Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Gotta be close to 1.01 imo.
Show More
I had SETI and after I had one of those that was looking for a cure for cancer.
Why don't these people set their sites a bit lower?
Why don't these people set their sites a bit lower?
Just noticed Paddy Poopers are running scared on this topic.
10 years ago you'd have got 1000/1
A few months ago I reported they were offering 50/1.
Now after the reports from yesterday about a Planet found in the hospitable zone around another planet they have cut the odds to....
wait for it....
10/1 and quote:
"Singles Only. Settled on the sitting President of the USA making a statement confirming without doubt the existence of alternative life beings from another planet."
lol
10 years ago you'd have got 1000/1
A few months ago I reported they were offering 50/1.
Now after the reports from yesterday about a Planet found in the hospitable zone around another planet they have cut the odds to....
wait for it....
10/1 and quote:
"Singles Only. Settled on the sitting President of the USA making a statement confirming without doubt the existence of alternative life beings from another planet."
lol
Market is:
Will extraterrestrial life be proven before 2020
No : 1/50 Yes 10/1
Will extraterrestrial life be proven before 2020
No : 1/50 Yes 10/1
Poor value, but 'yes' is a cert, assuming that fossilized bacteria can count. Theres some satelite heading for europa in 2019. Bank job imo.
Crafty gits, sh!t odds but they'll pay out for nothing:
"Proposed for a launch in 2020, the Europa Jupiter System Mission (EJSM) is a joint NASA/ESA proposal for exploration of Jupiter's moons."
And it will take a spacecraft a min of 2 years to get there.
"Proposed for a launch in 2020, the Europa Jupiter System Mission (EJSM) is a joint NASA/ESA proposal for exploration of Jupiter's moons."
And it will take a spacecraft a min of 2 years to get there.
im offering 14/1 aliens exist ,any takers :)
There must have been countless thousands of intelligent life forms in the universe. And the vast majority will end/have ended the way we will. A few must have escaped their crippling inheritance though. Knowing what life holds they must be masturbating furiously while watching porn and drinking themselves senseless.
Oh, wait...
Oh, wait...
I would suspect the universe is teeming with life but I also suspect the very vast majority won't have got past the swamp stage.
Aliens elsewhere = 1.00000000000000000000001
Aliens on Earth = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
A false alien incident (ie thought alien but really human) = 500
Aliens on Earth = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
A false alien incident (ie thought alien but really human) = 500
is SETI still going or has been scrapped?
Yes in a fashion.
In 1979 the University of California, Berkeley launched a SETI project named "Search for Extraterrestrial Radio Emissions from Nearby Developed Intelligent Populations (SERENDIP)".[12] In 1986, UC Berkeley initiated their second SETI effort, SERENDIP II, and has continued with four more SERENDIP efforts to the present day. The latest incarnation of the SERENDIP project is SERENDIP V.v, a commensal all-sky survey using the Arecibo radio telescope began in June 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI
They might well have had one contact, but then it disappeared. Aliens taking the piss.
The OSU SETI program gained fame on August 15, 1977 when Jerry Ehman, a project volunteer, witnessed a startlingly strong signal received by the telescope. He quickly circled the indication on a printout and scribbled the phrase “Wow!” in the margin. This signal, dubbed the Wow! signal, is considered by some[who?] to be the most likely candidate from an artificial, extraterrestrial source ever discovered, but it has not been detected again in several additional searches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI
Yes in a fashion.
In 1979 the University of California, Berkeley launched a SETI project named "Search for Extraterrestrial Radio Emissions from Nearby Developed Intelligent Populations (SERENDIP)".[12] In 1986, UC Berkeley initiated their second SETI effort, SERENDIP II, and has continued with four more SERENDIP efforts to the present day. The latest incarnation of the SERENDIP project is SERENDIP V.v, a commensal all-sky survey using the Arecibo radio telescope began in June 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI
They might well have had one contact, but then it disappeared. Aliens taking the piss.
The OSU SETI program gained fame on August 15, 1977 when Jerry Ehman, a project volunteer, witnessed a startlingly strong signal received by the telescope. He quickly circled the indication on a printout and scribbled the phrase “Wow!” in the margin. This signal, dubbed the Wow! signal, is considered by some[who?] to be the most likely candidate from an artificial, extraterrestrial source ever discovered, but it has not been detected again in several additional searches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI
in all fairness only a complete fkwit would begin to believe there isnt other forms lving + habiting other planets somewhere or other.
course theres no other life forms in the vastness of space....indeed that makes the rest of space a complete waste of space 
seti@home is still going
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one.
Fair chance there's life elsewhere in our solar system, but with a common ancestry to life on earth.
As close to zero chance as makes no difference that there is life anywhere else in the universe. The extraordinary sequence of precisely positioned events required for chemicals to form a reproducing cell is orders of magnitude more improbable than the number of atoms in the observable universe.
Obviously it's happened once, within our solar system, but if you believe it could have happened twice, then you're going to have to start believing in an intelligent Creator.
As close to zero chance as makes no difference that there is life anywhere else in the universe. The extraordinary sequence of precisely positioned events required for chemicals to form a reproducing cell is orders of magnitude more improbable than the number of atoms in the observable universe.
Obviously it's happened once, within our solar system, but if you believe it could have happened twice, then you're going to have to start believing in an intelligent Creator.
As Enrico Fermi said, "If the galaxy is teeming with life, where is everyone?"
SFBTW - I've seen you post this theory before. Why don't we hear this from scientists?
SFBTW - I've seen you post this theory before. Why don't we hear this from scientists?
Our propulsion systems, and our knowledge and understanding of the universe, are primitive.
SBTW's view is incorrect in my view, I make it a close to zero chance that there isn't intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
That doesn't mean that we will ever find it, or that it will ever find us.
Fascinating subject imo - impossible to be bullish one way or the other I would say.
SBTW's view is incorrect in my view, I make it a close to zero chance that there isn't intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
That doesn't mean that we will ever find it, or that it will ever find us.
Fascinating subject imo - impossible to be bullish one way or the other I would say.
I liked this. Maybe a bit slow and cheap budget but I enjoyed it.
Without Warning [Full] (1994)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9xMTA7qhZM
Without Warning [Full] (1994)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9xMTA7qhZM
I married 1..............so I fink they exist............
The Drake Equation doesn't really mean anything as some of the variables are pure guesses. First of all, would the powers that be want the populous of earth to know if there were aliens if they were contacted? With the exponential speed of technological advancement to see and hear messages from space(as well as to send them)it's hard to believe that there hasn't been contact already if there was ever going to be some.
When you think of the technological advancement in just the last 100 years wouldn't it seem that any other civilizations out there which have developed even 100 years (a miniscule amount of time) ahead of us would have found a way to spread tentacles of lasers or radio signals throughout the galaxy for others to pick up?
When you think of the technological advancement in just the last 100 years wouldn't it seem that any other civilizations out there which have developed even 100 years (a miniscule amount of time) ahead of us would have found a way to spread tentacles of lasers or radio signals throughout the galaxy for others to pick up?
When you think of the technological advancement in just the last 100 years wouldn't it seem that any other civilizations out there which have developed even 100 years (a miniscule amount of time) ahead of us would have found a way to spread tentacles of lasers or radio signals throughout the galaxy for others to pick up?
Fermi's view is similar although he said someone would have colonised the galaxy.
SFBTW is saying that there is no alien life whatsoever. Intelligent or otherwise.
Fermi's view is similar although he said someone would have colonised the galaxy.
SFBTW is saying that there is no alien life whatsoever. Intelligent or otherwise.
im fascinated by this and have to say they have to exist
i_agree_with_nick 02 Oct 14 18:35 Joined: 21 May 10 | Topic/replies: 5,716 | Blogger: i_agree_with_nick's blog
As Enrico Fermi said, "If the galaxy is teeming with life, where is everyone?"
SFBTW - I've seen you post this theory before. Why don't we hear this from scientists?
Hawking discussed this in a lecture a few years ago:
We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth.
...
What is the explanation of why we have not been visited? One possibility is that the argument, about the appearance of life on Earth, is wrong. Maybe the probability of life spontaneously appearing is so low, that Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, or in the observable universe, in which it happened.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html
More specifically Paul Davies, the prominent physicist and chairman of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup, believes the odds against life arising anywhere are so astronomically large that the scientist in him has to admit we must be alone. His book The Eerie Silence discusses this problem. When he appeared on The Sky At Night a few years ago, he described the notion that since there are so many stars in the observable universe then life must also have arisen elsewhere as "silly".
There are a million different types of protein in the human body. To form an average one requires 200 amino-acid molecules to self-assemble in the correct order. The number of possible combinations is 10^260 (1 followed by 260 zeroes), which is a number so vast that it is more than the number of atoms in the observable universe. The human body contains a million different proteins. Collagen requires 1,055 amino acid molecules to assemble in the correct sequence. It could only happen once.
But there's more ... protein is useless without DNA to reproduce it. But DNA has no other purpose other than to reproduce protein. Yet, incredibly, the two substances arose simultaneously, side-by-side.
The Nobel-prize-wining biologist Jacques Monod put it well. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Monod
He was also a proponent of the view that life on earth arose by freak chemical accident and was unlikely to be duplicated even in the vast universe. "Man at last knows he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty. The kingdom above or the darkness below; it is for him to choose", he wrote in 1971.[10] He used the bleak assessment that forms the earlier part of the quote as a springboard to argue for atheism.
As I said, if you believe life began more than once, you're effectively believing in God.
As Enrico Fermi said, "If the galaxy is teeming with life, where is everyone?"
SFBTW - I've seen you post this theory before. Why don't we hear this from scientists?
Hawking discussed this in a lecture a few years ago:
We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth.
...
What is the explanation of why we have not been visited? One possibility is that the argument, about the appearance of life on Earth, is wrong. Maybe the probability of life spontaneously appearing is so low, that Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, or in the observable universe, in which it happened.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html
More specifically Paul Davies, the prominent physicist and chairman of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup, believes the odds against life arising anywhere are so astronomically large that the scientist in him has to admit we must be alone. His book The Eerie Silence discusses this problem. When he appeared on The Sky At Night a few years ago, he described the notion that since there are so many stars in the observable universe then life must also have arisen elsewhere as "silly".
There are a million different types of protein in the human body. To form an average one requires 200 amino-acid molecules to self-assemble in the correct order. The number of possible combinations is 10^260 (1 followed by 260 zeroes), which is a number so vast that it is more than the number of atoms in the observable universe. The human body contains a million different proteins. Collagen requires 1,055 amino acid molecules to assemble in the correct sequence. It could only happen once.
But there's more ... protein is useless without DNA to reproduce it. But DNA has no other purpose other than to reproduce protein. Yet, incredibly, the two substances arose simultaneously, side-by-side.
The Nobel-prize-wining biologist Jacques Monod put it well. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Monod
He was also a proponent of the view that life on earth arose by freak chemical accident and was unlikely to be duplicated even in the vast universe. "Man at last knows he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty. The kingdom above or the darkness below; it is for him to choose", he wrote in 1971.[10] He used the bleak assessment that forms the earlier part of the quote as a springboard to argue for atheism.
As I said, if you believe life began more than once, you're effectively believing in God.
walofs. There is no answer, we dont know. why bring god into it 
I think Paul Davies's point would stand if human life had arisen spontaneously. Since human life is the result of evolution and selection from more basic life-forms however, I don't believe it does.
There is little doubt, to take his basic premise, that human life would not arise and has not arisen elsewhere given the exact sequence of events and ingredients necessary to create it. To extrapolate from that premise that no intelligent life can exist elsewhere is a massive leap of faith imo.
We have no idea, for instance, whether life can exist without the presence of carbon. Our own creation and existence depends on carbon - again it would be foolish in the extreme to conclude, with no evidence other than conditions on our own planet, that life based on other chemicals and depending on different conditions is impossible.
And I would argue with your God hypothesis - it is the basis of Christian belief that we are alone in the universe because God created human life on this planet only. It runs counter to that hypothesis to suggest that it, or something resembling it, also exists in other worlds.
As for Monod, his is more a philosophical argument, based on his own guess.
The fact is, we don't know. It wasn't very long ago that SETI were telling everyone that they were confident intelligent life would be detected within the next twenty years. And in the last couple of weeks we have detected the presence, several light years away, of exactly the type of complex carbon molecules required to initiate and sustain life.
There is little doubt, to take his basic premise, that human life would not arise and has not arisen elsewhere given the exact sequence of events and ingredients necessary to create it. To extrapolate from that premise that no intelligent life can exist elsewhere is a massive leap of faith imo.
We have no idea, for instance, whether life can exist without the presence of carbon. Our own creation and existence depends on carbon - again it would be foolish in the extreme to conclude, with no evidence other than conditions on our own planet, that life based on other chemicals and depending on different conditions is impossible.
And I would argue with your God hypothesis - it is the basis of Christian belief that we are alone in the universe because God created human life on this planet only. It runs counter to that hypothesis to suggest that it, or something resembling it, also exists in other worlds.
As for Monod, his is more a philosophical argument, based on his own guess.
The fact is, we don't know. It wasn't very long ago that SETI were telling everyone that they were confident intelligent life would be detected within the next twenty years. And in the last couple of weeks we have detected the presence, several light years away, of exactly the type of complex carbon molecules required to initiate and sustain life.
We have no idea of the scale of our ignorance so it surprises me that anyone, no matter how eminent a scientist, can come to any conclusion about this. Human beings have existed for a blink of an eye, so give it another 20,000 years and see what we think then.
I think we have some idea of the scale of our ignorance. We 'know' about 4% of the universe and that 4% is the entire universe for which we have theories that vary in their consistency. The other 96% is entirely unknown. The fact also remains that we don't know if any of it (the entire universe) really exists.
Another reason for lack of contact could also be that technologically advanced civilizations simply don't last very long, the likelihood of self destruction, disaster or annihalation by natural forces is much greater.
All fair points. Paul Davies has been a proponent of the possibility of life-forms based on arsenic rather than carbon (as on Earth) or silicon (as in Star Trek). These people do not have closed minds.
But in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of life beyond the solar system or life having arisen more than just the once on Earth, as well as an absence of any explanation of how it arose here at all beyond astounding coincidence, then I believe the burden is on those of you who claim it's self-evident that there must be life elsewhere to find that evidence.
Until someone does, my working hypothesis will be that we are alone.
But in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of life beyond the solar system or life having arisen more than just the once on Earth, as well as an absence of any explanation of how it arose here at all beyond astounding coincidence, then I believe the burden is on those of you who claim it's self-evident that there must be life elsewhere to find that evidence.
Until someone does, my working hypothesis will be that we are alone.
Dr Who writers have a vivid imagination.
The Moon is actually an egg that has taken billions of years to hatch.
The Moon is actually an egg that has taken billions of years to hatch.
Brian Cox says that we may be the only intelligent life in the galaxy but that there will be single-celled life "all over the place"
Brian Cox says that we may be the only intelligent life in the galaxy but that there will be single-celled life "all over the place"
I'm in this camp even though there is no evidence to back up my claims. I think the Universe is rife with life but beings capable of space travel are so rare, we may be the only one on in the galaxy (not Universe). I think there's a very good chance of life on Europa, Callisto, Enceladus even deep down on Mars as all the ingredients are there. Defining life is also hard, is a virus alive? Scientists are having a hard time defining it but I'd suspect it will arrive anywhere there is water, energy and enough time. The Universe is so huge that it's almost a certainty.
Also think about a World like Europa. It's covered in a 20km think layer of ice. There is most likely deep sea vents and an ocean under this crust so there's a fair chance it will arise but any potential life will have no chance of attaining space travel. We've also had means of communicating in space for 100 years, that's one 5 millionth of the age of the planet, that's a very short period, maybe every advanced species ruins it's planet by over population and using all it's resources. For all we know Mars and Venus could have been just like the Earth millions of years ago.
New Horizon reaches Pluto next year but already we know there is something very strange about this world. Some have calculated there could be an Ocean on Pluto as it's tidally locked with it's Moon Charon. This place is more like a binary planet than a planet/ moon system. With such frequency of possible life in our own Solar System, I'm very optimistic of life being found elsewhere even in my own lifetime.
I'm in this camp even though there is no evidence to back up my claims. I think the Universe is rife with life but beings capable of space travel are so rare, we may be the only one on in the galaxy (not Universe). I think there's a very good chance of life on Europa, Callisto, Enceladus even deep down on Mars as all the ingredients are there. Defining life is also hard, is a virus alive? Scientists are having a hard time defining it but I'd suspect it will arrive anywhere there is water, energy and enough time. The Universe is so huge that it's almost a certainty.
Also think about a World like Europa. It's covered in a 20km think layer of ice. There is most likely deep sea vents and an ocean under this crust so there's a fair chance it will arise but any potential life will have no chance of attaining space travel. We've also had means of communicating in space for 100 years, that's one 5 millionth of the age of the planet, that's a very short period, maybe every advanced species ruins it's planet by over population and using all it's resources. For all we know Mars and Venus could have been just like the Earth millions of years ago.
New Horizon reaches Pluto next year but already we know there is something very strange about this world. Some have calculated there could be an Ocean on Pluto as it's tidally locked with it's Moon Charon. This place is more like a binary planet than a planet/ moon system. With such frequency of possible life in our own Solar System, I'm very optimistic of life being found elsewhere even in my own lifetime.
If it's so straightforward, why has life arisen only once on this planet, and not twice or a million times?
Here we live on a world where we know conditions are right for life, yet after 4 billion years nothing whatsoever has been found with a DNA profile to indicate it arose independently of the evolutionary line shared by ourselves and every known living thing.
It's just hand-waving to claim that there are plenty of environments out there which could support life, so life must be out there. The environment is not the issue. It's how the hell could amino acids fall in the right sequence to form proteins at the precise moment RNA and/or DNA happened to be independently present ... and then somehow go on to form a self-replicating cell.
It's been compared to throwing a pile of nuts, bolts, wires, sheets of metal, etc. into the air and watching them land as a jumbo jet. It's astonishing it happened once ... but twice!
I have no problem keeping an open mind that there might be life elsewhere in our solar system from the same evolutionary root as ourselves, but truly alien life ... not one shred of evidence.
Here we live on a world where we know conditions are right for life, yet after 4 billion years nothing whatsoever has been found with a DNA profile to indicate it arose independently of the evolutionary line shared by ourselves and every known living thing.
It's just hand-waving to claim that there are plenty of environments out there which could support life, so life must be out there. The environment is not the issue. It's how the hell could amino acids fall in the right sequence to form proteins at the precise moment RNA and/or DNA happened to be independently present ... and then somehow go on to form a self-replicating cell.
It's been compared to throwing a pile of nuts, bolts, wires, sheets of metal, etc. into the air and watching them land as a jumbo jet. It's astonishing it happened once ... but twice!
I have no problem keeping an open mind that there might be life elsewhere in our solar system from the same evolutionary root as ourselves, but truly alien life ... not one shred of evidence.
I'm pretty convinced that the preconditions for life have at some point existed on Mars.
Its surface features strongly suggest that water has flowed across it, which in turn points to it once having had a dense enough atmosphere, and thus the requisite atmospheric pressure, to retain that water. My own belief is that it was hit by a large ferrous body, whose impact and its consequences burnt away the atmosphere. This would result in the almost instantaneous boiling of any water on Mars and of course, due to the loss of atmosphere, the dissipation of the steam from that water.
This theory also explains the red dust which thickly coats the planet's surface now.
Current theories about Enceladus, well studied in recent years by Cassini, suggest that it is also a prime candidate for life. Hubble has also detected water-vapour plumes on Europa, which I believe the European Space Agency is planning to visit some time in the 2030s.
Its surface features strongly suggest that water has flowed across it, which in turn points to it once having had a dense enough atmosphere, and thus the requisite atmospheric pressure, to retain that water. My own belief is that it was hit by a large ferrous body, whose impact and its consequences burnt away the atmosphere. This would result in the almost instantaneous boiling of any water on Mars and of course, due to the loss of atmosphere, the dissipation of the steam from that water.
This theory also explains the red dust which thickly coats the planet's surface now.
Current theories about Enceladus, well studied in recent years by Cassini, suggest that it is also a prime candidate for life. Hubble has also detected water-vapour plumes on Europa, which I believe the European Space Agency is planning to visit some time in the 2030s.
The older I get the more I lean towards the opinion that there may be some sort of creator or creative force
If it's so straightforward, why has life arisen only once on this planet, and not twice or a million times?
We can't even define life nor an intelligent species, we're very new to all of this so give it time. When we fully explore the Solar System in the next 1,000 years then we'll have a better idea. I'm not hopeful for the planet but getting off it has been a major achievement so maybe there is some.
The older I get the more I lean towards the opinion that there may be some sort of creator or creative force
Nice sentiments but the ingredients of life are the Universe over. Besides, who created the creator?
We can't even define life nor an intelligent species, we're very new to all of this so give it time. When we fully explore the Solar System in the next 1,000 years then we'll have a better idea. I'm not hopeful for the planet but getting off it has been a major achievement so maybe there is some.
The older I get the more I lean towards the opinion that there may be some sort of creator or creative force
Nice sentiments but the ingredients of life are the Universe over. Besides, who created the creator?
If there's life out there, Jim, but not as we know it, why isn't it also here on Earth? Go to the most extreme circumstances, ranging from half a mile beneath the bed of the deep ocean to areas bathed in radiation, and the only life you'll find is microbes sharing the same origin as ourselves. Nothing else after 4 billion years of extreme changes.
Incidentally, what makes you unhopeful for the planet? What is evolution other than proof that life adapts to anything? 99.9% of all species that have existed are estimated to have gone extinct, which is precisely why the life which has taken their place on the Earth today comprises species of such resilience.
Incidentally, what makes you unhopeful for the planet? What is evolution other than proof that life adapts to anything? 99.9% of all species that have existed are estimated to have gone extinct, which is precisely why the life which has taken their place on the Earth today comprises species of such resilience.
Arent their things next to ocean thermal vents that are seperate, dont need light? Think i saw that somewhere cant b arsed googling 
We should fire off some rockets full of random bug and microbes to likely planets
Global warming, over population, religion as well as natural disasters. I'm pretty pessimistic for my offspring :(
Yes I'm wrong saying no hope for the planet but I'm not hopeful for the human species.
Yes I'm wrong saying no hope for the planet but I'm not hopeful for the human species.
The sun will burn out eventually and we become a cold stone, enjoy while you can
Humans v Dinosaurs...which will servive longest? Full bank @1.00000000000001 on the the dinosaurs.
I'd gives us 5,0000 years at the most. Maybe in a few hundred million years a new species will develop and think they also know it all.
I'd gives us 5,0000 years at the most. Maybe in a few hundred million years a new species will develop and think they also know it all.
well this thread has been a decent read. some good points and some not so good. however you may have guessed that i'm only breaking my silence here to point out that....
it is the basis of Christian belief that we are alone in the universe because God created human life on this planet only.
this is absolutely untrue, there's nothing in the bible to suggest that human life is unique to this planet, never mind any other form of life - only that we here were made as God's special race. its precisely for this reason that God, whether you believe in him or not, is an irrelevance to this debate.
personally I think there's probably life under that ice sheet on Europa although its probably unlike any hypothesis anyone has or will ever make. i like to think of a race of sharks living under there with human like intelligence
And its shocking omission that no one answered..
"Who here believes in aliens?"
with...
"I want to believe"
Night all
it is the basis of Christian belief that we are alone in the universe because God created human life on this planet only.
this is absolutely untrue, there's nothing in the bible to suggest that human life is unique to this planet, never mind any other form of life - only that we here were made as God's special race. its precisely for this reason that God, whether you believe in him or not, is an irrelevance to this debate.
personally I think there's probably life under that ice sheet on Europa although its probably unlike any hypothesis anyone has or will ever make. i like to think of a race of sharks living under there with human like intelligence
And its shocking omission that no one answered..
"Who here believes in aliens?"
with...
"I want to believe"
Night all
Did someone mention dinosaurs? Today I've been watching this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHesNW9WnDM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHesNW9WnDM
HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT THE ALIENS WHO VISIT THE EARTH IN SPACESHIPS JUST HAVE A QUICK LOOK AND THEN DECIDE TO FLY SOMEWHERE ELSE AND NOT SETTLE HERE ,THERE MUST BE ALOT NICER PLACES IN THE UNIVERSE TO HAVE A HOLIDAY OR LIVE THAN THE EARTH
FANCY FLYING ME ALL THE WAY TO THE EARTH WHEN WE COULD HAVE JUST FLOWN A FEW LIGHT YEARS AWAY TO ONE OF THEM NEW UP AND COMEING PLANETS
YOUR ALWAYS THE SAME WHEN YOU GET A NEW FLYING SAUCER
IM NOT GETTING IN THAT FLYING SAUCER AGAIN WITH YOU ON ONE OF YOUR TRIPS I DONT KNOW HOW MANY ASTEROIDS YOUVE JUST MISSED,
DO YOU REALISE YOUR DRIVING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE UNIVERSE,I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN AS SOON AS YOU CAME OUT OF THAT BLACK HOLE
I KNEW IT I JUST KNEW IT ,WE SHOULD HAVE TOOK A LEFT AT PLUTO WERE GOING TO END UP NEAR THE SUN
I TOLD YOU TO GET YOUR ANTI SUN SPACESHIP PROTECTOR SORTED OUT AT THE GARAGE BEFORE WE CAME ON THIS JOURNEY,BUT NO YOU WOULDNT LISTEN TO ME,I JUST HOPE YOUR HAPPY WHEN ME AND THE KIDS ARE FRAZZELED
NO I WONT SHUT UP ,YOU NEED TO STOP SOMEWHERE I NEED TO HAVE A WEE AND SOMETHING TO EAT
You can be funny at times Do Wah but you can also spam threads where your not welcome.
This was a good discussion.
This was a good discussion.
OK IM SORRY ,ILL BE MORE SENSIBLE WHEN I SEE A POST ABOUT ALIENS ,
YES YOUR RIGHT IM SORRY,I WILL STICK TO MY OWN THREADS OR JUST DO ONE COMMENT ,IM VERY SELFISH ,AND VERY SORRY IM NOT HERE TO UPSET ANYONE
OK IM SORRY ,ILL BE MORE SENSIBLE WHEN I SEE A POST ABOUT ALIENS ,
I would love that we discover life somewhere else before I die
but I doubt it
We are not rushing to get to Mars are we
We need to have a permanent base and a good dig there
but we seem to have lost our sense of adventure
we are more interested in not smoking and trying to live forever....pathetic
but I doubt it
We are not rushing to get to Mars are we
We need to have a permanent base and a good dig there
but we seem to have lost our sense of adventure
we are more interested in not smoking and trying to live forever....pathetic
People say why waste money, we not sort this Earth out first
but judging by what I see...what chance have we got of doing that????
We are always looking to start wars, our population is out of control, we don't
know yet how global warming will affect us, we don't know if we can grow enough food for everyone, provide enough energy
We are better off looking for life on Mars imo
but judging by what I see...what chance have we got of doing that????
We are always looking to start wars, our population is out of control, we don't
know yet how global warming will affect us, we don't know if we can grow enough food for everyone, provide enough energy
We are better off looking for life on Mars imo
screaming from beneaththewaves
05 Oct 14 13:39
Joined:
30 Jan 05
| Topic/replies: 7,119 | Blogger: screaming from beneaththewaves's blog
If it's so straightforward, why has life arisen only once on this planet, and not twice or a million times?
Here we live on a world where we know conditions are right for life, yet after 4 billion years nothing whatsoever has been found with a DNA profile to indicate it arose independently of the evolutionary line shared by ourselves and every known living thing.
It's just hand-waving to claim that there are plenty of environments out there which could support life, so life must be out there. The environment is not the issue. It's how the hell could amino acids fall in the right sequence to form proteins at the precise moment RNA and/or DNA happened to be independently present ... and then somehow go on to form a self-replicating cell.
It's been compared to throwing a pile of nuts, bolts, wires, sheets of metal, etc. into the air and watching them land as a jumbo jet. It's astonishing it happened once ... but twice!
I have no problem keeping an open mind that there might be life elsewhere in our solar system from the same evolutionary root as ourselves, but truly alien life ... not one shred of evidence.
Interesting point. Why isn't life springing up as we speak?
Am I right in saying that scientists have succeeded in creating basic life in laboratory conditions?
05 Oct 14 13:39
Joined:
30 Jan 05
| Topic/replies: 7,119 | Blogger: screaming from beneaththewaves's blog
If it's so straightforward, why has life arisen only once on this planet, and not twice or a million times?
Here we live on a world where we know conditions are right for life, yet after 4 billion years nothing whatsoever has been found with a DNA profile to indicate it arose independently of the evolutionary line shared by ourselves and every known living thing.
It's just hand-waving to claim that there are plenty of environments out there which could support life, so life must be out there. The environment is not the issue. It's how the hell could amino acids fall in the right sequence to form proteins at the precise moment RNA and/or DNA happened to be independently present ... and then somehow go on to form a self-replicating cell.
It's been compared to throwing a pile of nuts, bolts, wires, sheets of metal, etc. into the air and watching them land as a jumbo jet. It's astonishing it happened once ... but twice!
I have no problem keeping an open mind that there might be life elsewhere in our solar system from the same evolutionary root as ourselves, but truly alien life ... not one shred of evidence.
Interesting point. Why isn't life springing up as we speak?
Am I right in saying that scientists have succeeded in creating basic life in laboratory conditions?
There could be alien life that cannot be picked up by science, maybe operating outside our range most of the time but occassionally coming across for fleeting moments. Unlikely but not impossible.
like an alien life form with a cloaking device perhaps 
Am I right in saying that scientists have succeeded in creating basic life in laboratory conditions?
In a word, no.
Amino acids have been created from scratch, as has RNA and the fatty substances which form cell walls, but there's been no attempt at assembling enough different amino acids in the correct sequence to form proteins within a metabolizing and replicating cell. Or at least none that's come to my attention.
There was a story earlier in the year that some Californians(?) had succeeded in getting a bacterium to accept DNA of a different kind to that of our own and every other living thing. It sounded a bit Professor Denzil Dexter-ish out of The Fast Show to me, but I suppose it demonstrates that Life Not As We Know It is possible. But there is zero evidence of such an organism appearing naturally in 4 billion years on Earth, even though we now know it's viable.
The occurrence of life, whether like our own or otherwise, still appears to be an event too mind-bogglingly complex ever to have happened more than once.
In a word, no.
Amino acids have been created from scratch, as has RNA and the fatty substances which form cell walls, but there's been no attempt at assembling enough different amino acids in the correct sequence to form proteins within a metabolizing and replicating cell. Or at least none that's come to my attention.
There was a story earlier in the year that some Californians(?) had succeeded in getting a bacterium to accept DNA of a different kind to that of our own and every other living thing. It sounded a bit Professor Denzil Dexter-ish out of The Fast Show to me, but I suppose it demonstrates that Life Not As We Know It is possible. But there is zero evidence of such an organism appearing naturally in 4 billion years on Earth, even though we now know it's viable.
The occurrence of life, whether like our own or otherwise, still appears to be an event too mind-bogglingly complex ever to have happened more than once.
like an alien life form with a cloaking device perhaps
I wouldn't cling on to the hope of ever seeing that.
I wouldn't cling on to the hope of ever seeing that.
Of course aliens exist. These astonomers that say otherwise disappoint me! Space is infinite, and time has no beginning. Need I go on?
Aliens whose presence relies on infinite time and space to have arisen are also by defintion infinitely distant both in time and space, i.e. they don't exist from your or my point of view.
If you need to travel or live for an infinite distance or period to encounter something, then it doesn't exist in your universe.
If you need to travel or live for an infinite distance or period to encounter something, then it doesn't exist in your universe.
Very interesting thread. I guess I'm agnostic with respect to aliens.
The critical unknown is certainly the probability of life spontaneously forming - what SFBTW claims to be of the order of 10^-260. Personally I'm not convinced by this number - there could be other, easier ways of forming life, or shortcuts we don't know about, but certainly the idea of life having arisen elsewhere in the Solar System, for example, is absurd.
SFBTW, am I correct in thinking that the anthropomorphic principle gets us out of any problems associated with too low a probability of life having arisen? I mean, even if we discover that on average, it would take 10^25 years to happen once in the universe, the anthropomorphic principle should still be a valid argument against creationism, shouldn't it?
The critical unknown is certainly the probability of life spontaneously forming - what SFBTW claims to be of the order of 10^-260. Personally I'm not convinced by this number - there could be other, easier ways of forming life, or shortcuts we don't know about, but certainly the idea of life having arisen elsewhere in the Solar System, for example, is absurd.
SFBTW, am I correct in thinking that the anthropomorphic principle gets us out of any problems associated with too low a probability of life having arisen? I mean, even if we discover that on average, it would take 10^25 years to happen once in the universe, the anthropomorphic principle should still be a valid argument against creationism, shouldn't it?
Do you mean the Anthropic Principle? And if so, which formulation of it?
Carter's original one (What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers) is a truism, but indisputable. I understand there are lots of attempts to build on that, which the people coining them also call the anthropic principle. They mostly seem to be the result of people trying to give a point of view a bit of philosophical credibility.
Anthropomorphism is what you do when you impose human thoughts or feelings onto something which isn't human. E.g. calling a horse which doesn't want to stick its head in front ungenuine, while in reality it's just doing what's safest if you're a herd animal.
Incidentally, that figure of 10^260 (greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe) is just the number of possible sequences of amino acids in one average protein containing 200 amino acids (of which only one sequence works). It doesn't get you a cell. At the bare minimum you also need RNA and/or DNA to appear alongside and simultaneously. And bear in mind that RNA/DNA are highly unreactive sunstances whose only function is to reproduce cells, so it's an incalculable long shot that either should have popped up at the right split second in the right place.
And there are a million DIFFERENT proteins in the human body. Some of them require over 1,000 amino acids to have assembled spontaneously in the correct sequence.
Carter's original one (What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers) is a truism, but indisputable. I understand there are lots of attempts to build on that, which the people coining them also call the anthropic principle. They mostly seem to be the result of people trying to give a point of view a bit of philosophical credibility.
Anthropomorphism is what you do when you impose human thoughts or feelings onto something which isn't human. E.g. calling a horse which doesn't want to stick its head in front ungenuine, while in reality it's just doing what's safest if you're a herd animal.
Incidentally, that figure of 10^260 (greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe) is just the number of possible sequences of amino acids in one average protein containing 200 amino acids (of which only one sequence works). It doesn't get you a cell. At the bare minimum you also need RNA and/or DNA to appear alongside and simultaneously. And bear in mind that RNA/DNA are highly unreactive sunstances whose only function is to reproduce cells, so it's an incalculable long shot that either should have popped up at the right split second in the right place.
And there are a million DIFFERENT proteins in the human body. Some of them require over 1,000 amino acids to have assembled spontaneously in the correct sequence.
Are some sitings of Aliens in reality visual hallucinations.
SFBTW,
Yep, the anthropic principle, sorry. I meant the weak (original) version:
which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting upon any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld. Most often such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only this Universe, apparently compatible with life) could occur. (Wikipedia)
I've got to say, I love this principle. Personally, I'm not even sure that you need to assume a multiverse for it to apply, but if you do assume one, it's a lot easier. It just doesn't matter if the probability of life springing up is ridiculously small; you can just apply the old anthropic principle and Bob's your uncle. And there would be almost no chance of life elsewhere in the universe, as you suggest.
OK, I'm going to start looking into this 10^260 malarkey.
Yep, the anthropic principle, sorry. I meant the weak (original) version:
which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting upon any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld. Most often such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only this Universe, apparently compatible with life) could occur. (Wikipedia)
I've got to say, I love this principle. Personally, I'm not even sure that you need to assume a multiverse for it to apply, but if you do assume one, it's a lot easier. It just doesn't matter if the probability of life springing up is ridiculously small; you can just apply the old anthropic principle and Bob's your uncle. And there would be almost no chance of life elsewhere in the universe, as you suggest.
OK, I'm going to start looking into this 10^260 malarkey.
man is incapable of grasping the full picture, so waste of time. Like a dog shown a card trick. why bother, we wont even come close for 100s or years maybe 1000s
There seems, unless I missed them, to be a number of things missed here like
- The possibility life was brought here on an asteroid/meteor etc.
- The clear possibility other life may not be much like ours, like say silicon based, so applying the probability of our particular type randomly forming is artificially narrowing things by a massive amount.
- That life of another sort DID start here in various types then die out as it was less successful than what we've got.
- That we don't actually exist anyway and are just part of a massive simulation by some REAL life form
There are many possiblities.
I think it's a bit .. conceited to think we're "special". Like medieval astronomers putting the earth at the centre of the universe.
- The possibility life was brought here on an asteroid/meteor etc.
- The clear possibility other life may not be much like ours, like say silicon based, so applying the probability of our particular type randomly forming is artificially narrowing things by a massive amount.
- That life of another sort DID start here in various types then die out as it was less successful than what we've got.
- That we don't actually exist anyway and are just part of a massive simulation by some REAL life form
There are many possiblities.
I think it's a bit .. conceited to think we're "special". Like medieval astronomers putting the earth at the centre of the universe.
Life may have sprung up more than once, but you have to explain why there’s no trace of it. It may have been eroded away, subducted, just very very hard to find traces of. It may also be true that it was out-competed before it got anywhere, leaving virtually no trace. It may also be the case that it doesn’t arise anew now because chemical conditions are no longer right for anything other than the sustaining of established life. Or it may be that it never gets the chance to begin because established life has earmarked all the energy for itself and is an old master at using it.
Until someone discovers otherwise though that is just idle speculation.
And I don’t see why you think the simulation argument is laughable. It is the only really credible example you gave, because it is at least a logical deduction based on our behaviour and technological development, the others are just speculations with zero evidence to back them up.
Is man likely to survive until technological maturity? Yes (for a number of reasons). If he does so, will he lose all interest in simulations? Unlikely, given that we are obsessed with them, from novels to actual AI. So we are likely to become at some point (it doesn’t matter when) technologically mature and we are likely to make simulations, then it could already have happened. By the way, it’s not REAL people creating simulations only, but simulations creating simulations too. Why? Because with no way of knowing if you are in a simulation the only possible way you could do it is to see if you can create your own simulations who are self-aware but don’t know if they are simulations. If they come to the conclusion they might be, because of their own emerging simulation argument, that confirms that we (the simulators) are just as likely to be simulations ourselves.
As for our own universe, Everett’s Many-Worlds explains why this universe is perfect for conscious beings. One at least had to be, there are plenty where everything is just wrong.
By the way, not one of these ideas I necessarily agree with, they are however interesting to ponder from time to time.
Lastly, SETI I think is now looking for CFCs and other evidence of industrial activity in the atmospheres of planets. So if the aliens ever went through a fridges and aerosols phase, we may spot it.
Until someone discovers otherwise though that is just idle speculation.
And I don’t see why you think the simulation argument is laughable. It is the only really credible example you gave, because it is at least a logical deduction based on our behaviour and technological development, the others are just speculations with zero evidence to back them up.
Is man likely to survive until technological maturity? Yes (for a number of reasons). If he does so, will he lose all interest in simulations? Unlikely, given that we are obsessed with them, from novels to actual AI. So we are likely to become at some point (it doesn’t matter when) technologically mature and we are likely to make simulations, then it could already have happened. By the way, it’s not REAL people creating simulations only, but simulations creating simulations too. Why? Because with no way of knowing if you are in a simulation the only possible way you could do it is to see if you can create your own simulations who are self-aware but don’t know if they are simulations. If they come to the conclusion they might be, because of their own emerging simulation argument, that confirms that we (the simulators) are just as likely to be simulations ourselves.
As for our own universe, Everett’s Many-Worlds explains why this universe is perfect for conscious beings. One at least had to be, there are plenty where everything is just wrong.
By the way, not one of these ideas I necessarily agree with, they are however interesting to ponder from time to time.
Lastly, SETI I think is now looking for CFCs and other evidence of industrial activity in the atmospheres of planets. So if the aliens ever went through a fridges and aerosols phase, we may spot it.
i_agree_with_nick
05 Oct 14 11:59
Joined:
21 May 10
| Topic/replies: 5,891 | Blogger: i_agree_with_nick's blog
Brian Cox says that we may be the only intelligent life in the galaxy but that there will be single-celled life "all over the place"
This is the conclusion he came to on "Human Universe" (BBC2 last night). In fact, he seemed quite certain that this is the case.
05 Oct 14 11:59
Joined:
21 May 10
| Topic/replies: 5,891 | Blogger: i_agree_with_nick's blog
Brian Cox says that we may be the only intelligent life in the galaxy but that there will be single-celled life "all over the place"
This is the conclusion he came to on "Human Universe" (BBC2 last night). In fact, he seemed quite certain that this is the case.
...he discussed how unlikely it is for two single-celled organisms to combine and produce more complex life, which is what happened here on earth but didn't raise SFBTW's point about the almost non-existent chances of life spontaneously arising in the first place.
There are a billion billion planets in the universe..consider that there is a low probability that only one in the billion planet has life ... (such a low probability logic is itself not logical)even with such absurdly low odds,life still would have originated on a billion planets and earth has no special importance .due to interstellar distance the chances for finding this is like finding needle in a haystack.
Richard Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins.
There is no life anywhere else in the universe because it is impossile for there to be life.
It is also impossible for there to be life on earth.
It is also impossible for there to be life on earth.
The question is, is it a good thing that there is life on earth , and on balance I think
the answer is no. Not if you look at the reality of things.
the answer is no. Not if you look at the reality of things.
for anyone interested in this subject there's a good article on astrobiology in this months Economist.
.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21625662-history-life-universe-may-have-been-governed-frequency?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/boltsfromtheblue
.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21625662-history-life-universe-may-have-been-governed-frequency?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/boltsfromtheblue
The aim of man should be to bring human life on earth to an end within a few
generations by stopping reproducion, and probably animal life as well leaving only
plant life.
generations by stopping reproducion, and probably animal life as well leaving only
plant life.
ANDERS 777
WAs a poster on this Forum .
The greatest Alien believer i have ever seen.
His posts were always fascinating, and full of debate.
A total loony , but great fun to take part in 
THOSE were the days when the Forum was alive with strong
Characters and you could go onto a dozen topics at any moment
And have a side splitting laugh , or a pitched argument or an offer
To meet you under a certain bridge for a fight if you disagreed with
The poster's viewpoint .
Tv was in danger of going bust , as the entertainment was on here.
You REALLY could end up with tears rolling down your face and
a pain hurting your side !!
Like The guy who posted " Gretna won't win tonight - lump on"
and we read the posts as the Gretna goals went in
5 before half time !! " Should we put more on now the opposition are 500/1 ?"
and again as it went 6/ 7/ 8 goals to Gretna .. Haha a really funny thread .
Then the guys posting
"You F***wit - I've just lost £XXX pounds due to you " or similar comments
Arguing with him .
Classic Gold !! Not seen on here anymore
as BF gave the banning rights to
a third party , -- who at times seemed like
the Quaker, Mother Teresa, Mary Whitehouse, Nuns, Sunday School Teachers Association
in their Application of bans, and the fun dropped out of the Forum.
This didn't apply to Anders777 by the way - he missed being banned
Because he is away visiting
Galaxy Pysig9 in the Zymorka Constellation and not due back until 2746 !!
WAs a poster on this Forum .
The greatest Alien believer i have ever seen.
His posts were always fascinating, and full of debate.
A total loony , but great fun to take part in
THOSE were the days when the Forum was alive with strong
Characters and you could go onto a dozen topics at any moment
And have a side splitting laugh , or a pitched argument or an offer
To meet you under a certain bridge for a fight if you disagreed with
The poster's viewpoint .
Tv was in danger of going bust , as the entertainment was on here.
You REALLY could end up with tears rolling down your face and
a pain hurting your side !!
Like The guy who posted " Gretna won't win tonight - lump on"
and we read the posts as the Gretna goals went in
5 before half time !! " Should we put more on now the opposition are 500/1 ?"
and again as it went 6/ 7/ 8 goals to Gretna .. Haha a really funny thread .
Then the guys posting
"You F***wit - I've just lost £XXX pounds due to you " or similar comments
Arguing with him .
Classic Gold !! Not seen on here anymore
as BF gave the banning rights to
a third party , -- who at times seemed like
the Quaker, Mother Teresa, Mary Whitehouse, Nuns, Sunday School Teachers Association
in their Application of bans, and the fun dropped out of the Forum.
This didn't apply to Anders777 by the way - he missed being banned
Because he is away visiting
Galaxy Pysig9 in the Zymorka Constellation and not due back until 2746 !!
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539