If you think we are the only intelligent life in the Universe, you are in idiot.

  • Thread starter Event
  • 65 comments
  • 2,806 views
It is a number so large that it can only be found within the Google headquarters.

Lmao. Why has everyone been using units of google-, googl-, and goglplexes ever since Famine mentioned the now famous Googolplex?


Everybody should know by now that the probability of other life in the universe is x/y.
 
The more you find out about how huge the universe is, the less likely it is that we're alone.

I saw a video a while back (I think it was posted here somewhere) that talked about how they aimed Hubble at a seemingly empty patch of sky and saw thousands of galaxies floating around. They aimed it at a different, seemingly empty, patch of sky and saw the same thing.. thousands of galaxies.

The sheer volume of the universe is beyond our comprehension. Even if you consider that only one in a billion stars has a planet around it, that only one in a billion of those planets has life, and only one in a billion of those life-bearing planets has evolved intelligence, that still amounts to BILLIONS of intelligent-life-bearing planets out there.

We are not alone. We are, however, isolated. The chances of actually encountering another intelligent lifeform is incredibly small, but not impossible. It would require one of the species to develop very fast, very efficient FTL capabilities, with the ability to scout out thousands of planets within the galaxy. Contact outside the galaxy would be nigh impossible until technology advances to near god-like proportions.
 
Life has a pretty clear definition. And we don't know what the chances of life existing anywhere else are. We think they're pretty good, but we don't know how rare life is. The chance could be anywhere between 99.9999% and 0.000001%

and the size thta life could be, what if there was a planet very similar to earth orbiting Antares, but in the same size ratio??

a humanoid life form would literally be MILES tall!
 
there was just an article on TV about new technology to detect more smaller planets like Earth
 
CCX
and the size thta life could be, what if there was a planet very similar to earth orbiting Antares, but in the same size ratio??

a humanoid life form would literally be MILES tall!

Life "could" be anything - that's kind of the point. It "could" even be something we don't know "could" be life yet.
 
Life "could" be anything - that's kind of the point. It "could" even be something we don't know "could" be life yet.

That's exactly the problem with people's outlook on the subject. Too many people, even scientists, assume that only an Earth-like planet can support life. Such thinking is highly arrogant, and hearkens back to the days when Earth was the center of the universe.
 
That's exactly the problem with people's outlook on the subject. Too many people, even scientists, assume that only an Earth-like planet can support life. Such thinking is highly arrogant, and hearkens back to the days when Earth was the center of the universe.

Actually, I would say it's more of a logical conclusion since all life that we have seen to exist has been on an earth-like planet.

It's possibly a little arrogant, but what proof do we have that life exists on planets that cannot support life as we know it?
 
Actually, I would say it's more of a logical conclusion since all life that we have seen to exist has been on an earth-like planet.

It's reasonable to asssume that Earth like planets offer the best chance of harboring life but it's based on inductive reasoning so it isn't exactly fact.

Swift
It's possibly a little arrogant, but what proof do we have that life exists on planets that cannot support life as we know it?

If I were religious, I'd just say you have to have faith.... if I were religious.
 
If your a believer in god you already believe that life exists in a form very different to what we see around us on Earth.
 
It's reasonable to asssume that Earth like planets offer the best chance of harboring life but it's based on inductive reasoning so it isn't exactly fact.
I agree, but until we can prove otherwise, what do we else do we have to go on? :)

If I were religious, I'd just say you have to have faith.... if I were religious.

Hmm...outside of God and the angels I'm not sure what you're getting at here. :boggled:
 
...why make an exception for those?

Hmmm..don't know. Not saying we should. But God and the angels/demons are immortal. Our souls are immortal but life on earth is very finite. I guess that's the difference I'm seeing.
 
Well, intelligent life, and life are two different things. Of course there is probably something alive out there somewhere, but how advanced that life is is a different story. We've found what looks to be fossils of former life on Mars, but nothing we could call intelligent.
 
Well, intelligent life, and life are two different things. Of course there is probably something alive out there somewhere, but how advanced that life is is a different story. We've found what looks to be fossils of former life on Mars, but nothing we could call intelligent.

We found fossils on mars???


(BTW, if we did find fossils on mars, my first question to you would be where in the bible it says god made life on other planets)
 
(BTW, if we did find fossils on mars, my first question to you would be where in the bible it says god made life on other planets)
It doesn't say he did, but at the same time it doesn't say he didn't, I can't see how a debate about life on other planets could cross any debate over bible accuracy. As for fossils being found on Mars, there's nothing concrete, never has been anytihng concrete, just a suspicous looking rock that was found in 1996 I think. Anyway, there's a reason you haven't heared anything since.
 
As for fossils being found on Mars, there's nothing concrete, never has been anytihng concrete, just a suspicous looking rock that was found in 1996 I think. Anyway, there's a reason you haven't heared anything since.

You mean the meteorite in Antarctica?

L4S
It doesn't say he did, but at the same time it doesn't say he didn't, I can't see how a debate about life on other planets could cross any debate over bible accuracy.

Which of the 6 days did he create algae or bacteria or whatever we find on mars then? If god went around creating life on other planets and the bible left it out, I'd consider that to be a huge omission.
 
We found fossils on mars???


(BTW, if we did find fossils on mars, my first question to you would be where in the bible it says god made life on other planets)

Inconclusive. They have several pictures of rocks and what looks like traces of what might have once been tiny organisms. They have never actually come out and said the word "fossils."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4480097/

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m034.html

also, here, they have found was seems to be traces of where water may have once ran on the surface of Mars:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/17/creature.features/


Basically, It's not Nasa that claims "fossils" but others theorizing. Its just a theory.

As far as the bible question, I dont believe in the bible. Im not an athiest and I'm not saying there is no God, I just dont believe the Bible. Besides, didnt people used to get killed for saying the Earth revovled around the sun?
 
That's exactly the problem with people's outlook on the subject. Too many people, even scientists, assume that only an Earth-like planet can support life. Such thinking is highly arrogant, and hearkens back to the days when Earth was the center of the universe.

The major problem is... we're not interested in any other kind of life.

To whit:

What meaningful dialogue could we have with gas bags living in the soupy atmosphere of a gas giant twice the size of Jupiter in a solar system a hundred light years away? They might be able to communicate in radio frequencies, but then what? They have no metals to create machines, no materials to form permanent records with (except, maybe, the floating carcasses of other dead gasbags)... they have nothing to teach us.

Or maybe silicone based life... living in rock crystals, communicating by electrical impulses. They have no eyes, ears, or concept of the outside world... no technology, no astronomy. Nothing.

This kind of life would be of interest in the name of pure research, but how would they develop technology? A civilization?

It's arrogant to think of life in purely terrestrial terms, but we know that technology is possible given these conditions. And it's technological, intelligent aliens who can communicate with us, and, hopefully, teach us a thing or two about space travel, the meaning of life, or perhaps a better way of making Coca Cola.

That's why we look so hard for Earth-like planets. Scientists admit that life can take many forms, but they're more interested in forms like us... with a head on one end, with eyes, ears and vocal apparatii, grasping appendages, and technology.

Of course, if we find intelligent vegetative forms which build radio telescopes out of molecular carbon in interstellar gas clouds, that'll be fine, but otherwise, we search for people like us. :)
 
Which of the 6 days did he create algae or bacteria or whatever we find on mars then? If god went around creating life on other planets and the bible left it out, I'd consider that to be a huge omission.
I already covered that in this thread in post 15.

What you are asking is like saying a book on 15th century Europe has a big omission because it doesn't discuss Chinese cultures. The Bible is not a book about God, but rather God's relationship to humans. Where in that subject should Martian bacteria come up?

I can see this discussion right now:

A man dies and goes to Heaven. Upon arriving in Heaven he sees many non-human races. The man then goes to God and has the following conversation.

Man: God, you created many races other than just humans.
God: Yes, I did.
Man: Why didn't you give this information to the Biblical authors?
God: They didn't ask.
 
Genesis is about the creation of the universe, not just man. The description found is supposed to be a full description of the creation of the entire universe. I don't see how you can read it any other way.
 
Genesis is about the creation of the universe, not just man. The description found is supposed to be a full description of the creation of the entire universe. I don't see how you can read it any other way.

Certainly it is. However, why get into details about every other planet in creation? It has NOTHING to do with the relationship between God and man, as FK has said.
 
Certainly it is. However, why get into details about every other planet in creation? It has NOTHING to do with the relationship between God and man, as FK has said.

Because it's an important part of the story of the creation of the universe?
 
Genesis is about the creation of the universe, not just man. The description found is supposed to be a full description of the creation of the entire universe. I don't see how you can read it any other way.
If you are to take it that man (or even intelligent life in general) was the goal then the creation of the universe (heavens) followed by the Earth is a stepping stone in getting to man, as man is in a physical form and required a physical universe to live in.

Aside from that small part I cannot think of anywhere else the Bible talks about what God did in the physical universe away from Earth. I mean, honestly, you are talking about maybe five verses (including through creating night and day) out of 31 talking about the creation (up to and not including man). Throw the creation of man in there and you get a total of 56 verses. It is a small part of the creation, but is very miniscule when compared to the rest of the Bible, which covers God's relationship with man. At most I would consider it an undetailed prologue with mild importance to the story as a whole. I actually see it as a part of a prologue to the main story as the creation of the heavens and Earth and seperation of night and day are only part of the creation, whcih is basically the prologue to the story of God and man.

If the Bible were to discuss any other intelligent life in the universe multiple other books would have to have been written. Of course, looking at how the canonization worked, I am aware that there are whole books missing and if any of them mentioned extraterrestrial life I wouldn't be too shocked.
 
So you don't think that a verse saying:

"And god created many sentient species on many planets in the universe, one of which was man on earth"

...would kinda change the whole complexion of the story?

I've got an idea. Perhaps it wasn't mentioned because the men that made up the story didn't know what they were talking about?
 
So you don't think that a verse saying:

"And god created many sentient species on many planets in the universe, one of which was man on earth"

...would kinda change the whole complexion of the story?

I've got an idea. Perhaps it wasn't mentioned because the men that made up the story didn't know what they were talking about?

That's an idea. Not one I'm going to agree with for a second, but it's an idea.

The bible is not a roadmap to what God's intentions were or the extent of the created universe. It's a guide to get to know God for yourself.

Even if/when we find life on other planets, it won't change the relationship between God and man. That's the point FK and I are trying to make(I beleive :) )
 
Even if/when we find life on other planets, it won't change the relationship between God and man. That's the point FK and I are trying to make(I beleive :) )

So if we go from being God's only child on God's annointed planet where he gave the only precious gift of life in the entire universe, to being one many races of intelligent creatures God created on many planets at different times in different and perhaps even superior ways that doesn't change our relationship?


I disagree. I think if we find a bit of algae on Mars that it changes the way we look at the rest of the universe and makes every religious person re-evaluate the relationship of God and Earth.

I think it also greatly discredits the bible's incomplete story of the creation of the universe (on top of the way our current understanding of the formation of stars, planets, galaxies, life, etc. already has greatly discredited genesis) and points once again to the idea that man invented god, and not the other way around.
 
So you don't think that a verse saying:

"And god created many sentient species on many planets in the universe, one of which was man on earth"

...would kinda change the whole complexion of the story?

I've got an idea. Perhaps it wasn't mentioned because the men that made up the story didn't know what they were talking about?
Having that statement, or any variation of it, would have been completely out of place unless you included the multiple sentient species and their role in the universe in the entire book.

Swift
The bible is not a roadmap to what God's intentions were or the extent of the created universe. It's a guide to get to know God for yourself.

Even if/when we find life on other planets, it won't change the relationship between God and man. That's the point FK and I are trying to make(I beleive :) )
Yep. Basically, the Bible says here is God and man and this is how they work together. I don't see how extraterrestrials fit into that.
 
If there were intelligent life on other planets, I agree with danoff that Bible should have mentioned it. But I disagree that if algae is found on Mars, that automatically equals intelligent life on other planets, or that it discredits Christian God. Now, if they find a pyramid on Mars, we should expect to see some serious back pedaling.

Discovery of life like algae on Mars will have some question the Bible, sure. But as we have already went over many times in the Opinions Forum, scientifically, we already are questioning the Bible, with, or without algae on Mars.

P.S. I thought the Bible was written by men who didn't exactly know what they were writing about. ;)
 
Saw the thread title and couldn't resist...

As far as I am concerned, we are alone.

Why do I say that?

Because I stick to the basics of science (you know, stuff like the scientific method...).

With that in mind...
Except for speculation, there is absolutely no evidence to show there is life other than what is found on earth.

Without evidence I will remain a skeptic until the aliens make themselves known.
That's science for you.

Actual, factual proof- that's what I need before I can believe in little green men. 👍

With that said, I'd have to say that if there are idiots here, they are the ones who have already accepted the existance of aliens on nothing other than faith.

Funny that belief in aliens is so similar to belief in god- I bet that really irks the atheist and ET believers. :ouch:
 
Back