Life outside of Earth. We are NOT alone.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Celestica
While I'm not going to argue over single-celled organisms and what not I will tell you this. If you take the salmonella virus and put it into space, it because over 100x reproductive and deadly. NASA has put several viruses into space and almost all of them thrived. Just food for thought.

It makes me think that thanks to NASA, any ET life we know about originated on Earth.

Why would it make you think that? The purpose of the statement was to show how viruses can exist in the vacuum of space. If our viruses can, why can't other things like single-celled organisms? Aka, Panspermia.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by GonzoSinister
so yes i will give you we can only use earth as an example but it is exactly like me looking out my window to my back garden and saying there is no plants on earth because in my back garden you can only see gravel!!

That's not the same analogy. It would be more like me looking out the window into the back garden and seeing a diamond the size of a car there, and without knowing how it got there assuming there must be a similar diamond in many, many other back gardens because there's one in mine and the conditions in the other gardens are essentially the same.

Well that would be a justifed thing to think!!

you can only base it on the tiny amount of outside you can see, as you are aware there is no conditions diffrent in the surrounding gardens, and you presume the Diamond grew in your back garden that would infact be a completley justified conclusion to be drawn from your over night garden diamond!!

then if you asked two neighbours if they had a diamond and they said no, you look at the other billion gardens with similar atmospheres and conditions as yoru you would expect to see a diamond in many more gardens!!



Only after thourouly exploring 40/50% of these gardens anf finding nothing could you then come to the conclusion yours was possibly a one off.

But then you couldnt gaurentee that you would then need to look at the 100 billion other gardens with entirley diffrent conditions to your and take ahuge sample 20/30% but actually to be sure more like 50/60% that no other varient of the giant car dianmond or another large very similar carbon based Giant product had appeared over night.

Then you owul have to look for equally as giant none carbon based occurances in all the gardens starting from point one again,

Then to prove no other diamond of any sort could grow anywhere go back to garden one again and prove a tiny little diamond didnt exsist there.

then you would need to look for an equally tiny varient of anything carbon in any of the billion equal condition gardens and then in the hundered billion on equal condition garden...

you understand the complexity of searching the universe now?

reply to post by GonzoSinister


Exactly. Whether you are right or wrong, the thing that makes science progress is inquisitiveness. There is no room in science for can't or won't. You keep trying and trying until you find the right answer, don't be embarrassed by the wrong one, it helps you find the right one. Besides, most people don't call their publisher when the find the wrong answer to creation theories.

Originally posted by GonzoSinister
you understand the complexity of searching the universe now?

Oh, I have no difficulty understanding how it's impossible to prove a negative, or how hard it would be to search the universe. I don't even disagree that there MIGHT be life out there somewhere, in spite of the odds.

What I disagree with is people saying that according to the mathematical probabilities and the sheer size of the universe that there absolutely for sure is life out there somewhere. The subject title of this whole thread. Because that is simply wrong. ET life is one of those things where 99.9999 percent certainly of its existence doesn't count. It either exists or it doesn't. It's dialectics, man. The Moon is in orbit, or it isn't. You can't go into space and land on a 50 percent probability of a planet.

And at this moment in time (it could all change tomorrow), we are the only game in town we know of for sure. The only life we know of is either on or came from right here on Earth.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by GonzoSinister
you understand the complexity of searching the universe now?

Oh, I have no difficulty understanding how it's impossible to prove a negative, or how hard it would be to search the universe. I don't even disagree that there MIGHT be life out there somewhere, in spite of the odds.

What I disagree with is people saying that according to the mathematical probabilities and the sheer size of the universe that there absolutely for sure is life out there somewhere. The subject title of this whole thread. Because that is simply wrong. ET life is one of those things where 99.9999 percent certainly of its existence doesn't count. It either exists or it doesn't. It's dialectics, man. The Moon is in orbit, or it isn't. You can't go into space and land on a 50 percent probability of a planet.

And at this moment in time (it could all change tomorrow), we are the only game in town we know of for sure. The only life we know of is either on or came from right here on Earth.

See i disagree with your statement simply because we as a relativley primative species are fistly fumbling around the universe with our fancy looking glasses guessing and making things up as we go along, and secondly using science we have only truley understood for 150 years at best to discover new life and looking at a tiny tiny area of the entire universe...

So it is definetley somthing you can put down to probability, remeber we as a species have ahuge number who believe in a supreme being or god based on nothing but blind faith and word of mouth but yet there is absolutley no proof of a devine creator....

If you look at the universe from an objective scientific point of view, knowing the building blocks are out there, understand the vast spaces we are refering to and understanding the probablities of our short commings when understanding science (as a species) the chances of us being alone are greatly outweighed by the chances of one solitary plant ona distant planet many light years away (extra terrestrial life)

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Celestica
In 2009, it was confirmed that the amino acid glycine had been found in the comet dust recovered by NASA's Stardust mission. In August 2011, a report, based on NASA studies with meteorites found on Earth, was published suggesting DNA and RNA components (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed on asteroids and comets in outer space.

So? Were these things alive, or once alive? No. Here's an experiment for you. Rather than just some bits of amino acids, get some long strands of actual DNA (it's not that difficult), and put them in a beaker and start shaking it. Let me know when it coalesces into a living organism with a point of view and can reproduce itself.

You can have all the parts you want, but that doesn't make it alive. Just like you can take all the parts of a computer and put them in a bag and shake them for 13 billion years, and you're not necessarily going to ever end up with a fully-functioning computer.

The truth is, we only have one example of a planet with life on it -- Earth -- and nobody (even the religious among us) knows how life came to be on that planet. Without knowing that, it's not possible to determine the odds of life ever happening again anywhere, and maybe not even then.

Have you forgotten about Dolly the cloned sheep?

The battle of Los Angeles, the Nuremburg incident, Betty and Barney Hill, Travis Walton, the countless other abduction stories, the story of the man who was raped by alien women and had pubic hair evidence, cave drawings of people in space suits and flying machines, ancient religious texts about flying machines in which 'God' resided, cattle mutilations, crop circles, just to name a few.

reply to post by MisterFister103


Some of those Figurines of "Astronauts" actually look like the old fashioned deep sea divers suits. In the case of Peter Khoury the hair that was found and had the mt tested by "the invisible college" produced two different sets of results, both determined to be of human origin but that the sample or the test was compromised. It is possible that the hair was a composite or even a wig but neither did they test for that possibility or whether the hair was male or female. Perhaps rather than sending the sample to an esoteric, philosophical college, a science lab would have been more appropriate? Just a suggestion.

What is interesting about the cattle mutilations is that on a number of occasions, helicopters were witnessed in the area around the time of and it seems like such a human/scientific thing to do. I also noticed that mutilations happened to spike a few years prior to the release of the bovine Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or Mad Cow to which once infected there is no known cure. Interesting population control if you ask me? Too bad most western farmers keep strict controls on outbreaks in herds.

Many of the so called "Alien Rape" encounters have later been exposed by hypnosis as implanted memories or virtual reality scenarios. Once you introduce such things there is difficulty in proving all memories pertaining to said event were not a vr simulation of some sort. Our own government has been experimenting for years with VR simulations, dream technology and mind control technology. Who better to test on than the hundreds of millions of unsuspecting grazing cattle out there for according to them that is what we are.

I guess it's easier to believe that aliens traveled a trillion billion years plus in order to meet a species that barely have the technology to leave it's own gravity than to believe your own leaders and military are using you and betraying you. Don't you think it highly suspect that all of the reported UAP's function exceeding well in our rather universally unique gravity field? Why; for spaceships that have come from goodness knows how different their own gravitational and atmospheric fields may possibly be they seem to excel in ours?

How fortunate that they came trillions and billions of years to a backward planet and just happened to account for and adjust to our planet. Logic tells me that is because these UAP's were made to work in our atmosphere and with our gravity and the odds of an alien civilization doing that, would be less than an alien civilization outside our own existing. In my humble opinion, just for those that want to add that as opposed to any response of real value.

cheers.

Originally posted by Athin
Have you forgotten about Dolly the cloned sheep?

No, but again, you're talking about working with something that already exists -- a living, working cell where you exchange some of the parts. Nobody built Dolly the Sheep from scratch. Nobody took a bunch of carbonic chemicals and formed them into amino acids, and then twisted them into sheep RNA/DNA strands, then encapsulated those in an artificial egg cell membrane they made out of proteins and then jumpstarted all that somehow like Frankenstein and then put it in a sheep to grow a new animal. That would have been awesome!

Originally posted by GonzoSinister
See i disagree with your statement simply because we as a relativley primative species are fistly fumbling around the universe with our fancy looking glasses guessing and making things up as we go along, and secondly using science we have only truley understood for 150 years at best to discover new life and looking at a tiny tiny area of the entire universe...

I agree that we're both massively ignorant but also incredibly clever. Maybe someday we'll figure out exactly how a bunch of interesting chemicals managed to cobble itself together to become alive. Then we'll know how probable or improbable it is depending on the given situation, and can apply that to the rest of the universe. At the moment though, the odds are pretty much 50/50. Alien life/intelligence either exists, or it doesn't. A flip of a coin where we can't even be completely sure the coin has two sides.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Ok untill The is 100% proof either way our argument should be put to reast at the moment,

Also im always happy to walk away from an argument when both people have shown they can and will stand there ground and argue with the best of there ability applying logic, essentially to opposite sides of a coin

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Athin
Have you forgotten about Dolly the cloned sheep?

No, but again, you're talking about working with something that already exists -- a living, working cell where you exchange some of the parts. Nobody built Dolly the Sheep from scratch. Nobody took a bunch of carbonic chemicals and formed them into amino acids, and then twisted them into sheep RNA/DNA strands, then encapsulated those in an artificial egg cell membrane they made out of proteins and then jumpstarted all that somehow like Frankenstein and then put it in a sheep to grow a new animal. That would have been awesome!

Fine. There you go.
www.scientificamerican.com...