[Prometheus The Supremo]

Believing in aliens is a lot like believing in God. You can't prove or disprove either at this point. So no point worrying about it. Everyone just go along your merry ways and if there's life out there, we may find it eventually. But not in your lifetime, your kids' lifetimes, or their kids' lifetimes.

it's nothing like believing in god. first of all, one deals with the supernatural and another deals with the natural. and since life does exist on earth, it is very possible (likely) that life exists elsewhere in the universe or could have or will exist. of course we can't prove that it does, has & will but it is within the realm of which has proved to be possible for at least one time. something that has proved to happen once (life existing on a planet in the universe) is more possible to happen more than one time than something which has never been proven. it is more likely that life has, does and/or will exist elsewhere in the universe (other than just on earth) than it is likely that there is a god for that reason.

also, how can you be certain that "if there's life out there, we may find it eventually. But not in your lifetime, your kids' lifetimes, or their kids' lifetimes."? why take such a position of certainty?

 

[wonderboy416]

Even if there is an earth-sized world revolving around a stable yellow-dwarf star, and even if this planet is orbiting at distance that is optimal for allowing large bodies of liquid water on its surface, there is no automatic guarantee that life would evolve. The specific circumstances of how such a process comes about is still unknown.

It's unknown, but there are plausible theories out there. The scientific community isn't in full agreement, but that's the beauty of the scientific process. They will get there eventually. I wonder how religion would view such a discovery.

Believing in aliens is a lot like believing in God. You can't prove or disprove either at this point. So no point worrying about it. Everyone just go along your merry ways and if there's life out there, we may find it eventually. But not in your lifetime, your kids' lifetimes, or their kids' lifetimes.

As pointed out it's completely different from believing in god which is why I brought it up. Science is searching for evidence of life not in this planet and has made terrific progress spotting numerous planets, finding evidence on Mars etc... There's great reason to believe that there is some kind of life form out there. God on the other hand... I guess it's a matter of a gut feeling and nothing more.

 

[afransen]

Well, there are scientists on the cusp of proving there was life on Mars. As was mentioned a few posts prior, they've found what appears to be fossilized microorganisms in a Martian meteorite that's been sitting in a British museum for a century. If the evidence supports it, it would tend to indicate that life is not a fluke on Earth. Even if it is very rare, if you give it 100 trillion trials, there are bound to be other planets much like Earth, capable of supporting life.

 

[gristle]

it's nothing like believing in god. first of all, one deals with the supernatural and another deals with the natural. and since life does exist on earth, it is very possible (likely) that life exists elsewhere in the universe or could have or will exist. of course we can't prove that it does, has & will but it is within the realm of which has proved to be possible for at least one time. something that has proved to happen once (life existing on a planet in the universe) is more possible to happen more than one time than something which has never been proven. it is more likely that life has, does and/or will exist elsewhere in the universe (other than just on earth) than it is likely that there is a god for that reason.

As of yet, there is no evidence that life exists on other worlds, so there is nothing apparent regarding how "natural" it is. As it stands, the hypothesis is that since life evolved on one world, it should be able to happen on another world. But as of yet, there is no evidence or actual proof to support this claim. Just because life evolved on one world does not automatically mean that that there is life on other worlds. There is still an absence of proof regarding whether there is life on other planets. Period.

There really is no need to toss around words such as "possible" or "likely." In order to support a claim for life on other worlds, what is required is actual evidence. Otherwise, all you have is conjecture, and that should never stand in for verifiable proof.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

As of yet, there is no evidence that life exists on other worlds, so there is nothing apparent regarding how "natural" it is. As it stands, the hypothesis is that since life evolved on one world, it should be able to happen on another world. But as of yet, there is no evidence or actual proof to support this claim. Just because life evolved on one world does not automatically mean that that there is life on other worlds. There is still an absence of proof regarding whether there is life on other planets. Period.

There really is no need to toss around words such as "possible" or "likely." In order to support a claim for life on other worlds, what is required is actual evidence. Otherwise, all you have is conjecture, and that should never stand in for verifiable proof.

all i was doing was explaining the difference between believing in the existence of other life than earthly in the universe and believing in a god. i never said there was other life or that there is proof. if something happened once, it has proven that it is within the realm of what is possible. i never said any of it was verifiable proof nor did i even hint it.

 

[cacruden]

Well, we better put our life on another planet sometime in the next few thousand years - or - no more earthlings I seem to remember that a sun in our region of space - too close - is likely to go supernova - and that would sterilize the earth

 

[wonderboy416]

Well, we better put our life on another planet sometime in the next few thousand years - or - no more earthlings I seem to remember that a sun in our region of space - too close - is likely to go supernova - and that would sterilize the earth

In about 5 billion years the sun's time should be up, considering the advances we've made since coming out of the dark ages I wouldn't worry about it... as long as some extremist doesn't go jihad on the planet I'm sure we'll navigate our way out of danger. I'd also say it's more likely that a sixth major catastrophe would occur posing a much bigger threat to our existence than the expiry of our sun. Most of the earth's animal population keeps getting wiped out, it would be foolish to think that the planet that never sleeps has matured and isn't prone to another one. If you were to draw a line a km long and drop a crumb at the end of it that would about represent how long we've been on this planet in our current form...

To think that our 87th closest neighbour has 1 planet in the habitable zone and 1 just outside gives me hope that we'll find countless planets capable of sustaining human life in our lifetimes... The technology to actually get there is probably a few centuries away. Maybe we'll be like the monarch butterflies, one generation will start the journey and several generations later we'll finally arrive at our new home...

 

[GenerationW]

You refuse to accept the possibility that thanks to science, we know the earth is most likely just one of many planets capable of sustaining life in the universe. This is hugely exciting, of course no life has actually been discovered... but there's a mountain of evidence out there suggesting that the building blocks for life are scattered EVERYWHERE and aren't unique to this planet. This is quite the contrast to evidence supporting a god.. oh yeah, there isnt any.

I accept there is a possibility of life on other planets but after years of looking none has yet been found, so we can say for a fact that there is no life beyond our planet, and I believe it is likely none will ever be found.

Sikh uprising (80's), Northern Ireland (70's to late 90's), Jonestown, Iraq (91-92), Bosnia (early 90's), Spanish Inquisition, Thirty Years War, St Barltholamew massacre.

Just to name a few... some might even throw in the holocaust since Jews were targetted. I'm sure I missed a whole bunch, and of course many conflicts can still be attributed to religion even if it wasn't the sole cause of the conflict such as the Dutch revolt, Muslim conquest of India etc...

Some I would agree, others not, and you missed some obvious ones, but adding up all the numbers still doesn't get us to hundreds of millions of deaths.

It's quite simple, you remove religion and the world would be a much better place. Of course someone else would be in our place as our existence as individuals is entirely random so you could say that about anything.

It was tried in the Soviet Union (among other places) and was a spectacular failure. Therefore, I reject your theory. I submit that it's not the existence or absence of religion that is the deciding factor, but the conduct of individuals and groups of people.

Oh yeah, I forgot, massacres attributed to Darwin/Evolution... 0

Until strict Darwinians/Evolutionists organize and take political power somewhere, there's no scientific evidence for comparison. Unless you believe the communists fit that bill.

If something works for some but kills others and causes strife all over the world, is it really "working"? Why not worship the sun? At least we can see it and we know what it does for the earth.

We did worship the sun in pagan times. I'm all for it.

God did not create man, man created god.

Did god create man, or did man create god? I'm open to either one. Or neither one. Or both.

 

[js97]

What an interesting/but polarizing thread....

There should be an option of 'either one/both combined, Not Enough data?' lol

Perhaps 'god' planted the seed of 'life' (microorganisms, elements, ability to evolve) and watched it grow?

It can all be as simple as perspective. 'God' could have simply been a more advanced 'life form'? Why not?

If we travelled back 5000 thousand years, and showed the cavemen what we can do (show them a lighter?), don't you think we would be considered a Deity ? 'God of Fire' lol

then perhaps stories get passed on, exaturated, next thing you know, we're worshiping ourselfs?

Supernatural/natural it's just an intrepretation for my human mind to be able to grasp a concept, it's arrogant to say one way or another.

But sometimes, if you think about how this planet is so interconnected (circle of life moment), how every chemical interaction in your body is interdependant, it makes you wonder if such complex, but intertwined architecture, was by design? It is a little tough for me to say for certain that all the blocks just fell into place, by coincidence.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

But sometimes, if you think about how this planet is so interconnected (circle of life moment), how every chemical interaction in your body is interdependant, it makes you wonder if such complex, but intertwined architecture, was by design? It is a little tough for me to say for certain that all the blocks just fell into place, by coincidence.

if life is too complex to originate and evolve by natural means, that it must have had a designer for that reason, imagine how complex the designer must be. but surely, such a designer would be too complex to have originated on its own and must have had a designer. but surely, a designer who designed a designer who designed life is too complex to originate on its own and must have had a designer. but surely, a designer who designed a designer who designed a designer who designed life is too complex to originate on its own and must have had a designer ( infinity-->)

 

[wonderboy416]

I accept there is a possibility of life on other planets but after years of looking none has yet been found, so we can say for a fact that there is no life beyond our planet, and I believe it is likely none will ever be found.

That's a fair statement. However most scientists would disagree with you. I'd also point out that 93% of practicing scientists identify themselves as atheist or agnostic. I'd state the opposite, I think it's almost a certainty that we'll find life elsewhere in the universe.

Therefore, I reject your theory. I submit that it's not the existence or absence of religion that is the deciding factor, but the conduct of individuals and groups of people.

They were guided by their religious beliefs. Many Americans rejected the abolishment of slavery as it was endorsed by the bible... so for hundreds of years blacks in the US were enslaved. The Koran also endorses slavery which has been the cause of great suffering for millions as well.

Perhaps 'god' planted the seed of 'life' (microorganisms, elements, ability to evolve) and watched it grow?

Then one could say that god did not create humans. It's genetic variance (which happens by chance) that aids the process of natural selection. It's incredibly naive to think that the millions of chance variations that led to us as humans (and lions being lions etc...) were planned.

If we travelled back 5000 thousand years, and showed the cavemen what we can do (show them a lighter?), don't you think we would be considered a Deity ? 'God of Fire' lol

Perhaps, but those cavemen would have experienced something we haven't... PROOF.

It is a little tough for me to say for certain that all the blocks just fell into place, by coincidence.

Coincidence???? Perhaps you need to open up a an evolutionary book or two. May I suggest anything written by mr Richard Dawkins? While chance variation is what leads to more complexity, life itself (and evolution) has a very specific purpose... SURVIVAL. Our thumbs became opposable because they greatly enhanced our ability to survive - otherwise this trait would have been discarded if it were a hindrance. It is no coincidence that they sit on our hands where they do...

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

it's easy to look at the successes and think it's too complex to have come naturally. you need to look at the failures to get the full picture. lets say it may be a 1 in a billion chance for something to come about but there wasn't just once chance or opportunity for it to happen. it's not like throwing a dart in the dark and hitting the bullseye in one chance.

for a simple structure or function to evolve or exist, it is the winner out of many tries. we and other life forms are the accumulation of these wins. just imagine how many successful mutations it took from abiogenesis to get to where you are now. imagine all the failed mutations along the way, the losers amongst the winners that made up you. it must be an insanely large number.

 

[afransen]

"I accept there is a possibility of life on other planets but after years of looking none has yet been found, so we can say for a fact that there is no life beyond our planet, and I believe it is likely none will ever be found."

You can't prove a negative, and the idea that based on a few decades of observation from millions of miles away from the closest planet constitute proof that the entire universe is devoid of life save this planet is utterly laughable.

 

[GenerationW]

You can't prove a negative, and the idea that based on a few decades of observation from millions of miles away from the closest planet constitute proof that the entire universe is devoid of life save this planet is utterly laughable.

Fair enough. My opinion is that there is no life in the universe besides our own.

I don't put all my faith in every speculation and fantasy put forward by scientists. They are in a fierce competition for funding, and it would be foolhardy to believe that maintaining a strict adherence to the facts gets them the best return when making presentations that decide how the pie is divided.

infinity-->

That's a possibility. Some astronomers who reject the Big Bang Theory believe our universe existed back in time into infinity.

 

[wonderboy416]

Fair enough. My opinion is that there is no life in the universe besides our own.

I don't put all my faith in every speculation and fantasy put forward by scientists. They are in a fierce competition for funding, and it would be foolhardy to believe that maintaining a strict adherence to the facts gets them the best return when making presentations that decide how the pie is divided.

I could understand this statement with regards to say... global warming. But who are astronomers and evolutionary biologists competing with other than each other? They all seem to agree about evolution and the possibility of life in outer space... it's a matter of competing methods, not beliefs...

What about the overwhelming evidence suggesting that earth is one of what is probably thousands or millions of planets capable of sustaining life do you not believe in? I'm curious what is driving this disbelief... is it religion? Do you truly think that our planet is so privileged as to be the only one that actually sustains life out of at least billions of other planets? It's like a weather cast indicating a 99% chance of rain, yet you are certain there won't be rain... what leads you to think otherwise?

That's a possibility. Some astronomers who reject the Big Bang Theory believe our universe existed back in time into infinity.

What's your point exactly? The beauty of science is that a scientist will give up a particular belief when proven wrong... religion on the other hand won't... which makes them drastically different. Evolution has already been proven 100%... if you don't believe in it you might as well not believe in gravity, they're both equally proven.