physical contact of two similar biological entities(As I stated last post and the one before that, I think probability dictates that the majority of these beings are of SIMILAR biological makeup.) would kill one or both of them. Here is a basic example: I pet my dog, my dog licks me---Did either of us die? Obviously no. It seems like you are comparing opposite genetics like they are matter and anti-matter, which if so, is HIGHLY erroneous and ambiguous.
     

    Rebuttal

    It could be just bad paintings or resemeblences to ghosts. They look more like ghosts then anything.

    Your somewhat right here, according to the Aborigine legends the creatures in the paintings were beings called the “Wandjina”:

    WALLUNGUNDER, the big boss WANDJINA, came down from the Milky Way during DREAMTIME and created the earth and all its inhabitants. Then he took one look at those inhabitants and headed back home for reinforcements. This was going to be a tricky job.
    With the aid of the DREAMTIME-SNAKE, the WANDJINA descended and spent their DREAMTIME creating, teaching and being God-like to the natives. These Gods from the Milky Way were so powerful that they didn't need to speak. So they didn't bother to have mouths.

    godchecker.com

    Needless to say their very mythos sounds a lot like other stories around the world of “a race coming from the sky” to help or create humans and their culture. The “no speaking” part also sounds a lot like the reported telepathy of the Grey’s does it not? Especially the “no mouth”, since it is commonly and widely reported that Grey’s have a “small, slit like mouth” or sometimes “no visible mouth”. Of course you could say “it is just another ancient deity mythos, but I disagree. Wouldn’t it be more likely that these ancients were reporting what they saw at some point, as well obviously consider any species or race that is that much more technologically and evolutionarily advanced as “gods”, the Mayans did when the Spanish Conquistadors came to Central America in the mid-ages. In fact there are countess accounts of a more primitive culture meeting a much more advanced one and thinking they are “gods”. But what is a “god” really? By definition a “god” is simply a deity that has supernatural(advanced technology?) powers and usually contributes in some way to the planet or race(genetic manipulation by the Grey’s and/or other beings?).

    Let us look at a comparison of the cave painting and an illustration of a Grey:

  • ”Wandjina’s” painted 5,000 years ago-




  • ”Grey alien depiction”-


    So again I maintain you can't you explain away this as a ‘coincidence’ given all you say about statistics and probability of “duality”and randomness. I do not think I need to say anything further here my friend.

    But their are other explanations such as solar waves or solar flares.

    You tell me who n this planet can see solar flares or “waves” with their naked eye, you can’t. Now if you are talking about a magnetic disturbance creating an aurora then I do not see how that explains the “cylinders and orbs battling in the sky”, and one falling to the Earth.

    Well I believe in advanced ancient technology, so I can explain it that way.

    Yea a super-advanced race of ancient humans that mysteriously vanished, de-evolved, or disappeared makes much more sense then the much simpler ET hypothesis.


    Its the sun or a star, or what the majority go with a cloud.


    it seems to represent an angel coming from the clouds and the sky.

    Well which one is it now?!? Is it a black, mechanical looking sun or star? Or is it an angel that looks like a flying saucer? Maybe, just maybe the simpler explanation is true here, and that is that it is something we call a UFOthe ancients saw in the sky commonly enough to put it in their most important paintings back then. Let’s stop attempting to abuse symbolistic representation shall we?

    The above is proof of an angel coming from the clouds.

    That looks NOTHING like the other painting.

    Well lets see, their are same accounts of dragons all over the globe, accounts of unicorns all over the world, accounts that the world was flat ALL over the world

    Well that certainly makes absolutely no sense considering the same things are being seen today. I am pretty sure the sane world today doesn’t believe in Unicorns, dragons (besides dinosaurs), and that the Earth is flat (Universe might be though
    ).

    Random changes in random molecules created the world and that same randomness pattern started evolution over a period of time and then through RANDOM changes as stated in evolution created the beings that we see today.

    Your wrong, considering this:

    Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators.

    talkorigins.org
    This is basic observed biochemistry, there is no arguing this. What you and others who use this argument are attempting to do is apply the Theory of Randomness--- As it pertains to math and communications and twist it to fit your arguments about biological evolution, which is a TOTALLY different subject.

    It is true that randomness does play some part in evolution of a species, but you are taking genetic drift and acting like that is the only cause for evolution, which it is not. It is a mixture of non-random and random events, therefore your whole argument stating that "Its all random"is defeated.

    Einstein stated that two objects cannot occupy the same space

    Yes, and quantum experiments have disproved that.

    but in way does that mean Randomness is a Pattern.

    I think you should take a look at Chaos Theory. That answers your question, which is why there is no paradox or conflict between probability and randomness. In actuality the probability distribution completely explains randomness in mathematical and physical terms. There is only probability that describes randomness, not one or the other. Check this out:

    The probability distribution describes the range of possible values that a random variable can attain and the probability that the value of the random variable is within any (measurable) subset of that range.

    Probability Distribution
     

    Socratic Questions
    1. Applying Occam’s Razor, what is more likely given your theory of a “random Universe”; That the Aborigine’s coincidently drew mythological gods that look exactly like the Grey’s, or actually drew images representing an encounter with alien beings in their drawings(given your own theory of randomness as well)?
    2. Can you explain in at least 3 sentences(more than just “the first one”) why Occam’s Razor dictates that Earth is the only planet with life(I do not believe you or anyone can)?
    3. What’s your explanation of the modern abduction accounts?
    4. You now know everything is not random. What is your revised rebuttal to the existence of intelligent life?
     


    I just want to leave my opponent with the following picture and statement before our closing post:


    Courtesy: NASA

    That is a portion of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, it was pointed at a very small part of the sky, covering less than a fraction of a fraction percentage of the sky. It contains 10,000 GALAXIES (just that we can see), each galaxy contains on average around 100 BILLION stars. Those 10,000 galaxies only represent less than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of the total number of galaxies in the observable Universe, which is AT LEAST 100 BILLION.



  • posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:18 PM
    link   


    1. Applying Occam’s Razor, what is more likely given your theory of a “random Universe”; That the Aborigine’s coincidently drew mythological gods that look exactly like the Grey’s, or actually drew images representing an encounter with alien beings in their drawings(given your own theory of randomness as well)?


    As I stated before humans search for patterns, because randomness does not suite our needs for understanding, people have confused modern accounts with past accounts. Those Greys look nothing more then this:



    or this..lol






    2. Can you explain in at least 3 sentences(more than just “the first one”) why Occam’s Razor dictates that Earth is the only planet with life(I do not believe you or anyone can)?


    Simplicity, is the key, not the constant, yet their is no proof that life is on other planets. Using ourselves as proof is nothing more then trying to connect invisible dots that do not exist. And in using invisible dots we get extraordinary theories that lead no where and will lead nowhere all in search of a simple constant that does not exist.



    3. What’s your explanation of the modern abduction accounts?


    I have many. Some are experiments and what not. But what is the relevance of this to the debate?



    4. You now know everything is not random. What is your revised rebuttal to the existence of intelligent life?


    lol, Random is the key to everything, it has never been proven false and still has a strong following. Their is no revised rebuttal.

    ___________________________________________________________




    2) If aliens came here, how did they manage to travel?


    Is this a fish market? LOL, just joking but seriously this is irrelevant to this debate.


    Cool. But your the one stating that they are coming here. So how.




    Needless to say their very mythos sounds a lot like other stories around the world of “a race coming from the sky” to help or create humans and their culture. The “no speaking” part also sounds a lot like the reported telepathy of the Grey’s does it not?


    Well I have never seen one, so how would I know.

    _________________________________________________________

    The theory of choas or the choas theory is NOT the theory of randomness nor does it discount the theory of randomness, this has already been discussed it is not the theory of randomness... Evolutionary scientist have stated over and over again that we were made by a random set of mutations and changes. Not only internally, but externally with the environment. Humans percieve patterns, because randomness does not make sense to us. Everything is supposed to have a a pattern, but unfortunatley, as it has been observed their is not. The theory of randomness is well and alive, probability has never proven it and it cannot, the only thing probability can prove is that random events do happen, because they are random.




    That is a portion of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, it was pointed at a very small part of the sky, covering less than a fraction of a fraction percentage of the sky. It contains 10,000 GALAXIES (just that we can see), each galaxy contains on average around 100 BILLION stars. Those 10,000 galaxies only represent less than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of the total number of galaxies in the observable Universe, which is AT LEAST 100 BILLION.


    And? Are they holographic? Electronic? A grand illusion?

    What proof is their of aliens? There is no proof of aliens anywhere in the known universe, as time and science progress the odds of finding another civilization are incredibly remote. Even though the universe is unfathomably enormous, recent studies in search of planets revolving around stars have shown rather dismal prospects for another earth. Yet Aliens are still here, no proof, no proof, no proof.

    But thats not for a lack of trying:


    Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is the collective name for a number of activities people undertake to search for extraterrestrial life. SETI projects use scientific methods to search for electromagnetic transmissions from civilizations on distant planets.[1][2] The United States government contributed to earlier SETI projects, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.
    SETI

    And SETI has been running for SO LONG and has found nothing. Nothing at all, no contact. Nothing. Despite running for so long pointing its antenna's into the sky NOTHING. Its time to shut seti down and stop wasting our money.

    Alien believers ask for disclosure, what do they want? Surely if Alien life were to exist we would have seen them. They would have messed up, photographs would have taken place. How can the government cover up the existance of aliens? Its impossible! If they were to exist and come to earth, then surely we would have been seeing them and have PHSYICAL PROOF. I doubt they do, no evidence, not only on earth, but in the universe.


    There is no shred of proof.

    __________________________________________________

    A psychological aspect would reveal that humans do not like to be alone. When we are alone we feel sad and search for others. Could this be a collective conscioucness effect? A massive outlook on every human not wanting to be alone? Because if we are alone in the universe, we are on our own. Psychologically proves this can happen and sociology executes these truths. Humans do not like to be alone, perhaps we are reaching out to the heavens for hope.....

    ______________________________________________

    SQ's

    1) What is the evidnece other than probability that aliens exist?

    2) How would the aliens get here? Since you say they are here you must show how they arrive.

    3) Does the majority decision prove aliens? I mean the majority for years said the earth was flat.

    4) Would you agree that the colletive consciousness could be "wanting" or a "need" for humans not to be alone?

    5) With all the experiments and all the work gone into searching for intelligent life, why is it that we have come up with no results? no proof? not even to add evidence that they might exist.



    posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:53 AM
    link   
    Answers To Socratic Questions


    1) What is the evidnece other than probability that aliens exist?


    The ancient accounts, the countless modern accounts, and physical evidence.


    2) How would the aliens get here?


    Simple answer: Faster than light technology like Warp Drive, Quantum Tunneling, Wormholes, Tachyon Drives, and more. NASA.gov will show that not only are these theories being actively researched but many show promise and are permitted within the laws of physics.


    3) Does the majority decision prove aliens?.


    Irrelevant but no. However, given the modern understandings of science I would not stray too far from the majority.


    4) Would you agree that the colletive consciousness could be "wanting" or a "need" for humans not to be alone?


    Most people sure, again irrelevant however.


    why is it that we have come up with no results? no proof? not even to add evidence that they might exist.


    For one SETI is using basic radio spectrum EM bands(Although Optical SETI has had some promise at Gilese 581e), any advanced life form capable of interstellar travel(as I have put forth) would likely not be using basic radio bands. Secondly I will refer you to my last post and the government cover-up statement and poll. Lastly the distances in space are extreme, the closest intelligent civilization may be 1,000 lightyears away, which means it will take 1,000 years for a one way message to make it to one point.
     


    Closing Remarks

    I think I have clearly showed both my opponent, TheMythLives, and the judges that the evidence in favor of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life clearly outweighs the almost non-evidence against. Let us keep in mind that the purpose of this debate was never to prove on way or another that intelligent life elsewhere does exist, rather it was to debate on the evidence in support or opposition to it, because as my opponent, the judges, audience, and myself know---There is currently no absolute proof one way or the other.
    Does this mean that the entire topic of this global debate is irrelevant? No, it does not. This is part of the scientific process, which is to look at the available evidence, analyze the data, and then proceed to draw logical conclusions based on the available evidence. I think after even this very brief overview of the available data that it is obvious that the most logical postulate is that there does exist at least one more species in the Universe that can be considered intelligent, likely many. My opponent would have us believe that life on Earth is nothing more than a happenstance, I once again believe I have clearly showed that the available evidence clearly contradicts that postulate. Let us quickly overview the evidence I was able to cover, as well the evidence I was not unfortunately able to cover in this short exchange.

    What I Was Able To Cover

    • The shear immensity of the Universe, which as at least 24 sextillion stars (27 zeros). More stars mean more planets, which deductively and logically leads to higher probability of intelligent life. Much higher than out of all that space and mass there is only one small region of space with intelligent life.
    • The current agreed upon evidence that the Universe is infinite. Of course we know that in an infinite system the probability of intelligent ET life becomes 100% and infinite in number.
    • The proliferation of organic molecules, complex and simple (that we currently have discovered), that is all over the Universe. This is further strong evidence of the commonality of life.
    • The none randomness of life, the fact that everything is indeed natural and by far likely and logically not a miracle of one lonely planet.
    • The fact that in reality our current understanding of quantum physics dictates that due to probability there must exist other intelligent life due to multiple tested quantum principles.
    • Given Occam’s Razor the most simple and most likely explanation to the question of this debate is that the intelligent life is not singular and special, and life is very likely common throughout the cosmos.
    • Given the combination of just the scientific factors mentioned above, the statistical probability given the immense size of the system(Universe) is extremely high.
    • There is global evidence dating back to the BC era that depicts what obviously looks like either the “modern” version of aliens, non-existent flying machines(Nuremburg Battle), and the impact these visitors and craft must have had on popular culture(The religious painting).
    • I clearly made the logical connections of the ancient drawings of UFOs to the logical deduction that they likely were/are piloted by ETs. My postulate holds much more logical probability than my opponents “ancient human” theory.
    • Overall the “coincidences”, as my opponent would have us believe they were, were far to many to outweigh the logical and mathematical probability against them all being extremely accurate coincidences.
    • In addition to the aforementioned, I consistently illuminated my opponent’s logical and factual fallacies throughout this debate.
    • I clearly demonstrated the extreme illogical ideology and mathematical improbability of my opponents and others who share his ideology’s stance.

    Topics I Did Not Get To Cover

    • Most obviously the modern UFO and alien abduction epic.
    • The current knowledge of over 360 exosolar planets, with at least one appearing to be Earth-like and containing methane, water, and carbon(Gilese 581e). All of which are essential for life.
    • Had I got to continue on I would have shown to even a further extent that based on the available evidence and a scientific process the odds for intelligent ET life GREATLY outweigh the odds against it.

    To summarize the logic:

     The immense size and amount of matter in the Universe
     Considering the scientific method and actual biochemistry, the fact that life has proliferated here in a short time.
     The evidence of ancient and modern contact, which includes millions of eyewitness reports stating that we are currently and have been visited by intelligent extraterrestrial biological entities , many from extremely credible sources---and again many with evidence.
    Just use logic!!!

    In conclusion my opponent liked to use “randomness” as his main arguing point throughout this debate. Well I think that is can be turned around and completely discredited by the very fact that one must ask if that is true, what randomness created the Universe? What were the odds of something being created out of nothing? The answer is simply unknown, but from this very fact that WE KNOW we exist and that the Universe exits we can use this argument, in addition to the proliferation of life on Earth argument, to pretty confidently state that for some reason or another it sure seems that our very reality seems to dictate creation---Creation of the Universe, creation of stars, creation of planets, and creation of LIFE on at least one planet. So if all this happened, all these things were created by whatever force, what real logical mind can actually argue that the creation of intelligent life would stop at ONE PLANET out of the vastness and multitudes of others in the Universe? The very Universe that somehow overcame the “odds of randomness” to come out of nothing to be something, and not only something, but something of non-comprehensible size—literally . Therefore I believe that one can not use the “randomness” argument, because, as my opponent said, “it only happens once”. Well it happened more than once, in fact the first occurrence)creation of something from nothing) would be impossible by his standards. The point is this, it appears that it is the very nature of our existence to proliferate by all current observations, this very observation of same sized stars, planets, expanding universe, etc should dictate that life is meant to be, it is the very nature of everything, it simply IS. There is no randomness relevance to apply here, there never was in the real world, only on paper.

    Finally I want to extend the highest level of respect to my opponent, TheMythLives. What a great and contributing member he is, as well a great debater. I am honored to have debated him. Also I want to extend a “thank you” that is really beyond words to ATS, its staff and members, this is truly the greatest website in the world. I can’t leave out semperfortis for setting this up, nor the respected judges who will be offering their valuable time and sagacity to this event. I think ATS as a whole deserves a big round of applause, once again thank you to all.~Justin



    posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:15 AM
    link   
    WHOA! What an awesome debate this was. But before we conclude here we go one more time around.
    _________________________________________________




    What were the odds of something being created out of nothing?


    Well Einstien proved that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So therefore, something has always been around. Through random actions and random chemical fixations the world came into being. From more random actions the evolutionary process started and through random environments sprung new life.

    _____________________________________________________

    But are our origins random? Yes, they are. They happened through random mutations. However, to us they do not appear random, because we are always looking for a patterns and many of us have come to the conclusion that random does not happen.

    However, this is false. Because if it were not FALSE! Then we would be able to track our next evolutionary process and guess what we can't..lol.. because its random! Its random.

    __________________________________________________________

    What is the Universe?

    1) Holographic?
    2) Electronic?
    3) An illusion?
    etc. etc.

    Since no one knows we cannot say that their are sixtillion stars for certain, because those stars could be an illuision, holographic and electronic. All we know is that we could really be alone.

    _______________________________________________________

    What I was able to cover:

    1) Randomness happens and has happened and ocntinues to happen. But we must remember that randomness is SINGULAR! It happens once, not multiple times, because if it happened multiple times then it wouldn't be random, it would be a pattern, which leads to probability. But as we have seen Probability does not exist. Randomness exists.

    2) A collective consciounce drives us. Our wanting to not be alone, we reach to the heavens searching, because no human likes to be alone. Even in the universe.

    3) Their are no pictures, no alien bodies, no alien crafts, nothing. There is ZERO evidnece that they have been here or even exist.

    4) Ancient accounts have been BLOWN WAY out of proportion to what they really are as we have seen with the paintings.

    5) Even mathematics has random numbers. Numbers that are used out of pure RANDOMNESS.

    6) Mr. Muncaster has proven they improbability of life to a mathematic equation that has never been debunked and will probably never be debunked.

    7) False theories and false equations lead no where as shown with the SET experiments and the Drake equation.

    8) The probability of life is no where near a constant

    9) Occam's razor proves my point:

    Simplicity, is the key, not the constant, yet their is no proof that life is on other planets. Using ourselves as proof is nothing more then trying to connect invisible dots that do not exist. And in using invisible dots we get extraordinary theories that lead no where and will lead nowhere all in search of a simple constant that does not exist.

    ______________________________________________________


    Closing Statements:

    Where is the proof? There is none, following many experiments and many equations, hoping that it could be done, their is no proof. Probability is in shambles all because of a little thing known as randomness. Its drives the world around us.

    We are all supposed to believe a grand story that because we are here that others have to be out there. But infact this is not true. I will quote someone:




    Alexandra Barnett, an astronomer and executive director of the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland, California," It would just be too tough a pill to swallow to believe that nothing else has evolved in all that time and space."


    Bitter pill? Why.....

    Contact has never been proven, the government cannot cover up that massive of a secret. Its impossible. Aliens simply do not exist. For all we know the past visitors were time travelers, can I prove that? Up to a point, but their is no proof for either. Sure we have ancient stories of each, but no proof. We have stories about dragons, unicorns and faieires, but no proof that they were around. Does proof simply mean that they are not in existance? Nope, but when probability is thrown into the mix.

    26 sextillion stars, 1 other alien planets, 0 evidence. Lets see what we get.

    (1X0) + 26 sextillion= 26 sextillion stars.

    How?

    1X0= 0 + 26 sextillion stars= 26 sextillion......... Thats it.


    Randomness happened once. To spark the universe, then it had to start life in a singularity on one location which was earth. It had all those planets to choose from and randomly picked earth. After that randomness started random mutations and random action sparked random life. Random life sparked random environments. Random is written all over! The reason we choose not to see it is because we cannot follow random, we like things that we can predict. Random changes all of that. Probability is not probability anymore, because it cannot beat its enemy, randomness.


    Final Statements:

    Complete thanks and absolute blast it was to debate such a quality member and excllent friend that is an expert in the UFO/Alien boards..lol.. jkrog08 it was awesome and a fun debate. I am honored to have debated him. I can tell you that your going to have an awesome ATS debating career ahead of you. Special thanks to my good friend SemperFortis! And thank you judges and readers, I hope you enjoy this debate as much as jkrog08 and I had debating it.



    posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:05 PM
    link   
    Now off to the judges...



    posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:54 PM
    link   
    We Have a Winner!!!!


    First of all this was an exceptional debate; congratulations to both fighters.

    Both did a good job on the opening remarks but I felt that TheMythLives explained his premise better, However in the future you should make sure that your sources don't require a subscription to read.

    In the following posts both fighters did an excellent job of defending and counter-attacking. Neither fighter allowed the other one to distract him with the red herrings both were using. I believe that jkog08 made better use of his Socratic questions to support his position and reveal any weakness in TheMythLives position.

    Both of used excellent sources with the one exception noted above but I believe that jkog08's sources were slightly better.

    Closing arguments were very well done by both fighters. Both used the opportunity to restate their positions and make a final attack on the other's position. I liked jkog08's summary it was excellent and was a great way finish.

    I would in all honesty like to say this is a tie but a winner has to be chosen. So based on his slightly better use of sources and questions combined with an excellent closing summary this debate by a very slight margin goes to jkog08.

    Thank you to both fighters; it was an awesome debate that was a privilege to judge.



    An interesting topic and two skilled Fighters. This will be a good one. For the record, this is the first time I have read the debate and most of the judgment is provided as I read it, argument by argument.

    jkrog08 starts out solidly, by establishing his intent and then providing a basic ypothetical that leads to a valid statistical question. He also says that there are many historical accounts. I anticipate these accounts will certainly not be ignored throughout this debate.

    TheMythLives somes out of the gate citing statistics as well, albeit with much more specificity. Very convincing save for one point - it has happened before meaning that it is indeed possible for someone to pick the same electron 1,376 times in a row. However, he was much more thorough and the statistical point is at this point a tie in my opinion.

    TheMythLives also brings into the argument the fact that the universe may just be a hologram. This is a confusing tactic as I am not sure that I see the relevance. Even if the universe is a hologram, it is still measurable and it is still inhabited (by us humans). So while an interesting side bar, I found its' inclusion as confusing and immaterial, making the following statement:

    but I think the point has been made.




    ...not entirely true.

    And jkrog08 pretty much answers those points and more. I found the arguement that given the combination of certain chemicals that life had to result to be on the interesting side, as well as the suggestion of agiogensis. Using TheMytheLives' electron analogy was also very effective.

    TheMythLives offers a rebuttal to the credibility of Mr. Muncaster. Interesting and stron though I would have liked to have seen a source providing dates (this is ATS after all... ). He then continues to answer the SQ's. His first answer is solid but subjective, since the use of statistics and the proliferation of similar chemical situations as measured from Earth in other parts of the universe could suggest that it is simpler to assume multiple life forms have evolved. So the answer is subjective (and the reason for the debate... )
    His answer to the second SQ is, again, confusing. His stance that he cannot know what the universe is but as a supporting piece of evidence to use measurable quantities of this 'unknown universe' to support an absolution (there is no other intelligent life) is contradictory. Indeed, if one does not know what the universe is then one cannot logically assert the components of the universe (one component being the evolution and existence of intelligent life forms). I think this stance, brought up originally by TheMythLives, is damaging to his position.

    TheMythLives counters (pre-emptively?) The Drake Equation effectively. He is indeed correct that the slightest change in the factorization could lead to vastly different results and this was a brilliant tactic and conclusion which helped diffuse an argument I came into this debate expecting to see talked more about.

    TheMythLives also hurts himself with the following statement:

    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.




    ...as jkrog08 has already demonstrated that (in our brief time of being able to measure chemical compositions of other systems) there are "similar conditions to Earth:

    In addition to that there is no argument from nearly anyone that exosolar planets, probably similar to the conditions on Pre-Biotic Earth are quite common in just our galaxy alone.




    TheMythLives also claims that Mars is too cold and as well that lifeforms formed under different conditions would die if they came to Earth. The former, in my opinion, is not so much relevant as it is but one aspect of the universe and tends to narrow the focus of the debate (a clever tactic if successfully employed) and the latter is fallacious as Humans have already proven that they could live in an environment in which conditions greatly differed from that of Earth.

    jkrog08 correctly presents the definition of Occam's Razor and answers the SQ's successfully, in my opinion. Indeed, the answer to the third SQ focus's on one of the weakest points of TheMythLives' argument (which I am still confused as to its' use).

    Also, the statement that "carbon is highly abundant in the universe" goes a long way to refute the supposition implied by TheMythLives, that alien life need be based on a different fundamental building block.

    jkrog08 goes on to provide the promised examples of ancient evidence. I am looking for TheMythLives to answer that, while the evidence is compelling, it certainly does not necessitate as proof.

    And TheMythLives does indeed provide alternate explanations for the photos...and successfully provides other examples of the Virgin Mary example.

    TheMythLives then describes how probability cannot predict randomness and I think it is an interesting excercise in abstract logic. However, it is a philisophical point and one that does not incorporate, necessarily, observable and measurable traits. The universe has demonstrated patterns and we are still observing and analyzing new factors by which to increase the efficacy of our use of observed pattern to increase our comprehension. As such, while I think it was a potentially great tactic, I feel it comes across as a bit too late and reactive without enough applicative validity.

    His first SQ was brilliant, however and I am looking forward to the answer, which was unexpected and interesting, however the use of conspiracy to counter a subjective question is indeed subjective and a bit on the weak side.

    jkrog08 dodges the second SQ and as such fails to provide a direct answer, which is required by the debate rules. The question is indeed relevant as a means of travel could have been an indirect proof or non proof of the term "intelligent" contained in the debate topic. The answer to the third SQ is more than adequate.

    jkrog also effectively refutes the randomness theory, in my opinion, and ends with a visual to reinforce his opening argument.

    TheMythLives continues to show why subjective interpretation is exactly that, subjective and through action makes void the accusation of abusing symbolistic representation. But after that, his post comes across as tired and flat. The reiteration of randomness as not disproven does not interact with jkrog's statement that was brought from the talkorigins.org, in that molecules arrange themselves according to their chemical properties. That is a very relevant assertion towards the randomness theory and one that I find helps support jkrog's entire position.

    He also cites Seti as a failure and a support of his position. I liked his brief look at the psychological aspect of humans not wanting to be alone and while I feel that it ultimately is exclusive of the debate premis I do note that it is yet another field utilized by the TheMythLives...which shows that he is all over the place and less focused.

    The conclusions were a recount of the debate and as such I will not provide a play by play.

    This was a brilliant and enjoyable debate. Both Fighters brought in sound arguments and rebuttals. However, I must choose one and I feel that jkrog08 provided the more consistent argument.

    Congratulations to both Fighters!!


    Congratulations to jkrog08!!!!

    Semper



    posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:38 PM
    link   
    I firstly want to thank TheMythLives for an EXCEPTIONAL debate, what an intelligent member!
    I mean this guy is smart and can fight, he made a debate I felt certain would be an easy win rather difficult in my humble opinion. I always look forward to his insight on the General Conspiracy forums and occasionally on the UFO forums, what a great contributor.
    In this rare case I got to actually debate a topic I am very passionate about, I am thankful for the opportunity to be able to do so in a official ATS debate.


    Secondly, I need to thank Semperfortis, the judges. and ATS for allowing this opportunity to transpire and be fairly judged. I love this site and whether I won or lost this statement would NOT change.

    Finally,I need to apologize for not entirely following the debate rules to a tee, this was my first debate, and honestly I was a little nervous! Next time I assure you all it will be picture perfect in format. Again, I had a blast and want to thank EVERYONE involved for this wonderful opportunity only available as it is on abovetopsecret.com, the greatest website in the world. So when is ATS going to take over the real world like it has the internet?!!?!

    Thanks again guys.
    ~Justin

    [edit on 8/9/2009 by jkrog08]



    posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:07 PM
    link   
    reply to post by jkrog08
     


    Yea, Krog! Congrats on winning my friend. I think it is BEYOND OBVIOUS that you deserve to become an FSME is the UFO/Alien boards now. Its also beyond Obvious that you know your stuff and I will be shocked if your not an FSME by the end of this week.
    I also think you are going to have an Exceptional debating career here on ATS.

    What a fantastics member, I don't think words can describe the knowledge, the wisdom, the friendship and the overall kindness that Justin has provided to me. And my friend I really do appreciate it
    Before I make everyone cry..lol..

    And Specialy thanks to Semperfortis! Another Quality member


    Special thanks to Judges for being nicer this time around..lol.. I really appreciate it


    And I will be back! With another debate.


    Thanks everyone~ TheMythLives





    new topics

    top topics



     
    14

    log in

    join