alien life possibility is pathetic

[godless dave]

Extremophiles may live in extreme conditions, but what are the chances life could form in such deadly conditions? Life on earth formed in a nice safe deep ocean,

We don't know that.

which no other planets seem to have.

We don't know that either.

Even a water world would be a problem, since you need land to kick start complex life.

And we know that's false. Check out an octopus sometime.

I argue that some planets may have very simple life, but in no way complex life

That's not what you were arguing before. Earlier you were arguing that no planets other than earth have any life at all.

Also, do you understand the different between "rare" and "unique"?

 

[Lonewulf]

Goal post switching is very common in this thread.

 

[makaya325]

Lone, i view microbial life, likely contaminants from earth, possible. However, complex life is out of the question-too complex, billions of years between first organism and first complex organism, which is about 3 billion years. That time wont fly on other planets, due to the fact solar flares, asteroids, super novas would cause damage way more than once in a billion years

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, complex life is out of the question-too complex, billions of years between first organism and first complex organism, which is about 3 billion years.

But we know for certain, without a doubt, that it happened at least once.

So it's clearly not "out of the question".

 

[Bell]

Lone, i view microbial life, likely contaminants from earth, possible. However, complex life is out of the question-too complex, billions of years between first organism and first complex organism, which is about 3 billion years. That time wont fly on other planets, due to the fact solar flares, asteroids, super novas would cause damage way more than once in a billion years

Makaya, are you shifting goal posts or are you adjusting your stance? I hope the latter.

From your OP:

I am fully aware of everyone on the forum believing ufo's are simply man made and made up, But im talking about et life. Isnt it so ignorant and wooish to suggest that we arent the only life in the universe? Come on, does anyone see the incredibly complex events on earth that made it even POSSIBLE for the simplest of life to form? How can anyone believe it is even possible for 100's of unique events to happen just right on other planets. You need the right sun, the right planet size, the right galaxy, the right moon, etc and the list goes on and on from there. Why do many of you fall for the et life credibility?

Bolding mine.

 

[Lonewulf]

Lone, i view microbial life, likely contaminants from earth, possible. However, complex life is out of the question-too complex, billions of years between first organism and first complex organism, which is about 3 billion years.

1) As the *first* "test trial" (so to speak). Do you regularly declare a 100% surety based on the FIRST experiment? I think you need to learn how science is usually done...

2) With only one form of life as our first example. Might silicon-based life evolve faster? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Magnetic-based life could evolve *very* quickly, hypothetically.

3) There's a LOT of space to work in.

That time wont fly on other planets, due to the fact solar flares, asteroids, super novas would cause damage way more than once in a billion years

In every galaxy, on every world? Doubt it.

Yes, there's a lot of activity, mainly towards the center of a galaxy. However, there could also be life that evolves, that is able to withstand some of the more egregious damage (such as plasma-based life).

Either way, there's a lot of galaxies to work within, and a lot of room within those galaxies to work from.

I still see no reason why I should see your conclusion as the only possibility.

 

[makaya325]

Lone, its not the only possibility, its the most plausible one

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Lone, its not the only possibility, its the most plausible one

I find it far more plausible to think that processes and conditions that led to the rise of complex life might happen in many places in the universe than to think the Earth is unique.

 

[Lonewulf]

Lone, its not the only possibility, its the most plausible one

According to what information you're willing to work with, which isn't much. You might as well justify the Luminiferous Aether... and we knew more with THAT theory, than we do with the Rare Earth theory.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Christian, most of our universe is empty space between galaxies, which most of arent like the milky way.

First, the empty space is irrelevant. Trying to parse your sentence, I think you're saying that most galaxies aren't like the Milky Way.
You don't know that. Also, as a percentage, how many are "most"? So how many does that leave that are "like the Milky Way"?

Tell me, any galaxies that match the milky ways metalicity of stars, size, age, location?

Not known. (ETA: Oops--I didn't see "location". Silly question, then. The answer is only one: the Milky Way. St. Louis is the only city with its size, age and location. That doesn't mean it's the only city with a riverfront.) As Christian pointed out, as you look further away, you're looking back in time. We don't know the current composition of distant galaxies.

Yeah, carbon and iron and such was scarce in the young universe. It isn't now. We know where the heavier elements come from. No great mystery there.

Do you think there's some fundamental difference in the way stars behave in the Milky Way and the way the behave elsewhere? Any evidence to support this difference?

 

[makaya325]

Joe, arent the building blocks of life quite rare?

 

[Bell]

Makaya, post #305 please?

 

[Lonewulf]

Joe, arent the building blocks of life quite rare?

The building blocks you're talking about, is based on life on Earth. One example.

It fails to take into account alternative possible building blocks, like I've stated over and over again. Or even potential alternatives to the building blocks of Earth, as it is.

Until you can concretely define the building blocks of life, you cannot determine how rare the building blocks really are.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, arent the building blocks of life quite rare?

What building blocks might those be?

There are LOTS of atoms in the universe.

How do you define "rare"?

As I'm sure has been said before "rare" is a relative term, and it's a huge leap to go from "rare" to "impossible anywhere except on Earth".

Do you notice how most of us answer your questions, yet you don't answer many of ours?

 

[Lonewulf]

Look, Makaya.

There are fundamentalists in all walks of life. Right now, on this issue, you're acting like a fundamentalist. You're sticking hard to what you claim is the truth, and you're not willing to accept any other theories, even when the facts have been slowly explained to you.

Yes, there are scientists that seem to agree with you (even though they're acting on what limited information they have, and don't stick hard and fast to the conclusion like you do; they make inductive arguments, not deductive). There are also scientists that don't. This is a topic where there is a lot of heated debate amongst the experts, and the only real honest answer that anyone can come up with is, "We don't really know, and what we do know, only allows us to make very limited educated guesses".

That's it. That's where we are, even today. The Universe is vast and large, and there's a lot we have yet to understand. We haven't even managed to rule out life in THIS solar system (it may be possible that there is bacteria on Mars, or some form of life on Europa or some moons). Even "unlikely" means "better than 0 chance".

So that's where we are. Until you accept that, arguments in this thread will only be going in circles. Until you can read and attempt to understand what another person is saying, you will fail to understand.

Furthermore, until you can admit that you've made a mistake (which you have continually done, when secondary and tertiary claims have been shown to be false), you will continue to look like someone that latches onto a belief, and is not willing to budge from it.

 

[kitakaze]

Goal post switching is very common in this thread.

Not just this thread. Every single one he posts in.

 

[Lonewulf]

Not just this thread. Every single one he posts in.

Is it worth going out to verify that for myself? :/

 

[bruto]

Is it worth going out to verify that for myself? :/

No. There really are tigers in India.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Rare doesnt mean unique, but as time progresses, every day, Life becomes less likely.

Um...no. Quite the opposite in fact.

Listen, there was a time when Europeans thought that there couldn't possibly exist any other place other than Europe. Then the Far East and the New World were discovered.

There was a time when it was thought that Earth was the only planet in existence. Then it was discovered that some of the other lights out there are planets too.

As little as 20 years ago, it was thought that our solar system was the only one with planets. Then they discovered extrasolar planets.

As little as 5 years ago, it was thought that the rocky planets in our solar system were the only rocky planets there were. Then extrasolar rocky planets were discovered.

We have found water on Europa. Evidence of water on Mars. The chemical signature of water vapor on at least one extrasolar planet.

In direct opposition to your baseless claim, everyday we learn more about the universe, it seems to become more likely that there is life out there.

 

[iiwo]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01o.html

Our Milky Way Galaxy is unusual in that it is one of the most massive galaxies in the nearby universe. Our Solar System also seems to have qualities that make it rather unique. According to Guillermo Gonzalez, Assistant Professor of Astronomy at the University of Washington, these qualities make the Sun one of the few stars in the Galaxy capable of supporting complex life.

First of all, much better on the quoting and referencing! Thank you for not copy and pasting the larger part of that article.

Second: a couple thoughts from the article itself:

Moreover, the Sun's circular orbit about the galactic center is just right; through a combination of factors it manages to keep out of the way of the Galaxy's dangerous spiral arms.

Not sure how this was defined, but I'll grant the above for the sake of argument. This may be known, I just haven't seen it.

Also from that article:

"I think this is a very, very interesting idea," says Dr. William Borucki, a research scientist in the Planetary Studies Branch of the NASA-Ames Research Center. "I'm delighted to see this theory. I like how Gonzalez has imagined the consequences of planets existing at different parts of the Galaxy. Now scientists need to check the math to make sure it all adds up."

A NASA researcher acknowledges the idea. Awesome! This does not prove or ratify the idea in any way. It does suggest there is merit to investigating it further. Note the bolded sentence. My guess is it won't add up, but there is only one way to find out. And if it does? If it does then by golly you were right, but claiming victory before it is checked is unwise.

Lone, its not the only possibility, its the most plausible one

It is nice to see you acknowledge this. People have been trying to point this out for several pages. I would recommend phrasing your arguments more along this line in the future. This will have the distinct benefit of not wearing everyone out over pointing out logical fallacies and instead allow at least a facade of real debate over data. Also, see the above paragraph about a timing on claiming a valid hypotheses.

You say "even if life is rare, its bound to happen many other times". This is wrong. After you factor out most of our stars, and that remains a couple 1000 of stars, and thats when you say "Even if its one in a trillion". Sorry, but compare 1000 to trillion. its sad.

It is more than a couple thousand, sorry. When working with data for a scientific claim hyperbole and loose statements will not win you debates.