alien life possibility is pathetic
- Thread starter makaya325
- Start date
Thats too low. We have observed far distant galaxies billions of light years away, and dont need to travel there to tell if its deadly or habitable
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
Just as we don't need to travel to remote areas to see if Big Foot lives there.
Not much chance = no possible chance...
right?????
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
You know, I just had a funny thought.
What if there was a planet that Big Foot actually evolved in? So somewhere in the farthest reaches of the universe there's a planet of Big Foot people grunting away about how some people saw a "Hairless Small Foot" on their planet but there's no possible chance that there is inteliigent life on distant planets.
What if there was a planet that Big Foot actually evolved in? So somewhere in the farthest reaches of the universe there's a planet of Big Foot people grunting away about how some people saw a "Hairless Small Foot" on their planet but there's no possible chance that there is inteliigent life on distant planets.
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 27,766
We can't even resolve individual stars of distant galaxies, much less find out anything meaningful about planets or life on planets.
As has been noted, too, when we see light that has travelled billions of of light years, we are only seeing what that object was like billions of years ago.
Now compare that to images we have of the Earth's surface. And the lack of any physical evidence of Big Foot.
Funny, you have such a low standard of evidence for ET life (that the absence of evidence in an infinitesimally small portion of the universe leads you to conclude that we are unique), but in a relatively small place like the Earth you still believe the possibility of an undiscovered population of large apes in North America.
What a silly thread this has become.
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 27,766
You know, I just had a funny thought.
What if there was a planet that Big Foot actually evolved in? So somewhere in the farthest reaches of the universe there's a planet of Big Foot people grunting away about how some people saw a "Hairless Small Foot" on their planet but there's no possible chance that there is inteliigent life on distant planets.
Well, we've got the photo of Bigfoot on Mars.
Then there's the timber on Mars.
It can only point to one conclusion: Noah launched more than one Ark, and at least one was an interplanetary vessel that crashed on Mars with Bigfoot as the sole (pun intended) survivor.
Oh yeah---this also proves that there is no other complex life in the universe. . . somehow.
LarianLeQuella
Elf Wino
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,084
Okay, I realizre you are just a kid, but to claim this way out is just incredibly bad taste and disingenious. You are setting yourself up to be lableled not only a bigfoot woo, but a "Grade A" A-rule10-hole! The epitome of a punk kid really. I haven't considered putting anyone on ignore before, but you have come the closest ever...
You keep saying things as if they are fact, but they are really only your gut feeling. While you claim to be an atheist, I sincerely doubt that you could clearly articulate your position, which makes your position no more valid than those of theists. You are a ready, fire, aim personality, and I encourage you to just leave these forums, go to college, get a job, and come back when you have learned a measure of control.
As for the bigfoot planet, isn't it called Kashyyyk?
Or more like this: The possibility of an unknown primate living in the remote regions of north america
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
We may not need to travel there, but we would need to be able to see individual stars in those galaxies at the very least, which we can't do.
Hitch
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 834
I've looked at this picture from Google Maps: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=46.769968,-122.607422&spn=18.188752,28.256836&t=k&z=5
and based on that I can state 100% that there is no bigfoot.
and based on that I can state 100% that there is no bigfoot.
NobbyNobbs
Gazerbeam's Protege
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 5,617
Wow, you must be a lot better at this observation thing than most people. Do me a favor? Here are some galaxies for you to observe. Could you please let us know which ones are deadly, which ones are habitable, and the reasons for your answers?
Thanks.
NobbyNobbs
Gazerbeam's Protege
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 5,617
In fact, forget about galaxies. Here's a single star. I'd be interested to know if it is capable of having planets that support life, and why or why not.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I don't agree with this:
I have, through a challenge in post #548 and direct prediction of your consequent behaviour shown that your attempt to retcon fullflavormenthol's out given to you was the slimey move of an intellectual coward. Do you notice that people are beginning to treat you not just as willfully ignorant but now as someone vile and worthy of scorn? That is because they know you are not an honest person.
You responded to my challenge exactly as I knew you would. So which is it, Makaya? You really set up an elaborate gotcha and can answer my challenge or just ran for the door that ffm opened for you? I am going to hound you with this question until you answer honestly one way or another.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Yes, Bigfoot on Mars. This is a very major part of my studies. I've shown Makaya this evidence. It's great to watch him squirm when you do.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I'm getting a feeling...
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Its such a silly analogy...
Checking for extraterrestrial life requires that one actually must look for it; currently our tech allows only for SETI-like searches. Nowadays we can not, for example, acquire spectra from Earth-sized planets at the "Goldilocks zones" from other stars and look for free oxigen.
On the other hand, we have everything one would need to find a population of North American giant apes if they existed. We could have found it already if it existed an we would not to have been actually looking for it. A biologist studying marmots or mosses at bigfoot country would be able to gather reliable evidence if they existed. Actually every single person wandering around their alleged habitat would be a candidate to find reliable evidence. The gap to hide bigfoot is much narrower than the gap to hide extraterrestrial life.
I should have called Makaya`s bluff much earlier, since it was clear for me. This flawed argument was raised ages ago by another footer - something like "we spend millions of dollars, including public money, on SETI and not a single dime on bigfoot, shame on you scientists". Mommy always tells me not to play with my food...
Checking for extraterrestrial life requires that one actually must look for it; currently our tech allows only for SETI-like searches. Nowadays we can not, for example, acquire spectra from Earth-sized planets at the "Goldilocks zones" from other stars and look for free oxigen.
On the other hand, we have everything one would need to find a population of North American giant apes if they existed. We could have found it already if it existed an we would not to have been actually looking for it. A biologist studying marmots or mosses at bigfoot country would be able to gather reliable evidence if they existed. Actually every single person wandering around their alleged habitat would be a candidate to find reliable evidence. The gap to hide bigfoot is much narrower than the gap to hide extraterrestrial life.
I should have called Makaya`s bluff much earlier, since it was clear for me. This flawed argument was raised ages ago by another footer - something like "we spend millions of dollars, including public money, on SETI and not a single dime on bigfoot, shame on you scientists". Mommy always tells me not to play with my food...
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Ummm no. You've completely missed the point.
For example; if I were to ask you how many sultanas there are in a rice pudding you wouldn't be concerned with the distance(s) between sultanas, just the number of sultanas.
It is a fair assumption that the spaces between galaxies and solar systems are uninhabitable because, ummm well, there's nothing there that we have observed that looks like supporting life whatsoever. However, you shouldn't use density as a function to look at this problem. Why would you consider the amount of rice pudding when counting the sultanas in it? You could have a rice pudding that will fill an ordinary bowl with 100 sultanas or, for example, enough rice pudding to fill the Colosseum and only 2 sultanas. Which one contains life? Which one is more likely to contain life?
My point about the numbers is that there are an awful lot of sultanas out there.
125,000,000,000 galaxies.
50,000,000 (lets take your estimate of 50 million stars - we know that some galaxies have as many as a billion but lets be conservative).
= 6,250,000,000,000,000,000 star systems
I've already shown you that it would take just under 4,000 years to count 125 billion galaxies at one per second.
How long would it take to count the number of star systems at the same rate? Kamaya - please do the calculation. That's just a conservative estimate for what we can see let alone what we cannot. How can anyone possibly dismiss ALL of those resulting solar systems? What are the criteria? It's estimated that 5% of those suns are like ours. Again work the numbers. Even if they are tiny then there is huge potential for life to be out there/lived and died/not yet born.
We may live in a giant rice pudding that has galaxies and stars far less dense than a Colosseum rice pudding with only two sultanas, but the fact remains that there are a huge number of sultanas!
Distance is only a factor when we look at whether communication or travel is possible. Who knows, there maybe huge amounts of intergalactic chatter going on, but we just don't hear it because we don't have the technology; there may be some sub-aether wooband where the best pangalactic gargleblaster recipe is being discussed. Imagine having the telegraph and being able to send messages, but never know the internet exists.
It's the enormous number that is the key. Why on earth would we be unique? It's a 1/6,250,000,000,000,000,000 chance (just to put a number on it) that we are the only life forms. We may well be alone but I like the odds on the other side.
None of us here is saying that we are or aren't the only intelligent life, what we are saying is that the odds are massively stacked against us being the only intelligent life.
I find it the hight of arrogance when people say we are created in god's image and I also find it arrogant that we could be considered to be the only sentient life; it lacks an understanding of the numbers, but above all, imagination.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
You can't be serious ?
You're either a stupendous liar, in which case any further post or thread related in any way to you is a dubious use of any of this board's posters' time because any post by you may be a lie, given how much of it you've been doing here, OR this thread has been a momentous exercise in futility, and could've been avoided by simply EXPLAINING the analogy to begin with, in which case any further post or thread related in any way to you is a dubious use of any of this board's posters' time because any post by you may be a nonsensical analogy.
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 27,766
So you added "remote regions of" (which still puts it in North America) and took away "population of".
Do you think there can be just one of any large primate living somewhere?
If not, what exactly is your correction to my statement?
Last edited: