We're Not Alone[W:102,300]

Most of us know this intrinsically. The Universe is rife with life. However, until we have concrete proof, many people will continue to deny its possibility...especially the flat-earthers who still believe the universe is 6000 years old. They will deny anything, regardless the proof, if it conflicts with their good book.

Bottom line though, with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and perhaps trillions upon trillions of planets, it's impossible for there not to be life out there. Most of this is assured by the fact that our water came from outerspace as did the amino acids which formed dna and spawned the first living cells, all of it delivered to our little planet via the bombardment of meteors. Those findings created for me the slam-dunk moment.

Now, it's become even more of a lock, as NASA scientists agree: we are not alone.

We Are Not Alone In Universe, NASA Scientists Say


So, my question: is the jury still out, or are most of us in agreement: we are not alone?

Re: We're Not Alone

calamity said:

Most of us know this intrinsically. The Universe is rife with life. However, until we have concrete proof, many people will continue to deny its possibility...especially the flat-earthers who still believe the universe is 6000 years old. They will deny anything, regardless the proof, if it conflicts with their good book.

Bottom line though, with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and perhaps trillions upon trillions of planets, it's impossible for there not to be life out there. Most of this is assured by the fact that our water came from outerspace as did the amino acids which formed dna and spawned the first living cells, all of it delivered to our little planet via the bombardment of meteors. Those findings created for me the slam-dunk moment.

Now, it's become even more of a lock, as NASA scientists agree: we are not alone.

We Are Not Alone In Universe, NASA Scientists Say


So, my question: is the jury still out, or are most of us in agreement: we are not alone?

Click to expand...

Theoretically, we are most likely not alone as the only life forms in the universe. But until we find proof or contact, we might as well be.

And I'm not sure it would be to our advantage to encounter a more advanced species if they want our resources.

Re: We're Not Alone

calamity said:

Most of us know this intrinsically. The Universe is rife with life. However, until we have concrete proof, many people will continue to deny its possibility...especially the flat-earthers who still believe the universe is 6000 years old. They will deny anything, regardless the proof, if it conflicts with their good book.

Bottom line though, with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and perhaps trillions upon trillions of planets, it's impossible for there not to be life out there. Most of this is assured by the fact that our water came from outerspace as did the amino acids which formed dna and spawned the first living cells, all of it delivered to our little planet via the bombardment of meteors. Those findings created for me the slam-dunk moment.

Now, it's become even more of a lock, as NASA scientists agree: we are not alone.

We Are Not Alone In Universe, NASA Scientists Say


So, my question: is the jury still out, or are most of us in agreement: we are not alone?

Click to expand...

I actually do not know nor have known anybody that would have a a problem with alien life for religious reasons.

Re: We're Not Alone

grip said:

Theoretically, we are most likely not alone as the only life forms in the universe. But until we find proof or contact, we might as well be.

And I'm not sure it would be to our advantage to encounter a more advanced species if they want our resources.

Click to expand...

You need to watch more Ancient Aliens. Starting with those space ships coming and showing cave men how to build fires, and finishing with Area 51, space people have been directing our world forever.

I think AA comes on right before or after Finding Bigfoot.

Re: We're Not Alone

calamity said:

Most of us know this intrinsically. The Universe is rife with life. However, until we have concrete proof, many people will continue to deny its possibility...especially the flat-earthers who still believe the universe is 6000 years old. They will deny anything, regardless the proof, if it conflicts with their good book.

Bottom line though, with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and perhaps trillions upon trillions of planets, it's impossible for there not to be life out there. Most of this is assured by the fact that our water came from outerspace as did the amino acids which formed dna and spawned the first living cells, all of it delivered to our little planet via the bombardment of meteors. Those findings created for me the slam-dunk moment.

Now, it's become even more of a lock, as NASA scientists agree: we are not alone.

We Are Not Alone In Universe, NASA Scientists Say


So, my question: is the jury still out, or are most of us in agreement: we are not alone?

Click to expand...

It is exceedingly unlikely that we're alone. I wouldn't say "impossible," simply out of desire to be precise -- that's a statement of certainty that we can't currently confirm, just like saying we're definitely alone would be. But I would be shocked if there were no other life in the universe. The odds of that are just astronomically small, given how many habitable planets there really are.

The most interesting question to me is two-fold:

1. What other configurations of life are there? What variations of DNA-like structures might we find? What building blocks and gases can creatures evolve to thrive on?

2. Will we find a species comparable or greater in intelligence to ourselves? This is especially interesting to me.

I may or may not live to see answers to either of those questions, and finding the answer to #2 in the affirmative is both exciting and scary (humans from different societies often can't even be nice to each other, so there is certainly risk in making contact with another highly intelligent species). But I'm so curious I kind of half hope I do.

Re: We're Not Alone

jimbo said:

You need to watch more Ancient Aliens. Starting with those space ships coming and showing cave men how to build fires, and finishing with Area 51, space people have been directing our world forever.

I think AA comes on right before or after Finding Bigfoot.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree that a more advanced species wouldn't necessarily be lacking benevolence. Any life forms that are advanced enough to be capable of interstellar travel might be only observing our development? That Ancient Aliens show seems mostly like a crock, especially the dude with poofy hair.

Re: We're Not Alone

SmokeAndMirrors said:

It is exceedingly unlikely that we're alone. I wouldn't say "impossible," simply out of desire to be precise -- that's a statement of certainty that we can't currently confirm, just like saying we're definitely alone would be. But I would be shocked if there were no other life in the universe. The odds of that are just astronomically small, given how many habitable planets there really are.

The most interesting question to me is two-fold:

1. What other configurations of life are there? What variations of DNA-like structures might we find? What building blocks and gases can creatures evolve to thrive on?

2. Will we find a species comparable or greater in intelligence to ourselves? This is especially interesting to me.

I may or may not live to see answers to either of those questions, and finding the answer to #2 in the affirmative is both exciting and scary (humans from different societies often can't even be nice to each other, so there is certainly risk in making contact with another highly intelligent species). But I'm so curious I kind of half hope I do.

Click to expand...

All planets are habitable. Nothing says that life elsewhere must conform to our version of life.

Add to that that our solar system is among the younger of the systems, and the billions X billions of possiblities, and the odds of us being unique, and the odds approach zero.

Re: We're Not Alone

grip said:

Theoretically, we are most likely not alone as the only life forms in the universe. But until we find proof or contact, we might as well be.

And I'm not sure it would be to our advantage to encounter a more advanced species if they want our resources.

Click to expand...

I always found the idea of aliens wanted our resources as strange....

I mean, if they can get here from (at least) light years away, certainly they could probably have traveled to many many uninhabited planets to collect the raw materials they need without killing us. For those raw mats that are produced as a by-product of life, seems if they are advanced enough to make a journey across interstellar space they could synthesize those raw mats.

On the other hand, maybe we are the only raw material they can't make.....

Ok, nm, you can panic again....

Re: We're Not Alone

calamity said:

Most of us know this intrinsically. The Universe is rife with life. However, until we have concrete proof, many people will continue to deny its possibility...especially the flat-earthers who still believe the universe is 6000 years old. They will deny anything, regardless the proof, if it conflicts with their good book.

Bottom line though, with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and perhaps trillions upon trillions of planets, it's impossible for there not to be life out there. Most of this is assured by the fact that our water came from outerspace as did the amino acids which formed dna and spawned the first living cells, all of it delivered to our little planet via the bombardment of meteors. Those findings created for me the slam-dunk moment.

Now, it's become even more of a lock, as NASA scientists agree: we are not alone.

We Are Not Alone In Universe, NASA Scientists Say


So, my question: is the jury still out, or are most of us in agreement: we are not alone?

Click to expand...

You can believe your baseless imaginary tales if you want. I'll stick with reality.

Re: We're Not Alone

jimbo said:

All planets are habitable. Nothing says that life elsewhere must conform to our version of life.

Add to that that our solar system is among the younger of the systems, and the billions X billions of possiblities, and the odds of us being unique, and the odds approach zero.

Click to expand...

Nope, that's true, but there are limits to organic matter, so we can say fairly safely that some planets are not habitable. Hell, the stuff we've created in labs isn't the same as the organic living things on Earth, so we do know that there are other ways to configure life. But they are not necessarily limitless.

Extremely distant orbits probably don't have sufficient energy sources, and energy is required for life, period.

Planets with highly unstable, uneven, and small orbits probably couldn't support life either. You may be able to create life that could withstand those pressures, but it would be an extremely poor environment for the building blocks to assemble, and thus it is unlikely they could generate their own life. Same thing for planets orbiting highly variable luminosity stars. Too much change in too short a time. Any starter of life would be dismantled as soon as the pressures changed.

Very low mass, gaseous planets are also unlikely, because molecules escape too readily and they can't regulate their temperature very well. Thus, unsuitable for chemical reactions required for life.

Basically, since life necessitates chemical reaction of matter and energy to sustain stable reactions, planets which don't have enough gravity to retain their own molecules, planets which undergo severe environmental shift in extremely short periods, and planets too far from their star to receive any meaningful amount of energy are extremely unlikely to support any kind of life.

Creating life is a chemistry equation, and while it's true that you can replace almost any of the variables, you can't just pull apart the equation and expect the reaction to occur.

Re: We're Not Alone

calamity said:

We Are Not Alone In Universe, NASA Scientists Say


So, my question: is the jury still out, or are most of us in agreement: we are not alone?

Click to expand...

I think I'll rely more on the actual sightings by airline pilots AND OTHERS which have been happening forever over the NASA scientists...unless of course the NASA scientists have personally witnessed UFOs. So I'm in agreement with the "we are not alone part". Which still doesn't remove the possibility of a higher authority or as you refer to them..."the flat-earthers".

Re: We're Not Alone

We are the only known sapient species on the only planet known to have life.

Anything beyond that is speculative.

Re: We're Not Alone

csbrown28 said:

I always found the idea of aliens wanted our resources as strange....

I mean, if they can get here from (at least) light years away, certainly they could probably have traveled to many many uninhabited planets to collect the raw materials they need without killing us. For those raw mats that are produced as a by-product of life, seems if they are advanced enough to make a journey across interstellar space they could synthesize those raw mats.

On the other hand, maybe we are the only raw material they can't make.....

Ok, nm, you can panic again....

Click to expand...

No, I mean a planet within the Goldilocks region of a stars orbit. Though, even terraforming or creating livable habitats within closer reach, should be possible for a species that can galactic travel.

We don't consider lesser species that we consume for food or experiment on, beyond trying not to be excessively cruel. We might be looked on as an annoyance?

Re: We're Not Alone

calamity said:

So, my question: is the jury still out, or are most of us in agreement: we are not alone?

Click to expand...

i think there's life out there, possibly even intelligent life. i don't believe that we have ever been visited, though.

my own pet theory is that a non-sterile rock from space contaminated the ancient oceans. all life developed from the bacteria on it, and all viruses came from the bacteriophages that were also on the rock. pretty much whenever you see bacteria in the wild, there's a good chance that there are bacteriophages around.

the reason i think this is because i work with bacteria a lot, and i have these sterile bottles of growth media in the lab. you always want to open them in the biosafety hood because if you open them on the bench, more often than not, something will float in. then in a couple days / weeks, you'll notice something growing in it. not too far of a stretch to assume that the same thing happened to the earth, and that life had to come from somewhere.

now, how life originated? that's a completely different discussion.

Re: We're Not Alone

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Nope, that's true, but there are limits to organic matter, so we can say fairly safely that some planets are not habitable. Hell, the stuff we've created in labs isn't the same as the organic living things on Earth, so we do know that there are other ways to configure life. But they are not necessarily limitless.

Extremely distant orbits probably don't have sufficient energy sources, and energy is required for life, period.

Planets with highly unstable, uneven, and small orbits probably couldn't support life either. You may be able to create life that could withstand those pressures, but it would be an extremely poor environment for the building blocks to assemble, and thus it is unlikely they could generate their own life. Same thing for planets orbiting highly variable luminosity stars. Too much change in too short a time. Any starter of life would be dismantled as soon as the pressures changed.

Very low mass, gaseous planets are also unlikely, because molecules escape too readily and they can't regulate their temperature very well. Thus, unsuitable for chemical reactions required for life.

Basically, since life necessitates chemical reaction of matter and energy to sustain stable reactions, planets which don't have enough gravity to retain their own molecules, planets which undergo severe environmental shift in extremely short periods, and planets too far from their star to receive any meaningful amount of energy are extremely unlikely to support any kind of life.

Creating life is a chemistry equation, and while it's true that you can replace almost any of the variables, you can't just pull apart the equation and expect the reaction to occur.

Click to expand...

My point is that we have no idea what is required to sustain life. 25 years ago it was believed that life could not exist in pure salt, above a certain temperature, and in the absence of oxygen. Now we know that life exists in those extremes on earth.

But even assuming carbon based life fueled by heat energy, the liklelyhood that we are unique among the billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, each with billions of planets, approaches zero.

Re: We're Not Alone

jimbo said:

My point is that we have no idea what is required to sustain life. 25 years ago it was believed that life could not exist in pure salt, above a certain temperature, and in the absence of oxygen. Now we know that life exists in those extremes on earth.

But even assuming carbon based life fueled by heat energy, the liklelyhood that we are unique among the billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, each with billions of planets, approaches zero.

Click to expand...

Well, like I said in my first post, we don't know anything for certain. But I think we can say that chemical reactions are rather extremely unlikely without energy, and are also highly unlikely without enough surface pressure to even keep molecules on the planet. So, ya know, I think looking in places where there is energy and some amount of pressure is certainly a better expenditure of our time. After all, if those things weren't probably true, we would find life randomly floating in space. We don't.

Although it is interesting to note that there are Earth critters, like the tardigrade, that can survive (in a deactivated state) in space. However, without the pressures to allow initial reactions, it is unlikely they could evolve there. It's also worth noting that they cannot continue to function in space -- they can merely avoid certain death in a totally inactive state.

So although the tardigrade can survive in space, it cannot replicate, so that alone would prevent colonization in inhospitable places. It is also likely that it would simply degrade if it were left out there for long enough, leading to the demise of the critter itself.

Similarly, it is possible the initial reaction could occur in these highly unsuitable planets, but it is unlikely they could continue to exist and colonize the planet.

Re: We're Not Alone

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Well, like I said in my first post, we don't know anything for certain. But I think we can say that chemical reactions are rather extremely unlikely without energy, and are also highly unlikely without enough surface pressure to even keep molecules on the planet. So, ya know, I think looking in places where there is energy and some amount of pressure is certainly a better expenditure of our time. After all, if those things weren't probably true, we would find life randomly floating in space. We don't.

Although it is interesting to note that there are Earth critters, like the tardigrade, that can survive (in a deactivated state) in space. However, without the pressures to allow initial reactions, it is unlikely they could evolve there. It's also worth noting that they cannot continue to function in space -- they can merely avoid certain death in a totally inactive state.

So although the tardigrade can survive in space, it cannot replicate, so that alone would prevent colonization in inhospitable places. It is also likely that it would simply degrade if it were left out there for long enough, leading to the demise of the critter itself.

Similarly, it is possible the initial reaction could occur in these highly unsuitable planets, but it is unlikely they could continue to exist and colonize the planet.

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you. The best place to look for life would be in places similar to earth.

Re: We're Not Alone

There is other life in the universe: God, angels, the devil, etc.

Re: We're Not Alone

Given the enormity of the universe, it seems implausible that life only exists on one tiny planet.

Re: We're Not Alone

calamity said:

Most of us know this intrinsically. The Universe is rife with life. However, until we have concrete proof, many people will continue to deny its possibility...especially the flat-earthers who still believe the universe is 6000 years old. They will deny anything, regardless the proof, if it conflicts with their good book.

Bottom line though, with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and perhaps trillions upon trillions of planets, it's impossible for there not to be life out there. Most of this is assured by the fact that our water came from outerspace as did the amino acids which formed dna and spawned the first living cells, all of it delivered to our little planet via the bombardment of meteors. Those findings created for me the slam-dunk moment.

Now, it's become even more of a lock, as NASA scientists agree: we are not alone.

We Are Not Alone In Universe, NASA Scientists Say


So, my question: is the jury still out, or are most of us in agreement: we are not alone?

Click to expand...

Do you know what amazes the hell out of me?

It's the fact that most atheists will deny, declare, and get red in the face over the notion that there was no creative intelligence in the universe that guided it's formation - because there is no proof.

Then they will turn around and try to tell you that there is life elsewhere in the universe, even though there is no proof.

Re: We're Not Alone

calamity said:

Most of us know this intrinsically. The Universe is rife with life. However, until we have concrete proof, many people will continue to deny its possibility...especially the flat-earthers who still believe the universe is 6000 years old. They will deny anything, regardless the proof, if it conflicts with their good book.

Bottom line though, with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and perhaps trillions upon trillions of planets, it's impossible for there not to be life out there. Most of this is assured by the fact that our water came from outerspace as did the amino acids which formed dna and spawned the first living cells, all of it delivered to our little planet via the bombardment of meteors. Those findings created for me the slam-dunk moment.

Now, it's become even more of a lock, as NASA scientists agree: we are not alone.

We Are Not Alone In Universe, NASA Scientists Say


So, my question: is the jury still out, or are most of us in agreement: we are not alone?

Click to expand...

For those willing to look at the subject objectively, it's still open to discussion. The chances of planet being able to sustain life are so minute that the fact that there's even one planet capable of doing so is surprising. You see, this little blue ball has something that is utterly phenomenal - a large stable moon, orbiting at a distance where it doesn't create such massive tidal effects on the Earth that it turns it into a volcanic nightmare, but is close enough to strip away enough of the atmosphere to avoid ending up like Venus and leaving enough to avoid ending up like Mars (these are the norm for planets of our size). You couple that with the planet having to be in the "Goldilocks Zone" at both a "solar" level and a galactic one and the odds drop to something that most scientists who don't have vested interest in looking for possible life-bearing planets would consider to be next to impossible. Throwing out the flawed argument that since there are trillions of opportunities for this to happen, then it's bound to happen is flawed. Every solar system has the same odds - nearly impossible. We are a statistical improbability of massive proportions.

This doesn't mean that life doesn't exist elsewhere, it just means that the chances are so remote, that spending money to look for it is 100% pure waste of time. Especially considering that even if we found such a planet, we have no ability to do anything with that information other than say "See, we told there was life on other planets." At the end of the day, the effort to look for life-bearing planets is a waste. Spend the money on things that REALLY matter, like fighting cancer.

Re: We're Not Alone

grip said:

No, I mean a planet within the Goldilocks region of a stars orbit. Though, even terraforming or creating livable habitats within closer reach, should be possible for a species that can galactic travel.

We don't consider lesser species that we consume for food or experiment on, beyond trying not to be excessively cruel. We might be looked on as an annoyance?

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying.....

I'll just add.... I'll step on an ant in my house, but I wouldn't make a special trip across town just to do it.

/panic off....

Unless we just happened to be in the path of aliens on the way to somewhere the considered important, it seems to me to be unlikely that they would take the time to make a special trip just to kill us.

Unless of course they found some value that, as a human I can't understand, in killing us. /panic back on!

Re: We're Not Alone

faithful_servant said:

For those willing to look at the subject objectively, it's still open to discussion. The chances of planet being able to sustain life are so minute that the fact that there's even one planet capable of doing so is surprising. You see, this little blue ball has something that is utterly phenomenal - a large stable moon, orbiting at a distance where it doesn't create such massive tidal effects on the Earth that it turns it into a volcanic nightmare, but is close enough to strip away enough of the atmosphere to avoid ending up like Venus and leaving enough to avoid ending up like Mars (these are the norm for planets of our size). You couple that with the planet having to be in the "Goldilocks Zone" at both a "solar" level and a galactic one and the odds drop to something that most scientists who don't have vested interest in looking for possible life-bearing planets would consider to be next to impossible. Throwing out the flawed argument that since there are trillions of opportunities for this to happen, then it's bound to happen is flawed. Every solar system has the same odds - nearly impossible. We are a statistical improbability of massive proportions.

This doesn't mean that life doesn't exist elsewhere, it just means that the chances are so remote, that spending money to look for it is 100% pure waste of time. Especially considering that even if we found such a planet, we have no ability to do anything with that information other than say "See, we told there was life on other planets." At the end of the day, the effort to look for life-bearing planets is a waste. Spend the money on things that REALLY matter, like fighting cancer.

Click to expand...

When you consider that there are more stars then there are grains of sand on all the worlds beaches and many time more the number of planets, the chances just don't seem all that remote. Stand on a beach, pick up a handful of sand, look at all the grains and then look up and down the beach your on and contemplate that thought.

I once saw a study done of the number of ways you can arrange atoms in something the size of a cell. Statistically, life is a virtual certainty.


Now unless stable worm hols are ever possible will, imo, be the determining factor as to whether it would be possible to discover other life in the universe.

Re: We're Not Alone

csbrown28 said:

I get what you're saying.....

I'll just add.... I'll step on an ant in my house, but I wouldn't make a special trip across town just to do it.

/panic off....

Unless we just happened to be in the path of aliens on the way to somewhere the considered important, it seems to me to be unlikely that they would take the time to make a special trip just to kill us.

Unless of course they found some value that, as a human I can't understand, in killing us. /panic back on!

Click to expand...

Yeah, they could send out probes for prime class planets, see us and say, "the place is infested with lower life forms."

I doubt that will happen though it's not impossible. There are so many ways life on earth will eventually end that in my short life, it's not worth worrying about.

Re: We're Not Alone

it's just me said:

Do you know what amazes the hell out of me?

It's the fact that most atheists will deny, declare, and get red in the face over the notion that there was no creative intelligence in the universe that guided it's formation - because there is no proof.

Then they will turn around and try to tell you that there is life elsewhere in the universe, even though there is no proof.

Click to expand...

That claim is usually not an absolute claim though. It is usually qualified, much like SmokeAndMirrors did earlier in this thread

SmokeAndMirrors said:

It is exceedingly unlikely that we're alone. I wouldn't say "impossible," simply out of desire to be precise -- that's a statement of certainty that we can't currently confirm, just like saying we're definitely alone would be

Click to expand...

FYI this also applies to claims of divinity, and if you looked at an atheists position you will find that most do not hold "no god" as an absolute either, but also hold a position very much akin to what I quoted above on that proposition as well.

So while there may be a few exceptions, the inconsistency you are trying to point out does not exist for the most part, it is a rather consistent position actually.

edit to include another example that refutes your erroneous generalization:

Paschendale said:

Given the enormity of the universe, it seems implausible that life only exists on one tiny planet.

Click to expand...