CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Planets which we have explored with any thoroughness: One
Not a very good sample size, I'm afraid.
We live in a truly vast universe with billions of stars, and astrophysicists now think that solar systems are the norm rather than an anomaly. So billions of stars, trillions of planets, countless moons. Trying to argue "there is no life out there" is a little like arguing that fish don't exist because you haven't yet found one in the bathtub.
Still, out planet has a lot of plusses that we think might be essential for life. We've got water. We're in an orbital "sweet spot" when it comes to proper temperatures for our type of life. We've got a big ol' moon and while its gravity isn't that strong, it's been enough to keep a number of asteroids from banging into our planet.
But we've found all that on other celestial bodies in our own solar system, too. Mars had water (none on the surface now, but a couple billion years back it probably had oceans.) Europa is one big semi-frozen sea. And they've both got some heat: Mars is also in the "sweet spot," albeit further out and therefore colder - and Europa gains heat from its internal geophysics and the gravitational pulls of other near bodies (a ton of moons and a great big gas giant) that, we're pretty sure, enable it to maintain a layer of liquid water under its frozen surface.
The Discovery Channel, in one of its various space programs, interviewed some of the NASA wonks about the planned Prometheus mission to Europa (since shelved for budgetary reasons.) Discovery asked what they hoped to find. One of the researchers answered, "What do we hope to find on Europa? Friendly whales."
Arguing for funding reconsideration of the Europa flight, Robert Pappalardo, Assistant Professor in the University of Colorado at Boulder's Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences and Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, said: "Europa today, probably, is a habitable environment. We need to confirm this...but Europa, potentially, has all the ingredients for life...and not just four billion years ago...but today."
And that's just the stuff we've found in our own back yard in less than a half-century of minimal exploring. When it comes to space, we're sort of on a scientific par with the flat-earth theorists of the mid-1300s, scratching their heads and saying "it don't look round to me."
On that note, I will conclude with a fun (if apocryphal) story:
When NASA was preparing for the Apollo Project, a group of astronauts were taken out to land bordering a Navajo reservation in Arizona for training on the barren moon-like landscape.
One day, a Navajo elder and his son came across some of the astronauts walking among the rocks.
The elder, who spoke only Navajo, asked a question. His son translated for the astronauts: "What are you guys in the big funny suits doing?"
One of the astronauts replied that they were practicing for a trip to the moon.
When his son relayed this comment, the elder got very excited and asked if it might be possible to give to the astronauts a message to deliver to the moon.
Recognizing a promotional opportunity when he saw one, one of the NASA guys said, "Why certainly!" So they arranged to have a tape recorder brought.
The Navajo elder's comments into the microphone were brief. The NASA official asked the son if he would translate what his father had said. The son listened to the recording and laughed uproariously. But he refused to translate.
Over the next week or so the NASA people played the tape for some other members of the tribe. They, too, laughed long and loud -- but they, too, refused to translate the elder's message to the moon.
Finally, an official government translator was summoned. After he finally stopped laughing, the translator relayed the message:
"Watch out for these a$$&oles; they're coming to steal your land!"
LOL I love the story at the end and I agree that it seems that life on Europa is extremely likely. Titan also seems like a candidate for life even if it may not be Carbon based or need H2O.
It's extremely unlikely that the earth is the only fluke in the universe on which life has developed. Will aliens be little green men with misshapen oversized heads? Probably not. Perhaps life will be single celled. But with the universe as crazy-largen as this one, it'd be incredibly strange to be the only ones out there.
actually, it's very unlikely that life was developed... yet it was.
the odds of it happening once is considered technically zero
Do you have a source for these probabilities? Because, so far as I'm aware, the only planet on which we can say definitively whether or not life developed is Earth, and it happened there. So our sample size is 1, and that planet developed life, meaning that so far "every" planet that we can test has successfully developed life.
The means of life being created by non-interruption means is at a very high scale. This is from a mathematical equation done on the means of creating life (proteins and shit). I can't find a site talking specifically about the equation, but this one mentions it:
So... the odds of it happening again in a 3-dimensional Universe (finite) are low, because the odds of it ever happening were already very low. it happened, we know this. can it happen again? unlikely.
His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.
So let's be "generous" and assume that "less than 0.01" means 0.001%. That's about 1 in 100,000. This site estimates the number of earth-like planets (rocky planets with water) at about 30 billion. So that gives an expected value of 300,000 planets that would develop intelligent life. Moreover, the 0.01% figure almost certainly includes the probability that a planet is "earth-like" in its assessment of the likelihood that it will produce complex intelligent life, so that could increase the expected number by as much as an order of magnitude.
So we're at about 3,000,000 planets that support intelligent life, and we haven't even scratched the surface of the assumptions that almost always go into these numbers, such as the fact that a planet must be in "the habitable zone" around it's sun; an assumption which precludes not only more exotic notions like Jovian life-forms, but also precludes the development of perfectly "ordinary" life in out-of-the-ordinary locations like moons that get their heat from non-solar sources. In short, 300,000 planets currently supporting intelligent life in our universe is a low estimate.
i know, the site i gave didn't discuss the actual probability of life. it discussed, instead, life on other planets based on OUR planet.
I'm talking, of course, about the very first cell being created by proteins.
unfortunately, the site i got this from is trying to say that evolution is impossible, but i tied it with a reference other than that:
Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.
References: Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9
First off, your argument would probably be more valid if you didn't just copy-paste it, or if you had bothered to format it properly so that 10^10^123 doesn't come out as 1010123, or even if you had bothered to provide a link (note, this may not be "the" source you used, but wherever you copied it from copied it either from here or the book version) rather than siting sources like you had actually retrieved the information from them yourself.
Secondly, this page provides a rather solid explanation of where using Penrose's result to determine probabilities goes wrong. In short, while the number you quote is related to the volume of the universe phase-space corresponding to universes with constants matching our own, there is nothing that determines the relative probabilities of those universes. That is, for all we know our universe has a probability density corresponding to 99.99999%, and the other 0.000001% is divided amongst all other possible universes (or, possibly, even delta-functions, in which case universes like our own are the only possible universes, and all other universes have probability 0). The point, though, is that we do not know, and so it's impossible to make an educated guess. In essence, no argument for or against design can be made using the so-called "fine-tuning" of the universal constants, because we have no knowledge of the mechanism by which these constants are set, nor of the probability that a constant will obtain a certain value. To wit, I have read several articles which suggest that quantum modifications to the inflationary model actively select for the constants that we observe.
To elaborate, consider the argument by John Allen Paulos (quote from the above site):
"When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable."
The argument from fine-tuning is analogous to one looking at their hand, reasoning that it is absolutely improbable that they would have received precisely that hand, and thus concluding that the dealer chose to deal them just those cards.
How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion?
ya see, this is why i decided to show the source of the mathematician instead of posting the site. I wasn't making an argument on Creationism vs. Evolution. I was merely posting the probability of a cell being created from something non-living.
I was merely posting the probability of a cell being created from something non-living.
This is not what you did, though. What you said was:
"actually, it's very unlikely that life was developed... yet it was.
the odds of it happening once is considered technically zero... so happening twice..."
and
"the odds of [life developing from non-life] happening again in a 3-dimensional Universe (finite) are low, because the odds of it ever happening were already very low. it happened, we know this. can it happen again? unlikely."
Do you see the problems with this? First, you say "the odds of it happening once is considered technically zero", which is simply not true. Your own source (the first one) provides an estimated probability which is not zero (and something which is non-zero can't be "technically zero"; did you mean "practically zero"?) and which actually predicts the existence of other intelligent life. You take a "low probability" value and conclude that it probably won't happen again, without ever regarding the fact that the sample size is so enormous that even the low probability predicts massive numbers of intelligent beings (at least one per galaxy, and probably far more).
Then, when that was refuted, you brought up the reference to Penrose's phase-density calculation for our universe's existence, presented as a probability for life to develop, which is a fallacious argument on every level for whether there are other intelligent life-forms, let alone life-forms at all. Most importantly, and I failed to mention this previously, our universe has the requisite constants. As such, it is fine-tuned to produce life (whether that fine-tuning required intelligence is another matter, as you pointed out), and so it is completely irrelevant how likely our universe was to be selected, unless we're debating the probability of life developing in other universes rather than on other planets in our own universe.
and when looking at probability of proteins doing the same exact thing that they did on Earth on another planet, it's quite astronomical. Now, of course the Universe is huge and we don't know how huge it actually is, this is why I put "yes".
Mathematically, the chances go either way. It all depends on how large the Universe truly is.
Well given the idea that space in infinite, we must assume that there is a planet just as ours that can support life just as ours.
We can only truly say we have explored 1 planet, but there is a myriad of other planets that could very well bare life.
Whether or not we will ever have the technology to discover another planet that is bearing life is questionable. Especially since we are slowly killing ourselves anyway.
Of course. The universe is infinite; it is impossible that no other life exists, especially if you consider how narrow our definition of life is. Perhaps life on other planets doesn't require what life on Earth requires; perhaps we wouldn't even consider it to be alive. Perhaps it doesn't breathe. Or even exist visually.
It's all endless! All of it! Now excuse me while I light my spliff. ;)
Perhaps not in our solar system but somewhere out there, there is life of some kind. If you've ever read the book, "The Interrupted Journey" by John G. Fuller, you've got to believe it.
I don't believe that we're unique in the universe given its apparent scale. I think there's probably life as we know/could recognise it elsewhere but possibly, we'll never find it.
Im sorry in all of the galaxies and on all the worlds it would be hard for me to not believe there is life out there I'm not saying they are three foot green men who come to are planet and probe people or that they are any more advanced then us but I do believe there is something out there.
Ever seen inside the dilated pupil of your eye? Or any ones for that matter....in a centerd position there should be on sphericle jagged star looking node/membrane thats conected too the outside of what apears too be a quazer esque cloud...Genetic indifrence dosent aslways change the way we see things...but it shure is tricky.
The idea, that in a universe SO BIG that this planet is the only one with life and this is it in the way of life, is just the most ridiculous claim i have ever heard to be honest!
Even if life is uncommon, it will almost certainly be out there.
I believe Microbial life may be around and about, and then similar planets to Earth with thriving life and possibly intelligence are dotted about.
of course they r real u douchebags hu don't believe it....Evidence have been found that date backs tu 4000 BC on Egyptian pyramids...Ancient Egyptians were expert artists and drew whatever they found to be mesmerizing...They believed certain BEINGS to be their GODS who wore strange clothing....When we look at those drawings today it is very much similar to a Spacesuit of an astronaut....
Think of the universe as a beach- a very big beach. The Earth is one grain of sand. There is life on that one piece of sand. We have explored one other piece of sand. What are the odds that the beach (aka the universe) contains only one piece of sand that has life?Looking at it this way, logic suggests that not only is there extraterrestrial life, but it is abundant, waiting to be found.
We'd be very egotistical to believe that we're the only Intelligent life out of a universe so vast that our own little Minds cannot even grasp the boundries of it!
We cannot even comprehend the number of galaxies, let alone planets, in our terms of counting.
Ofcourse "Aliens" are real.
We just probably wont see them in our lifetime, thats all.
If Mars can have(had) bacteria and if we can have multiple forms of life then somewhere far away in space there is a good chance that they have/had life as well.
The chances of life occurring on a planet is practically zero, but seeing how both the universe and time are practically infinite doesn't that mean that life somewhere else has/had to exist?
Until the scientists say they have found alien life I hold that there are no aliens. Aliens were really the invention of TV producers to create new story lines.
Need to be more specific (foreigners are aliens too), but I will discuss space aliens.
1.There has yet to be any definitive proof that shows that they exist. No DNA, no bones, no spacecraft, nothing, except for blurry videos and conspiracies which don't constitute as anything.
2. Life has not been found to exist on any other planet except ours.
3. It is impossible to prove that there are millions of universes. Start counting and prove me wrong if my statement is false.
4. You cannot discount the fact that people lie and exaggerate, especially if it puts them in the limelight.
1. True, but you would agree that here on this one planet, multiple different kinds of life have developed correct? It would seem odd don't you think, if life were so rare, for it to be so numerous? But your first point is correct.
2. Again true, but we have not explored any other planets. I mean, it would have been silly of the Europeans to have assumed no life existed in the Americas, before they even set foot their wouldn't it? And they would have been wrong too.
3. Here's where you go terribly terribly wrong. Universe = everything we know of. So as far as we know there is one. Certain theories, like string theory, postulates thare are 12 to infinite Universes, other theories say just one.
As hopefully you already know (I notice you're a Palin fan, so I'll go slow) stars are kind of like our sun, they can vary in size, but our sun is pretty average. Here's what 10^23 looks like (for an average)
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Now we can't really comprehend the enormity of that number with our small brains, we can label it, but the human mind simply is not capable of imagining something so large.
But next time you're on a beach, pick up a handful of sand and see all of the grains their in your palm.
Then look at the entire beach.
Then think of all of the beaches in this whole big world.
On our entire planet there are apx 10^18 grains of sand.
There are way, way, way more stars in space, than grains of sand on all of earth.
And each of these stars has planets.
Considering this, it would be nearly impossible for us to be alone. Just the sheer size of it means there almost has to be a whole lot of life out there no matter how slim the chances of life ever starting may be.
4. True, considering the distance between stars and galaxies, it is unlikely that two intelligent life forms would find eachother. And I certainly doubt that us, in our short history have run into something intelligen from somewhere else.
But people have only been around a couple million years, give it time. It's bound to happen unless we kill ourselves first.
To be fair, this has not been confirmed and seems unlikely. While most stars probably have at least one planet (including Jovians), it is far from true that all stars definitely have planets.
Yep, and I knew that just when I wrote it, I swear :)
I just thought my explanation was getting a bit long, and I'd be surprised if the one I was replying to finds time to read it anyway, so I just kind of let it go.
Thanks for catching that though.
Because stars are so much brighter than planets, it's nearly impossible to know how many planets are out there.
One of the ways they try to figure it out, is with massive telescopes, tracking a star over a very long time, and looking for interuptions in the light. It can be assumed these interuptions could only be due to very large planets eclipsing the star in it's orbit, as everything else would be too small a varience in the light to be noticed by us at this point.
Problem of course is that, even planets the size of the earth are generally too small to detect in even some of the closer solar systems, so it's the super planets we see, which we do know are out there.
However, this may not be conductive to "life as we know it" (ignoring there's no reason their can't be life as we don't know it) because 1. it must be solid enough to have stuff (can't be gasseous) 2. if it's that large and solid, gravity could well be too strong, crushing any chance of a sentient being spawning from primordial ooze. So we don't really know much about planets.
But, stars we do actually know quite a bit about,
and thus far it's been shown that our own star is incredibly average, so there's no reason to believe an average star would not have multiple planets of all shapes and sizes and materials as well.
There is another way to estimate the number of planets, but I have not read of anything on it for awhile and I don't know where the research is at.
But we know 1. The apx mass of the Univers 2. the apx mass of the stars
So all you have left are planets and asteroids, (and dark matter,) so maybe soon they'll have at least an estimate of the amount of possible planetary matter out there, though how much would be asteroids or large or small planets etc, is still nearly impossible to tell.
2. agreed my statement is true; satellites have gotten past Pluto and have not found any form of visible life
3. Wow, thar is sumthin cald a Sun? I neber new that! Wut? Tha Sun is a star? Now u dun got me all confuzed. The name is a joke. I am a republican, but I am not in favor of Palin. Next time don't call someone a retard until you get your facts straight. I misspoke when I said universe, I meant galaxy. Yes, I have heard of something called a "Sun" and know that it is also a "star." You are saying that it is impossible for us to be alone, yet you have no empirical data or any other data whatsoever to back this claim up. Just saying that "well, there are a lot of planets out there and you never know" does not make up the fact that you have agreed with my first two points.
4.agreed my statement is true
Again, show me rock hard, concrete evidence that proves space aliens exist. Remember, you are trying to prove to me without a reasonable doubt that space aliens exist. If we don't have any solid evidence that they exist after being around for 2 million years, what makes you think the next two will be any different?
Again, show me hard rock, concrete evidence that aliens exist. If you can't, why do you keep disputing me? Like I said, if there are so-called millions of galaxies, you have to be able to prove it. Just saying something doesn't make it true unless you have evidence to back it up. You provide no empirical data to back it up. Tell me, is it possible to count how many galaxies are out there? No. So then how do you know there are that many out there? You don't. I am not wrong. You are until you can prove to me there are millions of galaxies. Also, until you can prove to me without a reasonable doubt that aliens exist, your arguments fall flat. You will never win this argument so I don't know why you continue to try.
lmao. you think they're lying about how many galaxies there are? (and it's not millions and millions, again, it's trillions)
It's not impossible at all to know, because we can see them. I mean, wtf are you talking about?
1. you can just count them, that's easy enough, but takes a long time.
2. in like third grade most people learn this cool thing. When you have a whole bunch of something, say jellybeans in a jar, you count the jellybeans in one area. Then you multiply it by the number of areas within the jar,
exa, about 5 jellybeans in a square inch, times 30 sq inches... tada about 150 jellybeans in the jar give or take a few.
So you see it is possible to count very large numbers, even when you don't have time to go 1,2,3,4,5, etc.
Of course they are much more accurate when counting stars than a third grader is with jellybeans in the jar, but you get the idea.
lmao. you think they're lying about how many galaxies there are? (and it's not millions and millions, again, it's trillions)
It's not impossible at all to know, because we can see them. I mean, wtf are you talking about?
Be careful with your numbers. The modern estimate for the number of galaxies runs at around 125 - 500 billion.
Also, we can't actually see all of the galaxies that exist, since their light has been massively red-shifted and gotten much fainter after traveling a few billion light-years.
That said, you are certainly right about the method where you count the number in some region and then multiply by the number of such regions that are out there (this is where the assumption that the universe is essentially isotropic and homogeneous comes in). The Hubble Deep Field image reveals ~3000 galaxies in about 1/500000 of the sky, which provides an estimate of 1.5 billion galaxies with light still in the visual spectrum.
I didn't bother looking it up, because Palin2040 entire premise is obviously scewed and I didn't feel like wasting time.
Thank you for the correction.
Instead of the technicalities of my arguement though, it may be more useful to address Palin's odd notiong that simply because he/she has not personally counted each galaxy individually,
that there is absolutely no way for anyone on earth to know aproximately how many exist.
If one person is arguing there are only 100 apples in the world for the reason that those 100 can only be proven to them because that is all that is in their personal grocery store.
Then another estimates there are a billion for the reason there are X number of grocery stores each with X number of apples. And uses this to refute person A's reasoning.
That there are actually only 500million apples known thus far to exist in no way I believe takes away from the general point person B was trying to make.
Edit: reread, I want to be sure though you know I do appreciate the correction.
Wow, you address one out of my three arguments (without providing sources) and say you win? Right....
1. You are trying to prove to me that there are that many, not the other way around. Start counting.
2.Jellybeans and galaxies are two different things. And besides, you are wrong. You measure a galaxy by first finding out how far away it is and then the angle that it subtends. For example, if something is 100 meters away and it fills 10 milliradians, it's 100 * 0.01 = 1 meter across. (A milliradian is 1/1000 of a radian, and a radian is about 57 degrees.) I don't consider that third grade material, do you?
Regardless of the galaxies, you have yet to provide solid evidence that space aliens exist. EPIC FAIL.
Ugh, what is with you? I had two very legitimate sources in my first arguement, that's why I didnt' provide more. That you don't believe there are even a million galaxies is akin to saying the earth is flat. Which I'm starting to think you do.
See how it's blue? You can click on that, it's a source, now go back to the blue stuff in my first arguement, you know the one where you don't know what a Universe is, and click the blue stuff and you'll see two more sources.
So between 125 billion and 500 billion galaxies. And as it says, as our technology improves, we will only find more... not less.
And if you were paying attention, I never said alien's did exist. I said it was likely. Of course I don't have proof you ignaraneous. My arguement with you is not existance of aliens, it's number of star/galaxies/ and the difference between a galaxy and a Universe. Don't try to change the paramaters of our arguement just because you are wrong.
You say because there is no proof of something it must simply not exist.
I say plenty of things exist with or without proof, and in the case of aliens, it's more likely than not they exist.
That's all dim wit. I didn't say I was abducted or that I have video tape.
No, its actually turquoise. What link are you talking about?
Na, i'm just kidding. The purpose of MY argument was that aliens are not real, you disputed, therefore you are trying to prove that aliens are real. Thus far you have not. You admitted you don't have proof. Therefore I win. EPIC FAILLLLL.
For the record though, believing something is more likely than not, and believing there exists some proof are two different things. I would hardly call it an epic failure when my point was never to prove anything one way or another,'
But whatever, here's what my tag should have been I guess
Seriously, who are you to demand evidence of life beyond our back garden?
We have only been "civilized" and "space faring" for 50 years AT MOST.
And even now we cannot pass outside of our solar system without machinery and artificial probes.. and that takes so much time we might aswell not have tried lol.
Truth is, we'll never know.. But if we exist, theres bound to be somewhere else that other lifeforms exist.
Just like when bacteria was first discovered, ppl dismissed it.. but its not always what u can SEE, its sometimes about believing in Logic above all else.
The X-files, Star Trek, Star Wars all portray life on other planets, and the drunk claims to have been abducted and so we must believe life does exist. What do these things have in common? Both are fiction. Dead cows and crop circles, do you really think this is proof? Proof that they do not exist is in that second cup of coffee, daylight and sober the bogeyman is gone.
I agree that crop circles aren't necessarily proof they exist, but it's not proof against it, neither is that prof against it. The fact remains that we have no scientific evidence against their existence. And before anyone mentions the Fermi Paradox, let me just say that I have yet to hear of Fermi taking into account anything outside of the effort humanity put into the search, not that they may be hiding from us, not even the size of the universe. The fact is that our efforts only cover a percentage of the universe, one which scientists apparently feel is too small and too unimportant to spend the time, effort and money calculating. We haven't even covered a fraction of our own galaxy yet. And don't even get me started on the premise of other universes.
If 1 person out of 80 million wins the lottery every week.. Don't you think that out of a number so vast we cannot even count, there is some planets that have life on them? Maybe not SUPER advanced.. but LIFE as in creatures/bacteria evolving as we speak..?
Ok the stats are like this: if the world was empty, save for 100 people on one side of the Earth, and another 100 on the other.. Chances of finding each other.. slim almost to never happen in their lifetimes of 1 2 or even 20 generations.
Doesn't mean that we're all alone though..
Keep an open mind, keep logic open too. Because Logically.. Its a VERY high chance that they exist.
I don't know why people don't believe in Extra Terrestrials. There's AT LEAST one planet up there that has life on it. Even if it were bacteria , it would still count as life. It would be cooler if there was walking , talking , sight seeing life though.
Well, I have to say I haven't really been convinced yet. I'd like to think that there are other intelligent forms of life out there, after all the universe is a vast and (remains) unexplored for the most part. We cannot be the only ones but, until some real evidence is found then I still stand undecided.
