Being in a proposed habitable zone does not make them habitable......
Do extra terrestrials exist? If so...
- Thread starter airrunner
- Start date
Being in a proposed habitable zone does not make them habitable......
No but out of the 500 million odd just in our galaxy I think you'd be silly to think that none of them were.
It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what I can prove.........also simply being in a habitable zone doesn't mean life exists or is even possible.....there are millions of other variables to consider, some we do not even understand ourselves, so when talking about probability, it isn't just about how many billion planets there are, but how many billion variables have to be in place to create that singular moment when Proteins, Polysaccharides and Nucleic acids come together to form biological life.
Just because there are 500 million planets close enough to their primary to fulfil one of the criteria doesn't mean they fulfil any of the myriad of others or even if they do, that life developed.
The Copernican Principle is not the only hypothesis out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_Hypothesis
Last edited:
Like I said I am open minded to the possibility, but I don't ascribe to a 'definitive truth' position insofar as to say, 'There must be life elsewhere' only that there is the possibility.
For example, you say 'millions of habitable planets'.....whereas they are only potentially habitable based on assumed criteria, they may well be unihabitable because of other criteria.......
While according to some hypothesis there are potentially millions of habitible and thousands of examples of intelligent life, according to others the converse is potentially true....
The truth is, we simply do not know, we can apply probability to the question, but nothing more.......yet.
These planets in the habitual range, also really needs a moon and gas giants. There's thousands of things that need to align for the chance of life as we know ATM. If we find life in mars or other moons, then that massively increases the number of potential planets.
Indeed.
They need something as simple as water to begin with, just because liquid water can exist on a planet, doesn't mean it is present.
There is evidence of water existing on Mars long ago.
One thing we know about the universe is that water is pretty prevalent.
I know we have no "evidence" of life on other planets, but in my mind it's pretty much a certainty
Which only illustrates that having fulfilled one criteria doesn't mean there is life....unless you are stating that there are such things as Martians?
Water still exists on Mars btw....
But doesn't imply that it is always present.....or that it is not contaminated, liquid, or even able to potentially support life.
I know we have no "evidence" of life on other planets, but in my mind it's pretty much a certainty
So you base a 'certainty' on a lack of conclusive evidence simply because you think that what you believe is sufficent 'evidence' is enough.....even when there is other 'evidence' that may support the opposite.
You are basically taking a faith position.
Last edited:
All that shows is that not every unidentified object should be classed as unidentifiable.
By definition if something is unidentifiable it is classed as unidentifiable.....the moment it becomes indentified it is classed as something else.....
Not really.
I'm just going on probability.
I like the idea that we are not alone, and seriously, looking up at everything, I think it's highly unlikely that we are.
I totally agree with your perspective on this. It's fundamentally a mathematical logic that life must exist when you quantify the sheer size of the universe, we aren't even taking into account the recent theory of multi universe.
.
Also to the person who said from a "Faith Position" I suggest you do some research before trying to support your skeptical argument.
Start here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/r...&tag=lpo_ixdpamusukengl_book-21&index=blended
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 48,143
Given the size of the universe, life out there seems very likely. However, it is unlikely to look like anything that we know.
IMO I don't believe ET has ever visited us, as a race we certainly think we are way more significant than we actually are.
IMO I don't believe ET has ever visited us, as a race we certainly think we are way more significant than we actually are.
By definition if something is unidentifiable it is classed as unidentifiable.....the moment it becomes indentified it is classed as something else.....
Only reliablly after serious investigation as far as I am concerned. Earlier on in this thread we had examples of helicopters being mistaken for ufos or aircraft seen from different angles. You can of course be mistaken about something you have interpreted as unidentified and so in this respect the definition you provide would not stand.
I suggest you try understand the difference between Evidence, Fact, Theory and Hypothesis and Conjecture. And by definition believing categorically that Aliens exist is a faith position because faith is simply making a positive assumption about something. Which is exactly what you are doing....the relative probability of that assumption doesn't mean it is not a faith position.
And I laughed at the suggestion that I should do some research first, and the link you gave me.....
Last edited:
The definition stands......whether the object is a helicopter or not, while it is in the process of being ascertained it remains classified as unidentified, the minute that the identity is ascertained it is no longer classified as unidentified but as a helicopter.....if the helicopter is never identified as such, it remains in the classification of unidentified.
Therefore an unidentified object is exactly that, unidentified...until such time as its identity is ascertained. The classification is not impacted on what the object actually is until that object is ascertained. Whether you are mistaken or not doesn't impact on the current classification of something, it only alters any future classification when the misidentification is observed or proven.
The definition stands.
Last edited:
Yes really....you are making positive assumptions based on an assumed subjective probability of something being true based on what you accept as relevant evidence, this is a faith position. While many people, including scientists consider the possibility to be plausible as yet there is no direct evidence to support the definitive position that you and some others are taking.....thus you are taking a leap of faith between what we actually know and can verify and what you assume to be the factual outcome.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,271
- Location
- North East England
Certainly believe they will exist somewhere at some point in time
Remember 'life on earth' exists in a comparative fraction of a second when compared to the age of the universe.
Remember 'life on earth' exists in a comparative fraction of a second when compared to the age of the universe.