Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Kirk wrote:

Statistics suggest there most likely are at least a couple other civilizations out there.

Yeah, but even assuming that the universe is as old as they say, I think they are pulling numbers out of their asses when they make those statistics.

The same can be said for all statistics.

resedit wrote:

Here's the thing - given the right conditions, we don't know how likely it is that life will start. According to evolutionists, they use the fact that there is similar DNA in all species as evidence of their theory - but that would mean that either life only evolved once here, or that only one strand survived and we have no evidence of the others. Given that, I don't really see how the hell they can give a probability for it happening elsewhere, even with the "right conditions", especially when they admittedly do not even know how it happens.

I agree.

E=mc^2

resedit wrote:

Here's the thing - given the right conditions, we don't know how likely it is that life will start.

We DO know what conditions life is likely to exist in though, which means we can get a rough guess. Just the fact that the Earth contains life, if you accept the possibility that life doesn't need a god to be created, then that almost means, just by itself, that life HAS to exist somewhere else. If the universe/time is infinite, that means, mathematically, that life DOES exist somewhere else. If you assume the universe/time is finite, then the chance is still very, very good that life exists somewhere else, given the vastness of the universe.

According to evolutionists, they use the fact that there is similar DNA in all species as evidence of their theory - but that would mean that either life only evolved once here, or that only one strand survived and we have no evidence of the others.

I know of few biologists who believe that DNA is exclusive to earth. DNA is a molecule like any other, and its existence is determined by the properties of electrons (and other particles of course) that is a set value particular to our universe. It is not unlikely for DNA to develop elsewhere, in a very similar form to our own. Also, there is only a handful of different types of elements that can be created in the natural processes of our universe, and most of those elements we know about (they are on the periodic table). Are there more elements? There likely is, but they are too complex to be formed naturally, or form in such tiny forms naturally that they are irrelevant. Given this, then it also becomes easier to see that life somewhere else, even zillions of miles away, could easily be similar to our own (it would almost have to be), and would be restricted by the same things that restrict life on earth.

Given that, I don't really see how the hell they can give a probability for it happening elsewhere, even with the "right conditions", especially when they admittedly do not even know how it happens.

We don't know the specifics, but we know the conditions. If you look at the things that are elements of the drake equation, they really aren't taking leaps of faith, they are even being conservative a bit with the equation. You can't use it though, given how little we know of the universe, to say anything too absolute about life elsewhere, but they aren't just pulling the numbers out of no where.

Kosh wrote:

Also, as far as we know with our limited understanding of the "laws" of physics, they will be limited to the speed of light just as we are, so contact would be unlikely.  Of course, we may at some point discover a way to exceed or bypass this "speed limit" (or we may be told that such a way exists by visitors ).

I'll post it again:

E=mc^2

The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower the clocks ticks.

There's also the wormhole and space folding theories. Those are scientific theories, not just fiction.

Here's a crazy theory...

What is we are the aliens on planet earth. Just hang with me for a moment. If you look at nature you see alot of checks and balances. The universe wants to be equal all the time. For example something cold always attracts energy (heat) away from something warmer so that in the end they end up equal temperatures. The same goes for mother nature. Planets grow to feed plant eaters (to keep the plant population normal), then plant eaters are eaten by meat eaters (same thing as before), meat eaters die then turn into nutrients for the plants. One big cycle. But then throw us humans in the mix and we ravage the world of its natural resources and the population keeps increasing. I think all the diseases out there is mother nature trying to control us, but we are just out smarting her at her own game (immunization and medicine and soon the mapping of the Genome). Any ways say we destroyed Mars (or Venus, since its so close) with global warming and such. We came here t live on. Had a one world government (Atlantis) and colonies throughout the world (Mayans, Egypts, etc.). But then like every newly colonized county, the colonists start to revolt over the leaders (ex: American Independance). Had a huge war, destroyed the main government place (Atlantis) and then lost a crap load of technology (Wars destroy alot of technology, look back in your history books) and had to start basically from scratch again. I like this theory sometimes because with all the fossils dug up over the years we still haven't found the missing link between prehistoric man and man today. We've been finding bones of dinosaurs who have lived millions of years before we showed up. Maybe we terra formed the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs. We just don't remember cause we lost all the knowledge. Also the telephone game is a prime example of losing knowledge. Its a crazy theory but it does make you think a bit.

resedit wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

resedit wrote:

Here's the thing - given the right conditions, we don't know how likely it is that life will start.

We DO know what conditions life is likely to exist in though, which means we can get a rough guess.

No we can't.
We know what conditions are suitable for existing life to continue existing, and nothing more.
You can't take one occurrence of life having started and use that - that's called anectdotal evidence, the sample size isn't large enough to get any kind of statistical value, the sample size is one.

Yeah, you can't, except no one is doing that. You can't say that we know life on earth is a "single data point" because we are that life, and that life exists in multiple different forms across a very large land area. It is also logical to assume that if life takes a certain condition to exist, it takes a certain condition to form, based on the condition it takes to exist (which incidentally, is not the condition it takes to form). Life is made up of molecules, and molecules behave in a predictable way (and we can predict this way on small, simple scales, so far).

I wish they would do a better job of teaching that to our scientists, so they don't make fools of themselves when they make up these statistics.

Which scientist is making a fool of themselves?

Now if we evidence of life having evolved at some point on Mars - then we have double the sample size, assuming the genetics are different than on earth - which still is not great, but is good enough to indicate that we aren't a fluke occurrence, though it still would be possible that the conditions needed for life to not be a fluke occurrence was a fluke occurrence of our solar system, as we have no clue what those conditions are - we do know that they are different than what we currently have, or have had for some time, since it has not happened for some time. Not that we are aware of anyway.

I am not following what you are saying exactly, but I assume it's that if we find life elsewhere, it could be 2 isolated flukes? That could very well be the case, but it would still be good to know that there is life elsewhere.

I don't see why you believe we have "no clue" what the conditions needed for life are. All it would take is for conditions that allow for the molecules that make up cells to exist (liquid water, being a primary condition, which implies a certain temperature, climate, gravity, and a whole host of other factors that are necessary for liquid water). But, for a planet to be able to have these properties is a rare occurrence. In our solar system, the Earth is the only suitable planet for hosting complex life. Venus would be the next closest, except they are a good deal warmer, which leads to venus having a bit too harsh atmosphere (too many gasses and caustic liquids that inhibit oxygen and carbon bonds). Mars is too small to sustain an atmosphere, which makes it too cold, which is not helped by the fact that it is farther from the sun. Jupiter has too much gravity so even if it didn't have a toxic atmosphere, the force of gravity would likely make complex cellular formation unlikely (the water transport systems in plants on jupiter would have to be more robust that earth plants to be able to carry water against the gravity, for example). Our sun is even perfect for life in our solar system, in that it is the right size for the Earth in its orbit to not evaporate the water, and it doesn't have too radical CMEs to fry the earth either.

Either: Earth is perfect for life -or- Life on Earth is perfect for Earth.

I choose the latter, with the implication that life "elsewhere" will be perfect for "elsewhere" whether that place is Earth-like or not.

Maxwell Knight wrote:

Lee_Roy wrote:

Here's a crazy theory...

What is we are the aliens on planet earth.

That is impossible.  Our DNA and basic body structure match other creatures on Earth.  Fossil history also shows us developing alongside our primate cousins.

Which is why you can conclude that we're the product of Aliens mating with early humans.  :-D
That's the concept of Link.  It's an interesting book until the near end where the author rants about how evolution doesn't make sense in any form because of such reasons as mosquitos, ferns, crocodiles, etc remaining unchanged for millions of years.  Other, actually interesting, ideas that come up are common myths, building styles, and customs in vastly different cultures (Mayan, Egyptian, etc).

Not to go off-topic here, but I was amazed at how the rant/agenda that is pushed near the end of the book contained so many of the ideas of physics/abiogenesis/thermodynamics/etc that are constantly brought up here, and then blasted for being an incorrect view or misunderstanding.

Anyway, the one concept that always mystified me when people talk about ETs is that "they'll of course be more advanced than our own". At some point you have to have a culture that is THE most advanced ever to exist.  I'm surprised the American superiority complex hasn't pushed the idea that we'll find some poor stone age culture out there somewhere.

I suppose the idea is that we're not advanced enough to mount a search for other life outside own system, so any contact will have to come from a group that is that advanced.

If only we'd encountered an environment that forced us to evolve organic methods for bending space.

Hey I just posted another side to the whole alien conspiracy thing to start some talking. But as for aliens from other planets coming to earth, I'm a bit skeptical. But if they can travel that distance then they are thousands, perhaps millions of years ahead in technology. Lets take the Roswell crash for instance. i don't think it was an alien ship that crashed (military never mentioned bodies in there initial report to the newspapers). It wasn't a soviet satellite or plane cause they would have said that years ago when USSR fell. There is no way someone confuses a Weather Balloon with a flying saucer, you have to be a complete idiot. I think what crashed was a space probe of some sort. Like a Voyager 1 and 2. I think if we had an alien ship we would have used the technology in space by now. Come on how old are those Space Shuttles now. And the space station is using computers from the 1980s. If we are alone in the universe then it is a big waste of space.

Lee_Roy wrote:

I think what crashed was a space probe of some sort. Like a Voyager 1 and 2.

Given that the Roswell crash took place on July 2, 1947 I think it more than a bit unlikely that it was anything resembling a terrestrial space probe.  The first launch into space took place ten years, three months and two days later!  It is infinitely more likely whatever crashed was a test device for anthropomorphic dummies outfitted with high-altitude suits for pilots having to bail out of airplanes.  This would account for the "bodies" that were mentioned later as well as "futuristic" materials, etc.

Lee_Roy wrote:

...Come on how old are those Space Shuttles now...

Designed in the early 70s using slide rules, if memory serves.  However it should be noted that the avionics in the SSTs have been continually updated, and the space shuttle is still considered to be the most complex machine ever built.

VegasACF wrote:

Lee_Roy wrote:

I think what crashed was a space probe of some sort. Like a Voyager 1 and 2.

Given that the Roswell crash took place on July 2, 1947 I think it more than a bit unlikely that it was anything resembling a terrestrial space probe.  The first launch into space took place ten years, three months and two days later!  It is infinitely more likely whatever crashed was a test device for anthropomorphic dummies outfitted with high-altitude suits for pilots having to bail out of airplanes.  This would account for the "bodies" that were mentioned later as well as "futuristic" materials, etc.

Lee_Roy wrote:

...Come on how old are those Space Shuttles now...

Designed in the early 70s using slide rules, if memory serves.  However it should be noted that the avionics in the SSTs have been continually updated, and the space shuttle is still considered to be the most complex machine ever built.

Lee_Roy wrote:

I don't believe there were bodies. That's just a side story someone made up to make it more interesting. It think every one knows what plastic, rubber and aluminum foil look like, just go to your kitchen. I like I said you have to be a complete idiot to think a weather balloon was a flying saucer. I still say it was a space probe from another planet. I really hate when everyone believes what the US government says, let alone any government. I've never heard or seen a truthful politician.

See there Vegas, he wasn't talking about our space probes. 

Maxwell Knight wrote:

That book is science fiction not science fact.  Think about it.  Aliens aren't going to have the same DNA.  How the hell would they mate with us?  Gimme a break.

Holy crap!  You just blew my mind!