It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


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


What if we ARE all alone? Scientists say Earth may be a 'one-off fluke'

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by redoubt

I agree with you up to a point. I don't understand why it would take courage to confirm the existence of extraterrestrial bacterial life. Intelligent extraterrestrial life - sure, that would take courage to come out in confirmation of. But if there was evidence of bacterial life out there (and they weren't covering up the existence of intelligent aliens - which I think is at least a potential explanation) I think they'd just come out with it.

I do think these scientists are off their rocker though. Obviously extending our sample of this planet to others is flawed to begin with - but if we just look at life, wouldn't you have to assume that all life is a fluke to assume that life on this planet is a fluke? Wouldn't you then have to assume that - if life is a fluke - there would only be a handful of lifeforms on this planet?

The fact that this planet is teeming with life - if we even remotely attempt to extend this sample out into the greater universe then even the most basic extension is that there is at least some life out there. The real extension is that the universe is in fact teeming with life.

Can we base our assumptions of the universe on just one planet? Heck no. Do we have a choice until we get out there? Again, heck no. But we can at least be intelligent and rational about it!

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:36 PM
reply to post by TheStev

Incorrect. The process of evolution which would create all the myriad life forms on this planet would only need a spark. That spark is an unknown, and the current understanding can not explain how it occured. Statistically this means as of now Earth is a fluke. To say some day we will understand it and we will see that it is common is unverifiable and not statistically relevant. Therefore saying life on Earth is a fluke would not necessitate there only being 1 form of life on Earth.

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:43 AM
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

That requires a view that there was a single spark, and all life on Earth evolved from it. I don't think all evolutionary scientists hold to this view - and frankly I find it hard to swallow that all life on earth evolved from a single being. Not saying I don't believe in evolution, but multiple sparks is far easier to believe than everything coming from a single spark.

But even if you allow for the single spark theory, the fact that life has evolved in various different (and often hostile) environments on Earth seems to support the idea that even on Earth it is not a fluke. To me this suggests that 'nature will find a way', which again supports the idea of a myriad of different lifeforms in space.

But thanks for playing. I have to wonder, has anyone ever responded positively to a post you have started with 'Incorrect'? I can't imagine they have.

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:52 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by ollncasino

It's just statistically likely that we aren't the only life in this galaxy

Isn't that what the article is saying though, that statistically it is likely that we are unique and a fluke?

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:54 AM
reply to post by SpaceBoy97

Can you please direct to me the evidence of prehistoric fossils that have been found inside of asteriods?

Would love to see that!

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:46 AM
Show this video to the people that say that we are alone and tell me what they say.

The Universe is full of life we are not the only ones in this infinite universe.

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:32 AM
Data can be played with in all kinds of ways to make it say different things to different people. I think the fact that the building blocks of life have been found in meteors says that life is out there and probably not so different than here on earth, once goldilocks planets are factored in. Planets made up of different chemicals than earth probably have life different than earth. We could be the most advanced intelligent life or the the only or the least, but I highly doubt we're the only life out there.

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:04 PM
Why are some people so conviced that we are the only life in the WHOLE universe. The ratio leans more toward us not be the only ones in the universe, So people will just have to deal with it.

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:30 PM
The universe is life generating machine, the stament that life on earth is a fluke sounds more to me like a religious stament rather than one base on science. To quote a favorite move of mine "life finds a way".

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by C-JEAN

What are you trying to say?

To be honest im going to keep listening to NASA, I don't think they have done anything irrational yet.

As for life outside of our solar system, I believe there is life out there, like other posters have already stated there are an estimated 100 billion galaxies in our universe, with between 100 billion stars to 1 trillion stars located in them. The percentage is just to great to say there isnt life somewhere else out there.

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:05 PM

The inverse gambler's fallacy, named by philosopher Ian Hacking, is a formal fallacy of Bayesian inference which is similar to the better known gambler's fallacy. It is the fallacy of concluding, on the basis of an unlikely outcome of a random process, that the process is likely to have occurred many times before.

So far based on actual data, the odds of extra terrestrial life are countless billions to 1.

I believe there is life out there, but this is not based on real data.

There had to be 1st, perhaps this is it.
edit on 3-5-2012 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by caf1550

Hi caf1550.

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my first post ! B-)

Re read my first post while thinking the next :
I can't beleive they want to "limit" life in the universe to ONLY earth ! !

? See all the bizarre encounters made by MANY persons, EVERYWHERE !?

What are those "things", around
floating boats ?
riding automobilists ?
nuclear silos ?
flying planes/jets ?
the "things" fighter jets do chase ?
. . .etc. . .?

Soooo, re read my first post, now !! B-)

EDIT to add:
Being SO incompetent with 2 vehicules on 6,
could they be the same with "space biology" ??
I think so !

Blue skies.

edit on 2012/5/6 by C-JEAN because: Last question.

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:21 PM
What if the galaxies not as big as they think...

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:25 PM
since science can't even explain the origins of life, they are just guessing here when you boil it down

and no, primordial soup and magic lightning that creates a DNA molecule is not an explanation, lol

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:30 PM
Scientists say Earth may be a 'one-off fluke'

If that turned out to be true I would find that very sad. It would make the universe a very lonely place

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:53 PM
Personally, if we were the ONLY living things in the universe (meaning earth),
Then we would have one hell of a back yard to play in,
we do already, but if no one else is out there, then it is all OURS!!

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:46 AM
reply to post by TheStev

I don't know of anyone who says there were multiple sparks on Earth, especially since they can't explain even one spark.

No, all it would mean is that once the "spark" event has happened life is capable of evolving in amazing ways. Life being able to evolve from non-hostile into hostile events over time does not negate it being a fluke.

Yes, you just did. Telling someone they are wrong shouldn't preclude a logical discussion. Name calling, now that is usually a deal breaker, but I don't do that.

Anyways, my belief is that all these researchers are saying is that we have no idea how life even started on Earth, and as of yet there is zero evidence for life elsewhere. So don't jump on the bandwagon of life has to be everywhere, because it doesn't, and there is zero evidence for it. It does not mean they dont have a hope, or that they think it impossible, they are simply saying stick with evidence.

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:51 AM

reply to post by ollncasino

Isn't that what the article is saying though, that statistically it is likely that we are unique and a fluke?

No, it's not. It's saying that statistically the only life we know of is ours. That means to claim life must be elsewhere is not science, it's hopes and dreams. They are not saying the math says we are a fluke, they are saying there is no data, so us being a fluke is every bit as statistically likely as us not being a fluke.

They are saying stop rushing to conclusions with no information, that is not science
edit on 8-5-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:01 AM
I feel that the majority of responses to this article demonstrates the extent to which we've been CONVINCED that "alien life" exists. It's not even a wondering of the imagination anymore, like looking up at the stars and wondering IF other life is out there. People today thoroughly believe something as fact when nothing really has changed. Science has grown and confirmed the existence of planets, yes, but WHAT has convinced many that life is DEFINITELY out there? The theory of evolution, science fiction and lots of UFO stories. If one is convinced that evolution produced us, then the only logical conclusion is that life HAD to evolve elsewhere. The indignation shown in many posts against even the idea that life only exists on this planet clearly demonstrates the level of conviction that many now hold as FACT. I know that I was created by God, yet this is rejected today as "silly thinking" by those whom have been so thoroughly convinced by others that He wasn't responsible for Creation. In order for atheism to be true, an alternate explanation for our existence had to be presented that was extremely credible and convincing. Evolution is the "creation theory" for the religion of atheism; a religion that is denied as a religion! The indignation in responses to the mere suggestion that we are alone is an indicator of just how strongly this religion of man has become entrenched in many minds......“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in