• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

alien life possibility is pathetic

NobbyNobbs said:
makaya said:
Rare doesnt mean unique, but as time progresses, every day, Life becomes less likely.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Well said, Nobby.

Unfortunately, I've already been able to determine that when makaya says "every day" the sentence is not to be taken literally. I'm not sure what it means though, and he has yet to respond to that question.
 
Okay, now we are accepting the premise of simple life and it's complex life that hasn't formed in any other place in the universe. Somehow, in all of these places where simple life has very likely formed species don't evolve and somehow magically maintain their original form or only evolve sideways.
 
Correa Neto said:
Yes, you presume too much...
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/19/exoplanet-could-be-more-earth-like-than-previously-thought/
Click to expand...

Hello Correa Neto,

good find! And it actually demonstrates what it means "to look at" something in the universe. It is far from being a photograph. Also the error introduced (presumed mass now half of the previous estimate) in such observations just shows that in fact we have a hard time to judge what we "see".

Makes me wonder even more how makaya can be so sure about what is out there and what not.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Thanks.
At the same site, there's also this:
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/0...n-to-search-for-evidence-of-astroengineering/
Its quite far-fetched IMHO, but the along the text some good points can be found regarding Makaya's misconceptions.

But there's something else...
Life on Earth started pretty soon. First records are from just(*) after the Hadean. No one can be sure if it was a single event or if life popped out several times on Earth just to be later erased by giant impacts, volcanism, etc. If this is the case, its not uncommon.

All we know is that after its first record, it did not vanished. Life held its feet (pseudopods, tentacles, whatever) on this rotating ball of boredom since then. Earth during the Archean would be considered very unfriendly to life: little free oxigen in the atmosphere, lots of dissolved iron in the oceans, lots of volcanoes, faster rotation and a closer Moon creating havoc in tides and weather. Despite of this, there are plenty of records of lifeforms from this period.

Is the appearance of life an unlikely event? We don't know. Maybe not.
What we do know? That it seems to be very resistent and will not go away without a fight.

(*) in geological terms
 
Christian Klippel said:
good find! And it actually demonstrates what it means "to look at" something in the universe. It is far from being a photograph. Also the error introduced (presumed mass now half of the previous estimate) in such observations just shows that in fact we have a hard time to judge what we "see".
Click to expand...

This story also belies Makaya's assertion that we know a lot about our own galaxy (at least that we know enough to rule out the presence of many other earth-like planets). The only reason we could detect this planet at all was the accident of how its primary and another star lined up in relation to our vantage point.

There are almost certainly other planets of this size that don't have that lucky alignment with us, and we won't be able to detect them for a very long time, if ever.

And all of these are just within that tiny little sphere of space as shown on the illustration that Woolery posted earlier.

Again, the fact that whenever we think up a new technique capable of detecting planets of a given mass, we have found them, means that the number of planets is relatively high. Most of the other factors in the Drake Equation remain unknown, but the few that we do know (number of stars, number of planets) are very very large numbers.
 
We build devices so we can understand what our eyes cannot see
like the Chandra X-ray Observatory and so on.
Not too far from me is a Neutrino Observatory
just another interesting way to see things.
 
Correa Neto said:
.
Life on Earth started pretty soon. First records are from just(*) after the Hadean. No one can be sure if it was a single event or if life popped out several times on Earth just to be later erased by giant impacts, volcanism, etc. If this is the case, its not uncommon.
Click to expand...
Your point is spot on, but I think your time scale here is a bit off. It would be archaebacteria, not dinos, that erased (or possibly continue to erase) newer examples of abiogenesis.

I think it's possible that very simple life (a membrane around a self-replicating molecule) might be something that arises here and there all the time but is quickly treated as a raw material for the flourishing existent bacteria (even the earliest archaebacteria).
 
How can we even state its possible for other to exist if its uncertain on how life even began here?
 
makaya325 said:
How can we even state its possible for other to exist if its uncertain on how life even began here?
Click to expand...

I"m sorry, I'll say it. Someone has to.....

That's the dumbest question you came up with!

No offense, please, but think about it.

How can you state that there is no intelligent life when we have proof that it has happened at least once?

Let me go a little further:

How can you argue that Big Foot exists when in all these years there is no physical evidence at all, yet the possiblity of intelligent life doesn't exist at all simply using conjecture and theory?

Also: How can you say at the beginning of this thread that there is no chance that life can exist in any form, but now backpedal and say you meant intelligent life?

.....just askin' on that last one.....
 
Last edited:
makaya325 said:
How can we even state its possible for other to exist if its uncertain on how life even began here?
Click to expand...

Uncertainty is the mother of all possibilities. It is only by increasing certainty that some possibilities can become limited, some eliminated and perhaps others still remain.
 
Desert, why am i a troll? Because you cant deal with the real possibility of et life being fantasy? Where are they? Shouldnt they have visited earth by now?
 
makaya325 said:
Desert, why am i a troll? Because you cant deal with the real possibility of et life being fantasy?
Click to expand...
Because you make blanket assertions based on your own ignorance; you misquote and take others statement out of context and you repeat the same garbage repeatedly despite being pointed out to be wrong multiple times.

Repeating the same false drivel while ignoring anything that contradicts your fantasy makes you a troll.

Where are they?
Click to expand...
Don't know.

Shouldnt they have visited earth by now?
Click to expand...
No.
 
makaya325 said:
Desert, why am i a troll?
Click to expand...
Pax Imperium covers this nicely.

Because you cant deal with the real possibility of et life being fantasy?
Click to expand...
No. Because we're able to actually look at the facts, and actually realize that, hey... there's a lot that we just don't know.

Where are they? Shouldnt they have visited earth by now?
Click to expand...

Fermi's Paradox, neh? Even Fermi himself didn't use it as conclusive proof or anything.

If you want a detailed answer to this, read here. And avoid cherry picking your data; disingenuous arguments are getting a little tiring from you.

One (of the many) short answers countering Fermi's Argument is: Travel in space may very well be hard. Really really hard. Which makes spreading also difficult. Very very difficult.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom