Do Aliens Exist?

[iceman2001]

Quite frankly, I'm tired of the same three discussions of religion, abortion, and gay marriage on this forum. For this discussion, we're talking about aliens on other planets, not illegal aliens from other countries. My questions are as follows:
A) Do aliens exist...and
B) Would you support making marriage legal between a human and an Alien?
C) If you had consenual sex with an alien using contraceptives but got pregnant anyway, should it be legal to have an abortion?

My answers:
A: There are so many planets, I feel the probability of having life on just our planet is close to zero.

B: As long as the other life is intelligent....I'm fine with it. If we made it illegal, it would just go underground. Just think of the bathhouses in San Fransisco....except with aliens.....

C: This one I'm torn. I don't want to give up my hypothetical chances of having sex with hot aliens without having to pay the possible consequence of pregnancy. On the other hand, 10 cell blastocysts are definately human beings. Or rather human/alien beings.

No but seriously, do aliens exist?

[Baseballboy]

Quite frankly, I'm tired of the same three discussions of religion, abortion, and gay marriage on this forum. For this discussion, we're talking about aliens on other planets, not illegal aliens from other countries. My questions are as follows:
A) Do aliens exist...and
B) Would you support making marriage legal between a human and an Alien?
C) If you had consenual sex with an alien using contraceptives but got pregnant anyway, should it be legal to have an abortion?


A) No.
B) No.
C) Yes.

My answers...

[Wizzy`]

Yep

[Lord Shinok]

Maybe.

[iceman2001]

A) No.
B) No.
C) Yes.

My answers...

Hmmm....
So you don't think aliens exist....
But you support having sex with them ;)
I love this guy.

[uniquinous]

I don't want to give up my hypothetical chances of having sex with hot aliens without having to paywell we both know you've definitely done it for pay before. the fact that I exist kinda removes the hypothetical aspect of some of those questions...

[The Anti]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGQaovYMXPU

So, yes. ^^

[iceman2001]

well we both know you've definitely done it for pay before. the fact that I exist kinda removes the hypothetical aspect of some of those questions...

....this post was not about that fabled trip down to tijuana we took two summers ago. And for the last time, it was only a donkey show!

[Sith Happens]

A) No.
B) No.
C) Yes.

My answers...

You're an idiot.

To deny life in the over 50 billion other galaxies, with over 10 billion planets in each galaxy is just foolish. Even if it's not some martian or 2 legged being, there is most definitely life on another planet. Most likely bacteria, but we will never know with modern day technology. It'd be like trying to find the pink grain of sand on a red beach.

[Zander]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGQaovYMXPU

So, yes. ^^
WTB Dude, where's my car? link.

[houckeah]

Suggesting aliens do not exist is ignorant. You've no basis to claim they do not and statistics and logic side with the opposite. Honestly, take a good look at the universe, you might need to take a few steps back... and then you'll realize.

[Terps rock]

Beware of the Aleins.

[Kyir]

X-files? More like, X... die-les.

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/6317/ps665qo5.gif

[Catra]

...My answers:
A: There are so many planets, I feel the probability of having life on just our planet is close to zero. Ditto

B: As long as the other life is intelligent....I'm fine with it. If we made it illegal, it would just go underground. Just think of the bathhouses in San Fransisco....except with aliens..... LMAO... Ok, good point. And yes, what an interesting experience.


C: This one I'm torn. I don't want to give up my hypothetical chances of having sex with hot aliens without having to pay the possible consequence of pregnancy. On the other hand, 10 cell blastocysts are definately human beings. Or rather human/alien beings. Other cultures, other rules and regulations, however I will always maintain my stance. It is a woman's choice.

[Wizzy`]

You think aliens will say "Hey, you are women I hear you roar!"
Nope. They will breed with you. Catra, you're first.:threaten:

[Shamus]

Proof. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjNAeELQ_Z8) There is absolutely no way this man is not an alien. He wears dark glasses every time he performs to cover up the only part of his alien body that isn't human—his eyes.

[-Dape-]

I'm a alien so this thread sucks!

[Jeffery]

Please be more specific about what kind of aliens you mean.

[Kreator]

A. Yes
A. No
A. Yes

Aliens probably do exist, in some form. Just look at the proof that's out there.

[Snowolf]

Aliens probably do exist, in some form. Just look at the proof that's out there.

Like quin and dape.

[Sith Happens]

Dape isn't an Alien, he's just British.

[TheBlazedAce]

Dape isn't an Alien, he's just British.
What's the difference? :P

-blazed

[Sith Happens]

My point exactly. :p

[-Dape-]

Like quin and dape.
Word!
Dape isn't an Alien, he's just British.
I'm an Alien plus British :)
What's the difference? :P

-blazed

None :p

[ponefish]

Aliens real? yes the US gets a ton of illegal aliens. Are Aliens from outer space real? no. The Germans created the first UFO in hopes of getting an advantage against the Allies. To bad the Germans had already lost so the crashed the shit in hopes of the Allies not being able to steal their technology, but the Allies figured it out in the end. Think I saw something about it on the history channel.

[Kreator]

I'm an Alien plus British :)

Couldn't you have just said British alien? ;)

[The Butcher]

It depends on what you consider an "alien".

If you mean an actual life form (even like plants or viruses etc) then sure, I believe that.

If you mean saucer people who function like humans? I don't believe that.

[Catra]

You judge before you know Wizzy...

And yes, I'd probably be first. Cuz I'm that important. :dry:

[bdog1321]

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc269/bdog1321/2437771924_17d3762ebc_o.jpg

ZOMG ACK ACK

[uniquinous]

I'd like to be the first motherfucker to see a new galaxy..or find an alien life form..and fuck it.

They'd say "There he goes...homeboy fucked a martian once."you're too white...

Suggesting aliens do not exist is ignorant. You've no basis to claim they do not and statistics and logic side with the opposite. Honestly, take a good look at the universe, you might need to take a few steps back... and then you'll realize.eh, not that i'm refuting you, per se, but what are the "statistics and logic side"? :huh:

[Match Strike]

Wait, wait, wait, iceman. Slow down.

Are the aliens hot? I only care about hot aliens.

[uniquinous]

that answer changed depending on how drunk he was...

[iceman2001]

For the record, I've been atonishingly sober as of late. Take last semseter. I set a record by only throwing up on one occasion.

Horray for me!

[R G]

For the record, I've been atonishingly sober as of late. Take last semseter. I set a record by only throwing up on one occasion.

Horray for me!

Hold up a sec....This could mean that when you drink you drink to the point of blacking out and forgetting everything during that time.

I had a roommate like that once.....he drank to the point of passing out...never tossing his cookies...but forgot everything the night before....yes he was an alcoholic.

[AlabamaBoy]

A) Do aliens exist...and
B) Would you support making marriage legal between a human and an Alien?
C) If you had consenual sex with an alien using contraceptives but got pregnant anyway, should it be legal to have an abortion?


Well iceman.. we know that aliens do exist.

I would support marriage between humans and aliens, love knows no bounds. As we both know, aliens have three genders. These are called wakka (for reproduction), zakkamond (for containing the larva whilst it grows), and oojlakkazan (for causing maximum sexual pleasure.) This is how uniq avoids the question so easily; because it's an oojlakkazan. Oh how they love to be mysterious lovers.

I do not support human/alien larva abortion. Everyone knows how beautiful they're babies are... and usually they turn out to be zakkamonds.

Here's a picture of uniq during the sexual season of our galactic year. (we change form)

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6323/uniqkd4.png

[houckeah]

you're too white...

eh, not that i'm refuting you, per se, but what are the "statistics and logic side"? :huh:

How vastly huge the universe is and how many planets have been found that are in our small spectrum of view that could support life. If no other life was in the universe, then I'd bend more toward believing in God. We both know how true all that is though.

[uniquinous]

wait wait - so it's either aliens or god? :confused:

I'd like to add a forth question to this thread: if alien life were found, did jesus die for their sins too?

[houckeah]

wait wait - so it's either aliens or god? :confused:

I'd like to add a forth question to this thread: if alien life were found, did jesus die for their sins too?

Well, kinda. I know God does not exist. However, if he did, then there are no Aliens. If Aliens exist, which evidence points toward, then obviously there is no God. I can get some science if you would like proving the existence of Aliens.

[Matt 34.5]

Quite frankly, I'm tired of the same three discussions of religion, abortion, and gay marriage on this forum. For this discussion, we're talking about aliens on other planets, not illegal aliens from other countries. My questions are as follows:
A) Do aliens exist...and
B) Would you support making marriage legal between a human and an Alien?
C) If you had consenual sex with an alien using contraceptives but got pregnant anyway, should it be legal to have an abortion?

My answers:
A: There are so many planets, I feel the probability of having life on just our planet is close to zero.

B: As long as the other life is intelligent....I'm fine with it. If we made it illegal, it would just go underground. Just think of the bathhouses in San Fransisco....except with aliens.....

C: This one I'm torn. I don't want to give up my hypothetical chances of having sex with hot aliens without having to pay the possible consequence of pregnancy. On the other hand, 10 cell blastocysts are definately human beings. Or rather human/alien beings.

No but seriously, do aliens exist?

a: No, the odds that one ecosystem was supported just right by one planet, which was supported just right by one solar system, which..well you get the point. Anyways, the odds that it happened once was incredibly fortunate I think. There may be life, but I doubt intelligent.

b/c: Why would it be any different?

edit: houckeah, aliens would just require a few re-writes in the bible, it wouldn't disprove god. Not everyone that believes in god believes in the bible.

And I'll just point out thats the only post I've read since page one.

[AlabamaBoy]

Dirka... you don't KNOW anything at all, the nature of the universe cannot be summed up by you. The Christian bible is cryptic and largely metaphorical, people that take it as fact are (in my opinion) reading it with many false pretenses. Religion does not contradict the existence of other beings.... as an example; in the old testament it mentions some of God's other creations in the universe, and I'll post it when I can find it.

PS

It made me sad that no one liked my awesome "joke".

[Jeffery]

Well, kinda. I know God does not exist. However, if he did, then there are no Aliens. If Aliens exist, which evidence points toward, then obviously there is no God. I can get some science if you would like proving the existence of Aliens.
OR, God could have also created Aliens.

I mean, just because you collect butterflies does not mean you don;t collect postage stamps.

[houckeah]

Dirka... you don't KNOW anything at all, the nature of the universe cannot be summed up by you. The Christian bible is cryptic and largely metaphorical, people that take it as fact are (in my opinion) reading it with many false pretenses. Religion does not contradict the existence of other beings.... as an example; in the old testament it mentions some of God's other creations in the universe, and I'll post it when I can find it.

PS

It made me sad that no one liked my awesome "joke".
Actually, there are some inherent things you can know. They are very limited but if you expand your scope past them there are many things you can know with indirectly.

However, you must be talking of a different Christianity than the common practiced religion in our society today. Christianity is very inconsistent with the existence of Aliens. There are some theologies and religions that modern day believers actually attribute the God's described in the teachings as nothing more than Aliens. However, this is uncommon to happen with Christianity. There are many olden day teachings that clearly describe Alien encounters when taken into the correct context. Granted, some coin Jesus' abilities as nothing more than abilities of other worldly creatures, however these abilities were written down in books so long after the actual events that descriptions are nothing more than scattered.

[Match Strike]

yeah bama, that was the first picture I pulled up when running an image search for "hot alien" as well.

[uniquinous]

Well, kinda. I know God does not exist. However, if he did, then there are no Aliens.Why would aliens disprove a diety? It may disprove a particular religious belief system, but alien and deity are not mutually exclusive (it just means humans got the diety wrong, which is, well, not too hard to believe).

If Aliens exist, which evidence points toward, then obviously there is no God. I can get some science if you would like proving the existence of Aliens.To what evidence are you referring? I have yet to see any evidence either way on the topic. You had a stronger argument with probability, methinks.

[houckeah]

Why would aliens disprove a diety? It may disprove a particular religious belief system, but alien and deity are not mutually exclusive (it just means humans got the diety wrong, which is, well, not too hard to believe).

To what evidence are you referring? I have yet to see any evidence either way on the topic. You had a stronger argument with probability, methinks.

I'm sorry, I worded that poorly... moreover if Aliens exist then the God in any scripture I've ever read, in reference to any religion I've ever enlightened myself upon, would not exist. It is true that a God might still exist but it would disprove any religions I've came upon.

As far as evidence goes, it is the evidence of probability. My only concern is that all this evidence assumes that if life exist then it will be intelligent. Granted, given the age of the universe any life that might arise would statistically be very old life, I would not assume that age of life would indicate intelligent life. Not to mention, who even knows if a different type of organism, such as sulfur based, could even expand it's intellect (certain restrictions might apply). I'm looking for this sci tech article I read not too long ago, I'll post it when I find it, I believe you'll find it quite amazing.

[elimination]

well we both know you've definitely done it for pay before. the fact that I exist kinda removes the hypothetical aspect of some of those questions...

I knew it!
So when are you going to lead your alien army to destroy earth?!?
You said you would but didn't!;)
If its because of my smexyness than fine!:p:cool:

[sayter]

I am an alien, so I am getting a kick out of these replies.


hehe. That said, I am going to have to lean on statistical chances here as well. Billions of stars, each with planets in orbit. If even 1/1000000th of them had water, and 1/1000000th of those could sustain life, thats still a TON of planets that could house life as WE know it. And that is assuming silicon based and other forms of life do not exist.

The sheer distance between celestial bodies, however, will make finding any such species not only extremely hard, but nearly impossible without some form of advanced communications array or stellar travel capable of bridging said vast distances instantaneously (or nearly so).


And as for religion and aliens... discovering other life would not invalidate religious values. They would simply adapt, as they did with the revelation of gravity, that the earth is not flat, the popes admission that evolution is no longer merely a hypothesis...and so on.

It would, however, also prove (though of course said proof would be denied) that the Bible itself stating that man, and man alone, was given free will by god (who is infallible) as incorrect. At least, in the way it was initially stated in the bible. But religion evolves, because it has no other choice if it is to survive as a legitimate belief system/cultural meme.

I wonder...what would extraterrestrials think of our religion? Would they swear a Jihad on humankind for our bizarre beliefs, sexual natures and overt violent ways? Or...what if they happened to have the SAME religions? (all of them as are present on earth, or even just one)

For instance, if aliens landed and spoke of say...Scientology, as the one true religion...would the other religious folks of earth all convert? Would there be civil war or other conflicts as a result?

[houckeah]

Well said, Sayter. The only view you have that differs from mine is the invalidation of religion. You pose that religion can adapt. I agree that it would, however I disagree because I feel it shouldn't. Religion should not be dynamic. Preachers should not just be able to change their story when they are proved wrong. However, that being said, I'm sure they would adapt it in a way that followers would believe it was the same all along, only the meaning or interpretations of modern preachers would skewed.

[sayter]

Oh I don't disagree. Frankly I think organised religion should be outright abolished for the harm and reverse-progress it causes in the world. Faith in god is fine. Organised religion is not. It is men using belief to gain power, period, no matter how you slice it. Your own statement above says it about as plainly as I would have :)

But, that is taking this off topic, so lets' not go any further there :)

[Microsoft-2]

A.)Yes
B.)NO
C.)Yes

[Forest_Archer]

who is sayter?

anyway, i absolutely LOVE watching tv specials on aliens or like future life on earth.

tv special on aliens + ice cream + blanket + kitty = love

[sayter]

sayter is sayter.

[Match Strike]

who is sayter?


Bill's daughter.

[A-99]

Briefly skimmed. Saying there isn't aliens out there is as ridiculous as saying there is. We have no real proof. I'd be more inclined to believe there is, as many people have stated, there's billions of planets and chances are there are other sentient beings.

[Lieutenant]

Briefly skimmed. Saying there isn't aliens out there is as ridiculous as saying there is. We have no real proof. I'd be more inclined to believe there is, as many people have stated, there's billions of planets and chances are there are other sentient beings.

I was thinking something like that. But your explanation makes more sense. :D

[houckeah]

Briefly skimmed. Saying there isn't aliens out there is as ridiculous as saying there is. We have no real proof. I'd be more inclined to believe there is, as many people have stated, there's billions of planets and chances are there are other sentient beings.

We have plenty of real proof for the existence of Aliens. Saying there isn't Aliens would be position one is unable to defend. Saying there is Aliens has many proofs, the first being our own existence.

[A-99]

We have plenty of real proof for the existence of Aliens. Saying there isn't Aliens would be position one is unable to defend. Saying there is Aliens has many proofs, the first being our own existence.

Maybe I'm not understanding your paragraph here but whatever.

Alien is a word used to describe something foreign to us. WE are not alien to each other as we are all human (except match strike) so I don't think you can use that as a plausible argument.

In terms of aliens or "other life" on other planets, there has been sightings of bacteria and water giving us the inclination that there is life out there.

However, I have never seen an alien from another planet, I have never talked to one. Therefore logically, I could say they don't exist. That is being in my own ignorance, but logically, I could look at the vast scale of the universe and say that it's very possible that other life exists. I disagree with you and say that we cannot summarize that aliens exist because we do. If you believe in say evolution (which I don't), maybe something happened on our planet that failed to happen on another, resulting in only sentient life on earth. Saying that we are alive so others must be is a weak arguement IMO.

[Take a Look]

http://www.alien-ufo-pictures.com/absolute_proof_aliens_exist.html

http://proofaliensexist.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

I believe they exist - Would be pretty arrogant to believe that we are the only living creatures in the entire galaxy.

[meat.eater]

Depends on your definition of alien. If you mean "living cells," yeah, definitely. I mean, we just found tons of water on Mars. If you mean sophisticated and intelligent beings... Nobody knows.

[Take a Look]

Tons of water, are you stupid?

[A-99]

Depends on your definition of alien. If you mean "living cells," yeah, definitely. I mean, we just found tons of water on Mars. If you mean sophisticated and intelligent beings... Nobody knows.

I mean sentient beings yes. houckeaerhahehhrth, you cannot say intelligent life exists elsewhere because we've found bacteria, but it can give us a much more open state of mind to other intelligent beings being alive.

[A-99]

Tons of water, are you stupid?

No you are. There's Ice caps on mars.

Maybe I should break it down. Ice = frozen water.

[Take a Look]

Although the ice finding was expected, until Phoenix actually found it, many scientists were still holding their breath.

"As for the ice, we were expecting to find it, but science is full of the unexpected, so until they actually found the ice and can begin to study it there are real questions about whether or not the hypothesis was correct," said Phil Christensen, a geophysicist at Arizona State University who worked on 2001 Mars Odyssey, Mars Global Surveyor, and the Mars Exploration Rover missions. "The real excitement will come when they start to study the ice in detail and attempt to learn how it formed and how old it is."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080620-phoenix-ice-update.html

Tons Of Water - Mention anywhere? Guess not.

Stupid #2

[meat.eater]

"Did you know?" Lesson 101.

Water and Ice are made of the same chemical compound! H2O! Incredibly, one is colder than the other.

[houckeah]

Maybe I'm not understanding your paragraph here but whatever.

Alien is a word used to describe something foreign to us. WE are not alien to each other as we are all human (except match strike) so I don't think you can use that as a plausible argument.
I never said we are Alien to each other?

In terms of aliens or "other life" on other planets, there has been sightings of bacteria and water giving us the inclination that there is life out there.
That isn't an inclination... that is proof. Bacteria is an organism (well, microorganism). I'd then even go as far as to argue that where there is life that there is probably more life.

However, I have never seen an alien from another planet, I have never talked to one. Therefore logically, I could say they don't exist. That is being in my own ignorance, but logically, I could look at the vast scale of the universe and say that it's very possible that other life exists. I disagree with you and say that we cannot summarize that aliens exist because we do. If you believe in say evolution (which I don't), maybe something happened on our planet that failed to happen on another, resulting in only sentient life on earth. Saying that we are alive so others must be is a weak arguement IMO.
You can't logically assume that something does not exist because you have never seen it. I know for a fact plenty of things exist that I have never seen. My argument was never "we are alive, so others must be." My argument is we are alive, others are alive, and there is proof for both. You yourself even admitted there was proof, bacteria, and then go on to contradict yourself in saying there is no proof.

"Did you know?" Lesson 101.

Water and Ice are made of the same chemical compound! H2O! Incredibly, one is colder than the other.
Don't confuse the poor guy.

[Take a Look]

Really - You're one smart nerd. Again, where does it say they found "Tons of Water" Or That they found "Mountains of Ice"

Stupid #3

[meat.eater]

Dirka, I'm pretty sure bacteria hasn't been found on other planets yet. I think it will... but it hasn't...

[meat.eater]

Really - You're one smart nerd. Again, where does it say they found "Tons of Water" Or That they found "Mountains of Ice"

Stupid #3

Have you read a single article about it or taken 7th grade chemistry? They found not just ice, they found OCEANS of ice under the surface. I can't tell if you simply don't believe that fact (in which case you should... uh... read), or if you don't understand the basic chemical compound of water and ice...

Stupid #Infinity

[Take a Look]

Proof!?!

Stupid #4

[A-99]

I never said we are Alien to each other?


That isn't an inclination... that is proof. Bacteria is an organism (well, microorganism). I'd then even go as far as to argue that where there is life that there is probably more life.


You can't logically assume that something does not exist because you have never seen it. I know for a fact plenty of things exist that I have never seen. My argument was never "we are alive, so others must be." My argument is we are alive, others are alive, and there is proof for both. You yourself even admitted there was proof, bacteria, and then go on to contradict yourself in saying there is no proof.



Don't confuse the poor guy.

LOL you're dirka. No wonder this argument is like banging my head against a wall.

taken from your initial post:'Saying there is Aliens has many proofs, the first being our own existence."

^^What you're saying here is, there is proof for Aliens because of our existence. Durrrrr good work.

And about you're other quote (I don't know how to multi-quote), I apologize for my specifications as I meant "life" as in intelligent beings, not mere bacteria. Maybe that clears things up for you ^^. I believe Magician once said, "dirka you're a hypocrite. I am inclined to agree :).

EDIT: Oh look dinner time. be back later. and nice post Meat + rep.

[Take a Look]

Dirka stfu already! lol

[meat.eater]

Proof!?!

Stupid #4

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080620-phoenix-ice-update.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080731.html

READ, buddy. Did I really just have to google "water on Mars" for you, and give you the top articles?

It's incredibly sad that I even had to post these articles and that the discovery of "ice" (do you know what it is yet?) wasn't enough proof...

Still, Stupid #Infinity

[Take a Look]

Look for my previous post - I already got that article...

They never mentioned how much they found - They never said "Tons"

I know they found Ice..

[Match Strike]

What?

Really dude?

[houckeah]

Dirka, I'm pretty sure bacteria hasn't been found on other planets yet. I think it will... but it hasn't...

Actually, evidence of bacteria, fossil-like evidence, has been found. I'm trying to find the article right now, but I've little time.

taken from your initial post:'Saying there is Aliens has many proofs, the first being our own existence."

^^What you're saying here is, there is proof for Aliens because of our existence. Durrrrr good work.
So how, exactly, did I say that "we are Alien to each other" or "we are alive so others must be?" I simply said we are the first proof of life (and so is anything alive on this planet, therein proof of life is proof of the possibility of Aliens). Is that hard for you to understand?

And about you're other quote (I don't know how to multi-quote), I apologize for my specifications as I meant "life" as in intelligent beings, not mere bacteria. Maybe that clears things up for you ^^.
You define life different than the entire scientific community... how is this my fault?

[meat.eater]

Look for my previous post - I already got that article...

They never mentioned how much they found - They never said "Tons"

I know they found Ice..
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=red-planet-alert-massive
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marspoles.html

Seriously? Why do you argue something that you have no idea about?

[meat.eater]

Actually, evidence of bacteria, fossil-like evidence, has been found. I'm trying to find the article right now, but I've little time.

Evidence of bacteria is not bacteria.

[houckeah]

Evidence of bacteria is not bacteria.

It sure is... if you have evidence proving the existence of bacteria then you have bacteria. Time is the only question therein.

Just as I could say since my only evidence of you is your posts that you must not exist. It is illogical.

[meat.eater]

Whatever, Dirk. You don't have real "evidence of bacteria" until you're looking at the living cell itself.

Furthermore, I'm rather certain we don't even have that "evidence" that you speak of on other planets.

[uniquinous]

I'm sorry, I worded that poorly... moreover if Aliens exist then the God in any scripture I've ever read, in reference to any religion I've ever enlightened myself upon, would not exist. It is true that a God might still exist but it would disprove any religions I've came upon. ok. but as sayter said, it always changes based on new facts that present themselves.

As far as evidence goes, it is the evidence of probability. probability is not evidence. If a knight has an 80% chance of blocking, there is no evidence that he blocked a hit, despite the probability. If you see a "-20" modifier, then there's evidence that he blocked something. The probability, in and of itself, is not evidence.

Actually, evidence of bacteria, fossil-like evidence, has been found. I'm trying to find the article right now, but I've little time.Please do post when you find it, as I can't help but being skeptical; not only because I've never heard of such a thing, but also because I can't imagine how "fossil-like evidence" of bacteria would present itself.

[houckeah]

ok. but as sayter said, it always changes based on new facts that present themselves.
and as Sayter agreed, it should not. Moreover, it disproves religion in the fact that is dynamic. (No, I didn't say it disproves God.)

probability is not evidence. If a knight has an 80% chance of blocking, there is no evidence that he blocked a hit, despite the probability. If you see a "-20" modifier, then there's evidence that he blocked something. The probability, in and of itself, is not evidence.
Probably is evidence. What exactly do you think evidence is? You're describing evidence as if it always concludes a fact. Sometimes, evidence also disproves a fact. Probability is supporting evidence. You can gather all the evidence in the world and sometimes not conclude a fact, uniq. The probability of an 80% block is evidence it will block. However when it doesn't, then the evidence didn't support the result.

Please do post when you find it, as I can't help but being skeptical; not only because I've never heard of such a thing, but also because I can't imagine how "fossil-like evidence" of bacteria would present itself.
I found a few similar articles, I need to find the one that described it as fossils. Just got home now, will search my favorites.

Whatever, Dirk. You don't have real "evidence of bacteria" until you're looking at the living cell itself.

Furthermore, I'm rather certain we don't even have that "evidence" that you speak of on other planets.
Evidence supports, it does not always prove. When you're looking at a live cell, you don't have evidence, you have the very thing you're looking for. By what you're saying, if you're holding a penny in your hand, that is only evidence that you're holding the penny (not irrefutable proof).


Edit: This is not the article I want to show you, I will find that, however here is one that touches on the subject.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/10_1.shtml

"The finding was announced to a startled world in 1996 by a group of NASA scientists. The "simplest explanation" for the features seen was said to be that these were indeed fossils of tiny Martian organisms."

[meat.eater]

I have a lot I could say about that post (I just get the mental image of Jack Nicholson yelling "You can't handle the probability!" It's laughable), but I'll only respond to one thing for now.

"The finding was announced to a startled world in 1996 by a group of NASA scientists. The "simplest explanation" for the features seen was said to be that these were indeed fossils of tiny Martian organisms."

What about the not-so-simple explanation? It's all speculation, dirka.

[Jeffery]

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052_mars_claim.html
"NASA Statement on False Claim of Evidence of Life on Mars


News reports on February 16, 2005, that NASA scientists from Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., have found strong evidence that life may exist on Mars are incorrect.

NASA does not have any observational data from any current Mars missions that supports this claim. The work by the scientists mentioned in the reports cannot be used to directly infer anything about life on Mars, but may help formulate the strategy for how to search for martian life. Their research concerns extreme environments on Earth as analogs of possible environments on Mars. No research paper has been submitted by them to any scientific journal asserting martian life."

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/mars_life_feature_1015.html
"In July, 1996, it was announced that Dr. David McKay, along with a team of scientists at Johnson Space Center (a division of NASA), had discovered possible fossils of bacteria in a meteorite named ALH84001 that came from Mars.
.....
However, these chemicals and structures can also be created without life. Some are even present in deep space on comets, and scientists do not think that they came from Martian life anymore."

[meat.eater]

Thanks, Jeff.

I'm pretty sure that if some form of life was actually found on a different planet, there wouldn't be 3 people questioning it--it would be fairly common knowledge.

[A-99]

Maybe you're just dumb meat. I mean this IS dirka we're arguing against.

[Jeffery]

There have been many "indicators of possible microbacterial life" having been present on Mars, but none have been proven to be definitive. There is also great evidence of running water having once been present on Mars, and the latest mission has proven their is "water" in the form of ice crystals under the surface of Mars. Water seems to be one of the key requirements they look at for existence of life.....

In the end there is no evidence as of right now to support there being life outside of the planet Earth, but there are strong indicators that it should be possible.

[Gypsy]

Yes (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/manga.php?id=4203)

[S3RO]

Maybe we are the Aliens, and some poor pygmy nation in Mars underground are the humans.

[houckeah]

What about the not-so-simple explanation? It's all speculation, dirka.

Yes, as I pointed out that was not the exact article I read and am talking about. It is one about a similar Mars rock that was found. However, even that article supports what I say saying. Granted, it isn't definitive, but all of you were saying you were "rather certain we don't even have that evidence," well there it is. No, it isn't concrete evidence and it is speculation (and I will find the one where they do show more structured and supporting evidence) however it does show the possibility.

You do realize that all I am talking about is possibility, right? I just happened to be expressing my feeling that all of these possibilities do conclude a logical justification of Alien life. I feel there is beyond any doubt because I feel there wouldn't be this much evidence pointing toward Alien life it there was not. Now, granted I've never seen Alien life, I can't convince a skeptic, and there is a remote possibility I am wrong. I still hold the position that without a doubt in my mind I am right and there is Alien life.

[uniquinous]

I gotta agree with meat here - this is laughable.

Probably is evidence. What exactly do you think evidence is? You're describing evidence as if it always concludes a fact. Sometimes, evidence also disproves a fact. Probability is supporting evidence. You can gather all the evidence in the world and sometimes not conclude a fact, uniq. The probability of an 80% block is evidence it will block. However when it doesn't, then the evidence didn't support the result.Are you serious? I knew you were into drugs and all but, really? :huh:

Probability that something *can* happen is not the same as the probability that something *did* happen. The probability of an 80% block is not evidence it *will* block - it is likelihood and nothing more. When asking oneself "did the knight block a shot?", checking the 80% does not offer any evidence (indicates, signals, exemplifies, proves) that a block occurred. In fact, it doesn't even offer evidence of any type of hit occurring whatsoever. The probability of evolution is rather small, in and of itself. Think about it: things coming together like that? Probability is pretty small. The *evidence* for evolution is huge, and spans the fields of archeology, anatomy, genetics, etc.

Furthermore, this "probability" you seem to believe is real comes from unfounded assumptions in your head. All inquiries as to reliable sources have either been ignored, or shot down. You continue to claim you will find "the article" but we have yet to see it...

I have no problem with you believing aliens have a high probability of existing, or even that they do exist - but you can't claim there is a shred of evidence on the topic (at least, not without some credible source).

If you'd like to backpedal in your usual methods by delving into the meta-philosophical, just realize that science doesn't work that way. Factual definitive evidence is required to back (not even entirely prove, just support) your claim.

[TheBlazedAce]

The probability of evolution is rather small, in and of itself. Think about it: things coming together like that? Probability is pretty small. The *evidence* for evolution is huge, and spans the fields of archeology, anatomy, genetics, etc.
This is a misunderstanding of evolution. First of all, evolution only explains how life developed to the point we're at today, the methods of which actually agree with probabilistic prediction. But, if you're talking about the initial appearance of life, well I wouldn't quite call that evolution, but yes, the probability was quite low. Still, the experiments showing how it most probably happened have been repeated numerous times...

As for your other points, I have nothing more to add. Dirka doesn't seem to understand quite what probability ... is. Dirka, I would suggest you take a course in the subject, or read up a bit on it first...

-blazed

[Toledo 13]

If you had consenual sex with an alien using contraceptives but got pregnant anyway, should it be legal to have an abortion?


You can't engage in sexual intercourse with an alien. At least not one from the Andromeda galaxy. Just trust me on this one...

[MokoToko]

Dirka has never made sense in any argument I have ever seen him in. :)

[houckeah]

Probability that something *can* happen is not the same as the probability that something *did* happen.

This is all I need to read. You agree with me, haha. Get your mind right and read what I said again. Kthanx.

[sayter]

regardless of probability vs emergence, the liklihood that there IS some form of life elsewhere is extreme due to the sheer WEIGHT of the numbers involved. Not millions, but BILLIONS...perhaps even SEPTILLIONS or OCTILLIONS. We pretty much never use numbers as big as the latter two in our calculations. That said, I'm in the "its impossible that there is NOTHING out there" crowd.

We also need to break this down a bit more. Intelligent, sapient, sentient life? Or just "life" ?

When you get into sentience, things get a LOT more complicated due to the extreme circumstantial effectors required to force an animal brain into developing in such a way. So, the chances for other equivalent or more advanced sentient life is smaller. Not infintessimally so, but still not common.

I think we should formulate a more solid hypothesis for this using actual estimated star counts for our Milky Way galaxy, ignoring the rest of the cosmos for the time being. The entire universe is just so vast that it could heavily skew probabilities.

Plus, I think computing this could be a ton o' fun.

[S3RO]

I have to disagree with unique. The probability of evolution with life is incredibly high. Things will always evolve and adapt or perish from times of change. The best ill survive with the best, and will continue to do so. Evolution is inevitable. Now, in a world or place where conditions are different, creatures will logically evolve differently, because what is needed to survive is not the same as on earth.

[sayter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation


the math is already done for us.

[The Butcher]

Plus, I think computing this could be a ton o' fun.

Slinkys are fun..

Video games are fun..

Computing isn't.

EDIT: Although, i have to admit, that equation and it's properties are very interesting...

But not fun.

[S3RO]

The equation is done. The numbers that go in the equation aren't however.

[meat.eater]

Um...

It sure is... if you have evidence proving the existence of bacteria then you have bacteria. Time is the only question therein.

We have plenty of real proof for the existence of Aliens. Saying there isn't Aliens would be position one is unable to defend. Saying there is Aliens has many proofs, the first being our own existence.

Um....

You do realize that all I am talking about is possibility, right? I just happened to be expressing my feeling that all of these possibilities do conclude a logical justification of Alien life. I feel there is beyond any doubt because I feel there wouldn't be this much evidence pointing toward Alien life it there was not. Now, granted I've never seen Alien life, I can't convince a skeptic, and there is a remote possibility I am wrong. I still hold the position that without a doubt in my mind I am right and there is Alien life.

This is all I need to read. You agree with me, haha. Get your mind right and read what I said again. Kthanx.

No. We don't agree with you. You started off this discussion saying #1: "there is proof of aliens!" which turned into #2: "there is evidence that may mean there is aliens!" which turned into #3: "it's possible there is aliens, and I really think so!"

You changed what you were saying, that's not my nor Uni's fault. You're right, now we're all on the same page (because all of us agree with the last statement #3), but you started out speaking in complete absolutes like you actually knew what you were talking about. Then, with the help of articles (thanks Jeff), common sense, and knowledge that you have the wrong definition of "evidence," it seems YOU finally agree with US.

But don't claim you were only talking about possibilities. You were talking about proof. Which doesn't exist.

[houckeah]

But don't claim you were only talking about possibilities. You were talking about proof. Which doesn't exist.

No, meat... you need to learn to read. I am talking about proof. The proof is in the statistics. That hasn't changed, it has been my theory since post #1. I believe that is what most of you disagreed with, yet you seem not to at this point because of... evidently the way I worded it. Reread and then post.

[S3RO]

It is possible that we are all in a collective unconscious linear dream world. And when we die we wake up in the actual world to which life here could be the dream. In which case there may be life on other places of different levels.

[Ächilles]

There is no evidence to support the factual acceptance of the existence of extra terrestrial life. No life outside of Earth has ever been discovered or documented.

However, based off of the sheer size of the universe, and through applying simple logic by way of reasoning with the laws of probability, it would be extremely uneducated for one to make the claims that alien life does not exist.

Scientists have surveyed an approximate number of stars in the known universe. Telescopes can only see so far, so it is a very real and highly probable possibility that there is an unfathomable amount of the universe outside of our sights which is so large that our minds can't even feasibly comprehend it's size. With that said, the already massive portion that we can see has a documented seventy sextillion stars. Numerically, that comes out to 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's ten times as many stars as there are grains of sand on all of Earth's beaches. Each star can have zero to many, many planets.

The universe is huge beyond our capacity to understand, and the chances that a planet will develop organically are very slim. However, due to the immense size of the cosmos, even a .00000000001% chance of a planet developing organically is still a massive amount of existing Earth-like bodies. The universe is just too big to not support other life, be it intelligent of primitive. To assume otherwise is ignoring simple mathematics and reason.

[uniquinous]

This is a misunderstanding of evolution. First of all, evolution only explains how life developed to the point we're at today, the methods of which actually agree with probabilistic prediction.ah I was hoping someone would say that. Yes they *agree with* probabilistic prediction, but the prediction is not evidence in and of itself. But to address this point and:
I have to disagree with unique. The probability of evolution with life is incredibly high. Things will always evolve and adapt or perish from times of change.Disagree (altho I seem to be proven wrong more and more with evo lately...). The key words there are "or perish". The "always evolve and adapt" is not a likely occurrence. It is not a default. In regards to probability, "or perish" has a dramatically higher likelihood.

This is all I need to read. You agree with me, haha. Get your mind right and read what I said again. Kthanx.I read it again - you sound like you're doing your usual backpedaling. If you truly do agree with the clearly laid out ideas I just mentioned, I can only return to my previous conclusion of you, which is that you are rather poor at communicating your ideas effectively. But based on the evidence presented, there is a higher probability of you just attempting to avoid being seen as unintelligent (note the directionality in that sentence, and how your previous "logic" is the exact opposite).

Probability of occurrence does not make an event evident.

You have yet to produce a single scrap of evidence on this topic, despite your rather large mouth. Please either cite, or stop looking foolish.

[iceman2001]

So.....

It seems most everyone is on the same page that intelligent aliens life PROBABLY exists....my next serious question is this:

If intelligent alien life exists, why haven't we come into contact with them (or have we?)


**Note, to address this question know the assumption! I.E. Saying "because intelligent alien life doesn't exist" is not valid.

[TheBlazedAce]

ah I was hoping someone would say that. Yes they *agree with* probabilistic prediction, but the prediction is not evidence in and of itself. But to address this point and:
Disagree (altho I seem to be proven wrong more and more with evo lately...). The key words there are "or perish". The "always evolve and adapt" is not a likely occurrence. It is not a default. In regards to probability, "or perish" has a dramatically higher likelihood.
Firstly, as already mentioned, I do agree that probabilistic prediction is not evidence. It's the hypothesis. We need evidence to then support it.

Secondly, I think I now understand the point you're making. I just don't think it's quite accurate to say that the evidence for evolution and the probability that it will occur disagree. Yes, "or perish" is a much more likely occurrence during any mutation, but the point is that amongst a population even when 100 mutations are bad, and only 1 are good, the 1 good one will much more likely flourish... Of course I realize this is all a grand generalization of the situation... but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

So.....

It seems most everyone is on the same page that intelligent aliens life PROBABLY exists....my next serious question is this:

If intelligent alien life exists, why haven't we come into contact with them (or have we?)


**Note, to address this question know the assumption! I.E. Saying "because intelligent alien life doesn't exist" is not valid.
For the same reason that "intelligent aliens life PROBABLY exists", because the universe is extremely large. Not only that, but according to a whole lot of evidence, it's rapidly expanding...

-blazed

[Ächilles]

If intelligent alien life exists, why haven't we come into contact with them (or have we?)

Humans haven't come into contact with aliens for one simple reason: the universe is just too darn big.

Other than our Sun, the closest star to Earth is Alpha Centauri. For one to get to Alpha Centauri, they would need to have some sort of spacecraft capable of reaching and withstanding the speed of light. Even at the speed of light, it would take 4.3 years to reach the bright star. That's about 25.8 trillion miles away.

Taking into account that there are approximately seventy sextillion stars in the known universe, and then factoring in that the second closest one is only reachable in one human lifetime by means no known civilization possesses, it's pretty to simple to figure out why there has been no contact with extra terrestrial life.

Getting outside of our own galaxy is just a ridiculous task without using some sort of quantum physical machination to do so. Assuming that the average human lifetime is about seventy five years old, it would take 373.3 human lifetimes just to get to the center of our galaxy.

So unless there is a race which has harnessed quantum physics, or is patient enough to sit on a space craft procreating for hundreds, thousands, millions, even billions of years, it's highly unlikely that they'll ever reach one another.

Further, the universe is rapidly expanding, and the rate of expansion is constantly accelerating. So each passing second makes the task of intergalactic travel increasingly hopeless.

[meat.eater]

No, meat... you need to learn to read. I am talking about proof. The proof is in the statistics. That hasn't changed, it has been my theory since post #1. I believe that is what most of you disagreed with, yet you seem not to at this point because of... evidently the way I worded it. Reread and then post.

You're still using the word "proof" and "theory" in the same claim. You just don't get it.

[Ächilles]

You're still using the word "proof" and "theory" in the same claim. You just don't get it.

I understand where you're coming from, dirka. But I have to agree with meat on this one.

This is really getting into semantics, which I hate, but to prove something means to show that it is factual beyond any doubt. The statistics of there being alien life are so astronomically in favor of it existing that it's basically a certainty that it exists. However, even though it's small to the point of being minute beyond human comprehension, there is the extremely, extremely unlikely possibility that there is no alien life.

Remember, a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0001 chance of their not being alien life, however radically small, is still a chance. And thusly, does not prove it's existence.

[houckeah]

Then, in all reality, there is no proof of anything. Because you truly can't prove anything, not even what is right in front of you, beyond any doubt.

So, what I am saying, and what I've been saying this whole time, is that all the evidence and statistics proves it beyond any doubt. Just as the statistics shown right in front of you, those statistics tell your brain that there is a computer in front of you, prove that to you without a doubt to you. When truly, you've little proof.

[meat.eater]

Then, in all reality, there is no proof of anything. Because you truly can't prove anything, not even what is right in front of you, beyond any doubt.

So, what I am saying, and what I've been saying this whole time, is that all the evidence and statistics proves it beyond any doubt. Just as the statistics shown right in front of you, those statistics tell your brain that there is a computer in front of you, prove that to you without a doubt to you. When truly, you've little proof.

No, that's simply not true. I can examine an actual live cell of bacteria here on earth, and prove it's existence. Have any pieces of bacteria been examined from any other planet? No.

[Ächilles]

Then, in all reality, there is no proof of anything. Because you truly can't prove anything, not even what is right in front of you, beyond any doubt.

Yep. That's crossing the line from alien life into sub atomic physics and transcendentalism, but you're basically right here. Nothing can be completely proven. I can't prove that I exist, because there is no way to prove that my logic is right. You can agree with me, but that doesn't mean it's proven.

Again, this is getting a lot more complex than the alien discussion at hand, heh.

So, what I am saying, and what I've been saying this whole time, is that all the evidence and statistics proves it beyond any doubt. Just as the statistics shown right in front of you, those statistics tell your brain that there is a computer in front of you, prove that to you without a doubt to you. When truly, you've little proof.

No, they don't prove it beyond any doubt. Statistically, there IS the possibility that alien life does not exist - albeit a majorly small one. Therefore, there is no solid proof. Statistics are not proof, they're just that - statistics. Proof means that you can produce hard evidence and 100% statistical certainty. You've neither.

Again, I get where you're coming from. It is foolish to doubt the existence of aliens. However, even that gigantic statistical favoring of their existence is still a favoring, not an empirical truth. That .000000000000000000000000001, however small, is the monkey wrench in your claims.

[Jeffery]

Then, in all reality, there is no proof of anything. Because you truly can't prove anything, not even what is right in front of you, beyond any doubt.

So, what I am saying, and what I've been saying this whole time, is that all the evidence and statistics proves it beyond any doubt. Just as the statistics shown right in front of you, those statistics tell your brain that there is a computer in front of you, prove that to you without a doubt to you. When truly, you've little proof.
The difference here is what you call "proof".

It can be proven that gravity works. Drop your computer out the window.
It can be ;proven that without oxygen, you'd die. Tie a plastic bag around your head for 30 minutes.
It can be proven that heat will burn you. Stick your hand onto a hot stove.

Now, use your "proof" that alien life exists. Beyond a REASONABLE doubt. And voids on rocks that "are similar to voids left by bacteria" are not proof, especially since those voids were 1) 100s of times smaller than the smallest known bacteria and 2) also formed by non-bacterial processes.

While there may be great odds that some form of life exists beyond earth, as of yet no one has proven it.

[pils]

There is probably proof that aleins exist... But perhaps there are things the general public is better off not knowing...

[TheBlazedAce]

Humans haven't come into contact with aliens for one simple reason: the universe is just too darn big.

Other than our Sun, the closest star to Earth is Alpha Centauri. For one to get to Alpha Centauri, they would need to have some sort of spacecraft capable of reaching and withstanding the speed of light. Even at the speed of light, it would take 4.3 years to reach the bright star. That's about 25.8 trillion miles away.

Taking into account that there are approximately seventy sextillion stars in the known universe, and then factoring in that the second closest one is only reachable in one human lifetime by means no known civilization possesses, it's pretty to simple to figure out why there has been no contact with extra terrestrial life.

Getting outside of our own galaxy is just a ridiculous task without using some sort of quantum physical machination to do so. Assuming that the average human lifetime is about seventy five years old, it would take 373.3 human lifetimes just to get to the center of our galaxy.

So unless there is a race which has harnessed quantum physics, or is patient enough to sit on a space craft procreating for hundreds, thousands, millions, even billions of years, it's highly unlikely that they'll ever reach one another.

Further, the universe is rapidly expanding, and the rate of expansion is constantly accelerating. So each passing second makes the task of intergalactic travel increasingly hopeless.
That's not entirely true my friend. You see, as someone approaches the speed of light in space, he slows down his speed through time. Have you ever seen a movie or read a book where someone traveled at nearly the speed of light somewhere far away and then came back to earth, and everyone else was older than they were? That's exactly what would happen. You see, if you move through time much slower than everyone else, they will all age, while you stay relatively the same.

So, to be a bit more precise, to travel the distance you specified, would take 373.3 human lifetimes to everyone on earth, but to the people traveling it would feel nearly instantaneous (depending on how fast they traveled).

To a photon traveling at the speed of light, it could cross the whole of the universe and not feel like a moment has passed...

If this concept confuses you, I apologize, it's not an easy idea to grasp. But if you have any questions I'm definitely up for answering them. If it helps to think of it this way: all objects in the universe travel through space-time at the same speed (the speed of light), so an object traveling faster in time, would have to slow down its speed in space, and vice-versa.

-blazed

[uniquinous]

Firstly, as already mentioned, I do agree that probabilistic prediction is not evidence. It's the hypothesis. We need evidence to then support it.I believe we are in agreement on both points (it just took a bit of clarification as I probably wasn't too clear previously). The point I made against dirka is exactly what you just said: we need evidence to support probability.

This is really getting into semantics, which I hateDirka, backpedaling into semantics and useless philosophical garbage when proven wrong? Never!

Remember, a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0001 chance of their not being alien life, however radically small, is still a chance. And thusly, does not prove it's existence.This seems to be the running, theme, but there's a huge error with this assumption. People generally believe "well if there is a one in 10^20 chance of intelligent life and 10^30 potential planets, it will definitely happen". The math is good, meaning that a smaller probability than the number of potential targets will most likely create the event, however the initial assumption (in this case, 1 in 10^20) is completely fictitious. It doesn't matter if there are 10^30 potential planets (I don't know how many there are, just throwing out example numbers) - we still have no idea what the chance of intelligent life is. I could just as easily claim the chance of producing intelligent (or any) life is 1 in 10^30. Then I could do the same math and "find evidence" (as dirka says) that we are the only life.

My point isn't to discredit and say there is no chance, nor to claim there definitely is life out there - my point is that we don't know, and we can't claim otherwise without definitive proof. If dirka can produce any scientific literature on the topic, I would be incredibly interested in such proof. Until then, believe what you wish but don't claim it is factual, scientific, probable, or evidence-based.

The difference here is what you call "proof".

It can be proven that gravity works. Drop your computer out the window.
It can be ;proven that without oxygen, you'd die. Tie a plastic bag around your head for 30 minutes.
It can be proven that heat will burn you. Stick your hand onto a hot stove.

Now, use your "proof" that alien life exists. Beyond a REASONABLE doubt. And voids on rocks that "are similar to voids left by bacteria" are not proof, especially since those voids were 1) 100s of times smaller than the smallest known bacteria and 2) also formed by non-bacterial processes.

While there may be great odds that some form of life exists beyond earth, as of yet no one has proven it.i agree.

[S3RO]

There can be life at our backdoor and we wouldn't know it.

For instance, if you look at radio waves, they exist and transmit data in the universe but are unseen by the trained eye. There is also the possibility of life that exists at a frequency which we cant measure with our current level of technology. According to string theory we have multiple dimensions as well in which life could exist at anther rate.

[TheBlazedAce]

I believe we are in agreement on both points (it just took a bit of clarification as I probably wasn't too clear previously). The point I made against dirka is exactly what you just said: we need evidence to support probability.

Dirka, backpedaling into semantics and useless philosophical garbage when proven wrong? Never!

This seems to be the running, theme, but there's a huge error with this assumption. People generally believe "well if there is a one in 10^20 chance of intelligent life and 10^30 potential planets, it will definitely happen". The math is good, meaning that a smaller probability than the number of potential targets will most likely create the event, however the initial assumption (in this case, 1 in 10^20) is completely fictitious. It doesn't matter if there are 10^30 potential planets (I don't know how many there are, just throwing out example numbers) - we still have no idea what the chance of intelligent life is. I could just as easily claim the chance of producing intelligent (or any) life is 1 in 10^30. Then I could do the same math and "find evidence" (as dirka says) that we are the only life.

My point isn't to discredit and say there is no chance, nor to claim there definitely is life out there - my point is that we don't know, and we can't claim otherwise without definitive proof. If dirka can produce any scientific literature on the topic, I would be incredibly interested in such proof. Until then, believe what you wish but don't claim it is factual, scientific, probable, or evidence-based.

i agree.
I knew from the get-go that we were in agreement on all points. But I very much enjoyed the discussion nonetheless :).

A long time ago I decided my reason for having a debate was to seek the truth, not to "be right in the eyes of others all the time". As soon as one does this they realize how backpedaling, sidestepping, veering into semantics, or any such nonsensical debate tactics become a meaningless waste of everyone's time, especially to one's self because it causes one to cease all growth.

-blazed

[houckeah]

No, that's simply not true. I can examine an actual live cell of bacteria here on earth, and prove it's existence. Have any pieces of bacteria been examined from any other planet? No.

You can't prove it's existence without doubt, there is no way to do that.


No, they don't prove it beyond any doubt. Statistically, there IS the possibility that alien life does not exist - albeit a majorly small one. Therefore, there is no solid proof. Statistics are not proof, they're just that - statistics. Proof means that you can produce hard evidence and 100% statistical certainty. You've neither.

Again, I get where you're coming from. It is foolish to doubt the existence of aliens. However, even that gigantic statistical favoring of their existence is still a favoring, not an empirical truth. That .000000000000000000000000001, however small, is the monkey wrench in your claims.
However, is that fraction not almost the same fraction as proving what is right in front of you? Not that I disagree with you, as you're agreeing with me to almost every degree. However, nobody else here would appear to be.

[spirit ninja]

I rest on the fact that ANYTHING is possible, even something like Aliens.

[uniquinous]

I knew from the get-go that we were in agreement on all points. But I very much enjoyed the discussion nonetheless :).

A long time ago I decided my reason for having a debate was to seek the truth, not to "be right in the eyes of others all the time". As soon as one does this they realize how backpedaling, sidestepping, veering into semantics, or any such nonsensical debate tactics become a meaningless waste of everyone's time, especially to one's self because it causes one to cease all growth.

-blazedi can't rep you again, but I shall need to get into discussion with you more often :)

You can't prove it's existence without doubt, there is no way to do that.no one has asked that of you.

I rest on the fact that ...i thought you said you don't ever use that phrase... every thread i've seen you in you've used it...

just saying...

[houckeah]

no one has asked that of you.


Do you think something needs to be asked for someone to reply? No, uniq. But just the fact that you must resort to petty retorts such as this proves, beyond any doubt, to me that you know you were in error and I am correct.

[TheBlazedAce]

Do you think something needs to be asked for someone to reply? No, uniq. But just the fact that you must resort to petty retorts such as this proves, beyond any doubt, to me that you know you were in error and I am correct.
And this is exactly what I was talking about... :rolleyes:

-blazed

[Liquid Swordsman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

[uniquinous]

Do you think something needs to be asked for someone to reply? No, uniq. But just the fact that you must resort to petty retorts such as this proves, beyond any doubt, to me that you know you were in error and I am correct.me correcting you (again) means I am in error and you are correct? So that's how scientific proof works then? I never knew!

OR, the other interpretation, is that you were over-exaggerating the request that meat, myself, jeffery, and several others have asked of you (provide any scientific evidence on the matter), creating a poor straw man argument, and then refuting it. Me pointing out no one asked you to "prove it's existence without doubt" is simply calling you on the straw man tactic. There's nothing really too petty about it...

But, I spose interpreting it as my admittance to you proving alien life exists is... perfectly.... reasonable?

You and spirit ninja should start a club...


EDIT: did you find that article yet, dirka?

[houckeah]

me correcting you (again) means I am in error and you are correct? So that's how scientific proof works then? I never knew!

It's funny how I only need to reply to the first part of your posts... to boot I only need to read the first part of your posts. You didn't correct me. You told me nobody asked me a question. I advised you that a question doesn't have to be asked for someone to reply. Just as you replied to me just now, yet I did not ask a question. Funny how that works and since you've resorted to semantics I don't feel I need to reply to you at all. Everybody whom didn't see what I was saying before evidently does now because it has become evident many agree with me. Now, semantics aside, I am correct. Stop trying to twist it. If you want to try and twist it then you need to read my actual argument and therein twist that to your will, because twisting things I never even said is not even pointless... but dumb.

[uniquinous]

I advised you that a question doesn't have to be asked for someone to reply. you're right in one thing, no one said anything about what you were talking about. My point wasn't that you responded without question, my point is that your response directly refuted an argument that wasn't made. lrnUsum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

it has become evident many agree with mewho? :huh:

Now, semantics aside, I am correct.evidence of any sort? That article you said existed which is invisible and imaginary? kthx

[iceman2001]

Aww guys....

All kidding aside, the reason I made this thread was I thought this could be an *actual* discussion where people don't get too personal. After all, we are talking about aliens here.....

[houckeah]

you're right in one thing, no one said anything about what you were talking about. My point wasn't that you responded without question, my point is that your response directly refuted an argument that wasn't made. lrnUsum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

and yet my post doesn't have to refute an argument made by this IrnUsum. It isn't a requirement. So, here we are again, still at the fact that what my post contained did not require someone to ask me a question for it to contain such. Uniq, you are truly starting to go in circles. If you want to try and start over, I'll let you, no hard feelings at all.

[Catra]

All kidding aside, the reason I made this thread was I thought this could be an *actual* discussion where people don't get too personal.

Thank you for trying ice. Unfortunately people around here... Well, you know.

[TheBlazedAce]

and yet my post doesn't have to refute an argument made by this IrnUsum. It isn't a requirement. So, here we are again, still at the fact that what my post contained did not require someone to ask me a question for it to contain such. Uniq, you are truly starting to go in circles. If you want to try and start over, I'll let you, no hard feelings at all.
Do you only know how to insult? Or are you ever going to actually contribute something productive to the discussion?

And hi Catra! How you been? :)

-blazed

[Liquid Swordsman]

I posted a valid link regarding the subject..:(

[houckeah]

Do you only know how to insult? Or are you ever going to actually contribute something productive to the discussion?

And hi Catra! How you been? :)

-blazed

Why don't you go back and read what I was originally trying to say before uniq and others ego's got the best of their selves. Do you actually know how to be productive and actually educate yourself before you post?

[TheBlazedAce]

Why don't you go back and read what I was originally trying to say before uniq and others ego's got the best of their selves. Do you actually know how to be productive and actually educate yourself before you post?
I'm not going back and reading anything. You could have chosen to reiterate your argument long ago, if you really wanted to avoid confusion. Or you could have even apologized about what you claimed and said, "what I meant to say was bla bla"... but obviously you didn't.

I read what you said when you said it. If you want to prove any of us wrong, go ahead and quote yourself, showing us where we're wrong and you're right... but you wont' do that, because if you did it would be plainly obvious that what you said is EXACTLY what we think you said... It's much easier to vaguely refer to your argument in the past, claiming over and over that we "are wrong" and never actually pointing out why...

The burden of proof is on you my friend to prove yourself correct, not on us to prove you incorrect.

-blazed

[Jeffery]

To sum it up:

IdiotIdiot: It's been proven there is alien life because there is a chance it might exist. Anything with even the slightest chance = automatically proven.

Everyone else: No, it's not.

IdiotIdiot: I saw an article once that claimed it so! So it's true, even though I can't find this supposed article because I only read it in my imagination. But i am right.

Everyone else: No, you're not.

IdiotIdiot: WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhh

[Wizzy`]

Hm..
Why is it that in every thread it always comes down to dirka and uniq arguing about who's right? >_>

Can you guys just kiss and get it over with already?

[Ächilles]

That's not entirely true my friend. You see, as someone approaches the speed of light in space, he slows down his speed through time...

Well, you learn something new every day, don't you?

I understand though, I actually researched it a bit further beyond what you said. Real interesting stuff, and to a point, I stand corrected. Thanks, man!

(That point being that even if it is instantaneous for those traveling, the fact that everyone they know will be long dead proves a problem)


This seems to be the running, theme, but there's a huge error with this assumption. People generally believe "well if there is a one in 10^20 chance of intelligent life and 10^30 potential planets, it will definitely happen". The math is good, meaning that a smaller probability than the number of potential targets will most likely create the event, however the initial assumption (in this case, 1 in 10^20) is completely fictitious. It doesn't matter if there are 10^30 potential planets (I don't know how many there are, just throwing out example numbers) - we still have no idea what the chance of intelligent life is. I could just as easily claim the chance of producing intelligent (or any) life is 1 in 10^30. Then I could do the same math and "find evidence" (as dirka says) that we are the only life.

I agree. Further reiterates my point. It's foolish for one to assume that the universe is void of any other life, but equally foolish to assume that the high probability of that life's existence elevates it to being an empirical truth.


You can't prove it's existence without doubt, there is no way to do that.

However, is that fraction not almost the same fraction as proving what is right in front of you? Not that I disagree with you, as you're agreeing with me to almost every degree. However, nobody else here would appear to be.

The only thing I disagree with is your claim that alien life is definite. I absolutely agree that it is foolish to assume it is not, as the statistical probability leans so heavily in favor of it's existence. But remember, that doesn't yet prove anything, it merely gives you a means by which to form a very well backed, logical educated guess.

[uniquinous]

To sum it up:

IdiotIdiot: It's been proven there is alien life because there is a chance it might exist. Anything with even the slightest chance = automatically proven.

Everyone else: No, it's not.

IdiotIdiot: I saw an article once that claimed it so! So it's true, even though I can't find this supposed article because I only read it in my imagination. But i am right.

Everyone else: No, you're not.

IdiotIdiot: WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhh
yeah pretty much.

and blazed also did a good job of summing up dirka's vague referencing...

[Wizzy`]

yeah pretty much.

and blazed also did a good job of summing up dirka's vague referencing...

:flirt:

[Catra]

Do you only know how to insult? Or are you ever going to actually contribute something productive to the discussion?

Thank you.


And hi Catra! How you been? :)

Not bad, but apparently I'm going to be the first to be bred to the alien species. :p

The burden of proof is you my friend to prove yourself correct, not on us to prove you incorrect.

Exactly. Nor is it your job to prove others incorrect.



Pointless silly bickering is why I don't get involved in threads. Which is why I was sad to see such a well intentioned thread turn out like that.

[Wizzy`]

Not bad, but apparently I'm going to be the first to be bred to the alien species. :p

Its not something to joke about. Seriously.

[houckeah]

I'm not going back and reading anything. You could have chosen to reiterate your argument long ago, if you really wanted to avoid confusion.

I don't need to reiterate my argument at all. I don't need to avoid confusion at all. What I was saying is very clear. I've been saying it since day one as well. It is very simple actually. There is one thing you can disagree with me on as well. However, none of them choose to do so, they choose to argue semantics and run in circles. My argument is very clear, see how Achilles understands it...

The only thing I disagree with is your claim that alien life is definite. I absolutely agree that it is foolish to assume it is not, as the statistical probability leans so heavily in favor of it's existence. But remember, that doesn't yet prove anything, it merely gives you a means by which to form a very well backed, logical educated guess.
That is the one thing you can disagree on. However, to me it as just as much as a fact as what is directly in front of me. Everything can be doubted, everything. Nothing can be proven to beyond every doubt.

[Arvaleg]

I personally think that all of the galaxies and beyond hold too many possibilities for us to fathom, which has the likelihood of holding other forms of life. In other words, yes I do think there are 'aliens' somewhere out there. In terms of breeding with them, if it doesn't endanger the human existence on Earth, then go to town. ;)

[meat.eater]

That is the one thing you can disagree on. However, to me it as just as much as a fact as what is directly in front of me. Everything can be doubted, everything. Nothing can be proven to beyond every doubt.

A lot of people have claimed to have evidence of Tupac being alive too. zomigod... By george, he's alive!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/76/172538121_277de7e6f1.jpg?v=0

[TheBlazedAce]

I don't need to reiterate my argument at all. I don't need to avoid confusion at all. What I was saying is very clear. I've been saying it since day one as well. It is very simple actually. There is one thing you can disagree with me on as well. However, none of them choose to do so, they choose to argue semantics and run in circles. My argument is very clear, see how Achilles understands it...
I like how you constantly reference a so-called "argument", but never actually say what it is... you need to learn how to convey your ideas and arguments in a more clear and concise manner.

I will ask you one question, but I don't think you'll respond: What is your argument?. I believe you're purposefully avoiding referring to anything concrete, because if you did, you would have to either admit that you were wrong, or contradict a previous statement. I always hope that you will prove my prediction wrong dirka, but I seriously doubt it.


That is the one thing you can disagree on. However, to me it as just as much as a fact as what is directly in front of me. Everything can be doubted, everything. Nothing can be proven to beyond every doubt.
Tautologies are absolutely true beyond any reasonable doubt (by definition, look up the word if you'd like). But I hate getting into this discussion with anyone... so I hope you don't go to the next metaphysical waste-of-time topic...

-blazed

[meat.eater]

You can't prove it's existence without doubt, there is no way to do that.

I think this is where none of us agree with you.

We're not doubting it's proved existence. We're saying the "proved existence" doesn't exist. Because it doesn't. Where can you show me a "proved existence" in anything you have said?

This is essentially the argument that you're having: "Flying chimpanzee's exist. Prove me wrong." All we're saying is "prove yourself right."

[Take a Look]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

http://tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36036

:bigsmile:

[spirit ninja]

http://tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36036

:bigsmile:

:confused:
Who are you and wheres take a look.

[houckeah]

I like how you constantly reference a so-called "argument", but never actually say what it is...

All I need to read. Go back and read, evidently you've read little of the thread. I repeated my argument for pages.

I think this is where none of us agree with you.

We're not doubting it's proved existence. We're saying the "proved existence" doesn't exist. Because it doesn't. Where can you show me a "proved existence" in anything you have said?

This is essentially the argument that you're having: "Flying chimpanzee's exist. Prove me wrong." All we're saying is "prove yourself right."

Semantics, meat... I'm saying the proved existence of the computer in front of you does not exist just as much as the proved existence of aliens doesn't exist. There is only a statistical probability that the computer in front of you is really there.

[Take a Look]

Yeah Meat.. the computer Isn't there, even though its there! Don't you get it!!

[TheBlazedAce]

All I need to read. Go back and read, evidently you've read little of the thread. I repeated my argument for pages.
Ad hominem attacks that make you look childish to avoid giving a concrete statement. I asked you a simple question, but you can't seem to answer it...

Semantics, meat... I'm saying the proved existence of the computer in front of you does not exist just as much as the proved existence of aliens doesn't exist. There is only a statistical probability that the computer in front of you is really there.
Complete and total nonsense, dirka. First of all, if there were any doubt, there is absolutely no way for you to prove that those two probabilities are the same, for I'm 100% certain (yes, I have absolutely no doubt) that you have not calculated the proper statistics to compare the two. Secondly, no dirka, that isn't quite the same, because there is no real reason to doubt that meat's computer is there (if we're assuming at least that meat can see it in front of him, as you sort of imply).

Again, I'm not going to attempt to prove meat's computer is there, but rather ask you to prove that it's not, for the burden of proof is on you to do so... As you are contradicting the default sentiment.

-blazed

[houckeah]

Complete and total nonsense, dirka. First of all, if there were any doubt, there is absolutely no way for you to prove that those two probabilities are the same, for I'm 100% certain (yes, I have absolutely no doubt) that you have not calculated the proper statistics to compare the two.

No, I haven't. Someone else calculate the one and the other is incalculable as it's moreover philosophical than mathematical. Yet, they are the same as there is doubt inherent in both.

... and as far as proving something is there over it not being there, you evidently have no idea what I am talking about. The point is not that you can prove that someone can't prove it's there. You can't prove it is there, that is the point. I am not out to prove anything, either. I am simply showing similarity if you choose to doubt... you must treat all things equal.

[Take a Look]

Dirka is right, you cant prove that we are the only one in the entire universe..... I hope you know how many galixies exist out there

[Jeffery]

Dirka is right, you cant prove that we are the only one in the entire universe..... I hope you know how many galixies exist out there
That is not what he is claiming. IdiotIdiot is claiming that because you can't prove there is not life out there it is definitive proof that there is.

And only someone so afraid to admit they were wrong initially would continue making such claims.

[uniquinous]

I don't need to reiterate my argument at all. I don't need to avoid confusion at all.And that pretty much sums up all of dirka. But wait, if you act now, you can get dirka to believe he is being very clear despite the fact that he has no reason for clarification or confusion-reduction! That's a maximum self-contradictory value!


What I was saying is very clear. I've been saying it since day one as well. It is very simple actually. Well, what you originally said was clear, and incorrect, and unsupported. Then you changed your story and backpedaled as you always do, making vague references to your "clear" argument, claiming everyone in the thread asking for clarification of your actual stance didn't read correctly, yet not clarifying. Well dirka, that's pretty much a setup for poor communication on *your* part.

As blazed said, if you had an actual argument, you'd be able to restate it (which you've blatantly avoided at all costs), or at the very least reference it. So, if everyone claims you're being vague, irrational, and avoiding straight-forward communication, it's time to consider the fact that you are the poor communicator (or more specifically, someone who changes their opinion and makes vague references), than the unlikely probability that the majority of people in this thread can't read (despite previously exhibited competence in the area). But let's face it, you already know that - it's your last resort tactic. I and several others have told you that time and time again.

That is the one thing you can disagree on. However, to me it as just as much as a fact as what is directly in front of me. Everything can be doubted, everything. Nothing can be proven to beyond every doubt.that's what everyone in this thread disagrees with you about.

hey, have you found that imaginary article yet? Any evidence at all on the topic past your made-up "probability"?

I will ask you one question, but I don't think you'll respond: What is your argument?. I believe you're purposefully avoiding referring to anything concrete, because if you did, you would have to either admit that you were wrong, or contradict a previous statement. I always hope that you will prove my prediction wrong dirka, but I seriously doubt it.QFT

Semantics, meat... I'm saying the proved existence of the computer in front of you does not exist just as much as the proved existence of aliens doesn't exist. There is only a statistical probability that the computer in front of you is really there.Ah yes, the other wonderful dirka tactic: getting meta-physical, and delving into philosophical or extreme physics probabilities. Well dirka, here in the practical world, we're each using a computer of some sort to communicate. You can argue the "probability" it's not there, but you'd look like quite the fool from a practical standpoint.

More so, this last ditch effort is comparing apples to oranges. Let me prove it wrong in this manner: if you think the chance of a computer is just some probability, ballpark it for me. Based on the evidence (remember that word you failed at previously?), give me a ballpark probability it is there. 99.999999....%?

Now, show me the evidence of alien life, and produce a probability from it.

Blazed has you outgunned, dirka. Time to stick your tail back between your legs and step out of the thread.

[houckeah]

And that pretty much sums up all of dirka. But wait, if you act now, you can get dirka to believe he is being very clear despite the fact that he has no reason for clarification or confusion-reduction! That's a maximum self-contradictory value!

Uniq, this is all I need to read. It is very obvious that if I needed to clarify or needed to avoid confusion than those who do understand would not understand. Those who do not understand are the same group of morons that always try to pick fights. It is very clear what is going on, it is very clear what I am saying. How is it Achilles understands yet you can not? I know why. I don't even need to say why, either. You know why as well. It's pathetic too.

[meat.eater]

All I need to read. Go back and read, evidently you've read little of the thread. I repeated my argument for pages.

I'll be content with being an inferior being to you and making you feel better because I don't understand what you type. Okay? With that knowledge, will you repeat your argument for stupid-little-me one more time?

I don't care how much you posted it. Post it again. Concisely. So that my feeble minded brain can see it.


Semantics, meat... I'm saying the proved existence of the computer in front of you does not exist just as much as the proved existence of aliens doesn't exist. There is only a statistical probability that the computer in front of you is really there.

It's not semantics, it's very clear. You have no proof of alien life. You don't even have "evidence" of alien life (which is really funny, because you seem to have 2 definitions of the word--1: evidence is probability, then 2: evidence equates proof. And you're using them both. At the same time).

So please, instead of saying "HA! I DID say it. Go read it you stupid beings!", can you just post it for us again? Because apparently ALL of us are too stupid to understand it, in which case it would be beneficial for you to restate it.

[TheBlazedAce]

No, I haven't. Someone else calculate the one and the other is incalculable as it's moreover philosophical than mathematical. Yet, they are the same as there is doubt inherent in both. No one has calculated either probability. An equation was posited to calculate the probability of aliens existing, but too many variables were still unknown to create a real number. If we are to seriously compare the two, we need concrete numbers to compare.

Resorting to "black and white" tactics? Even if they did both contain doubt, the amount of doubt in one is not necessarily equal to the amount of doubt in the other. You need to prove that these two are equal in order to make the claim you made earlier: that both the proof for the computer in front of meat and the "proof" or possibility of life existing contain the same exact inherent doubt, and therefore to treat one situation differently is incoherent. But again, as pointed out earlier many times, the "possibility" and "proof of existence" are not equivalent ideas.

... and as far as proving something is there over it not being there, you evidently have no idea what I am talking about. The point is not that you can prove that someone can't prove it's there. You can't prove it is there, that is the point. I am not out to prove anything, either. I am simply showing similarity if you choose to doubt... you must treat all things equal.
Then prove that doubt can exist. You must prove something my friend, you can't just make claims without backing them up and hope people will listen... And again resorting to ad hominem attacks... you know this is unnecessary, so why do you persist?

Uniq, this is all I need to read. It is very obvious that if I needed to clarify or needed to avoid confusion than those who do understand would not understand. Those who do not understand are the same group of morons that always try to pick fights. It is very clear what is going on, it is very clear what I am saying. How is it Achilles understands yet you can not? I know why. I don't even need to say why, either. You know why as well. It's pathetic too.
This is your argument: the same people who don't understand are asking me to clarify, therefore, I don't need to clarify. So you expect people who do understand to ask for clarification? Do you even read what you type before you post it my friend?

Listen, the reason we're asking for clarification is more for your sake than ours. We know full well what you're trying to do and have been explaining it throughout our posts...

-blazed

[uniquinous]

if I needed to clarify or needed to avoid confusion than those who do understand would not understand.:confused:

:taunt:
yeah, nothing like making things more clear to confuse the people who already understand.
:rofl:

Let's look at the evidence (again, that pesky word again) on this one. Your claim is that a high school kid living on the beaches of hawaii understands you just fine, because he stated "the only point I disagree with", and it was the only point you made...

Do I really need to be the one to point out his disagreement with your point does not inherently provide evidence of understanding of anything else you have said before or since that point in time?

But, sure, let's make that poor assumption and then follow the evidence. One high schooler can understand you, while several college educated individuals who have a greater experience with scientific (or non-scientific) evidence-based objective claims, are all telling you otherwise. Hey, maybe you can get deepsea and a few kindergarteners to disagree with you and help demonstrate the clarity in this argument you refuse to restate. :rofl:

[Realist]

To everyone who answered "no" on the question of interspecies marriage--huh? Why not? Explain yourselves. :huh:

[uniquinous]

To everyone who answered "no" on the question of interspecies marriage--huh? Why not? Explain yourselves. :huh:it desecrates the sanctity of marriage between one human being and another earthen person, animal, or intimate object. duh.

[TheBlazedAce]

it desecrates the sanctity of marriage between one human being and another earthen person, animal, or intimate object. duh.
Not to mention that we're not treating the aliens any differently! They have the same rights to marry someone of the same species! Again, duh.

-blazed

[Jeffery]

To everyone who answered "no" on the question of interspecies marriage--huh? Why not? Explain yourselves. :huh:
Because one Puni is enough.

[houckeah]

No one has calculated either probability. An equation was posited to calculate the probability of aliens existing, but too many variables were still unknown to create a real number. If we are to seriously compare the two, we need concrete numbers to compare.
Maybe you had thought I asked a question. One probability is impossible to calculate and the other has been calculated. This is a statement. I'm done with you, I continually repeat myself and I am getting nowhere. Therefore you must take the path of Jeffery. (Which means don't bother replying as it'll just say you're ignored.


To Meat.Eater (Nobody Else but Meat.Eater):

My evidence is probability. All evidence is probability, I will explain why following. This is a philosophical argument rooted deeply in physics.

Philosophy first, if you look at the first meditations of philosophy you will notice that everything can be doubted. While later in that writing, I believe somewhere in the chapter pertaining to the nature of one's mind, Renati stumbles upon an explanation that allows him to not concern himself so much about doubt. However, that doubt, in summary, is pushed aside with a God as the answer (a God that must not be evil). While he does explain this in detail, in the end the explanation is rooted in faith. I have no faith, therefor I still doubt. I still doubt because I still believe that if out of the corner of my eye I've seen something that wasn't there, at times, then there is no logical reason to believe that, at times, the entirety of what I am seeing could be a facade. Please note that Quantum Indeterminacy goes hand in hang with this, so to speak (more on a calculable standpoint, but still therein not accurate). Now this is my explanation of doubt for everything. It's isn't calculable or statistical. I hope this makes perfect sense to you and if it does not then please point out where you would disagree. (Although, please understand that my not having faith is not a point to disagree on, that is a fact. I understand you might have faith, however that changes the argument for you and not for me.)

The core of my argument is obviously the Alien debate. I do understand this thread started without any serious intent to discuss it. However, that point aside, I will explain to you why I feel beyond any doubt that Aliens exist. I need to point out that this isn't something I can force anybody to believe. It is, however, fact as far as I am concerned. So, it is apparent that the statistical probability of Alien life is very high (I find this is something we both agree on, I can provide details and data if you wish). What I am saying is that, according to mathematics if the probability is something close to .999... then the probability is actually complete proof. Not only does .999... equate to 1 in mathematics, however that probability is actually just as close to definite as what I've described above as far as the reality of seeing something out of the corner of my eye compared to knowing if what is in front of me is real.

[uniquinous]

you can provide details and data? that's what we've been requesting for the last 7 pages.

just curious, what do you feel is the actual probability? 1 in... how many?

[meat.eater]

"You feeling beyond a doubt" does not prove the existence of aliens. Lot's of people feel beyond a doubt that their is a God, too.

So, if you're arguing your belief in aliens as synonymous to others chosen beliefs in... well... whatever they freakin' feel like, fine. But dont use words like "proof" to the rest of us. Because you have no proof. You have what you believe. Which is fine.

[houckeah]

"You feeling beyond a doubt" does not prove the existence of aliens. Lot's of people feel beyond a doubt that their is a God, too.

So, if you're arguing your belief in aliens as synonymous to others chosen beliefs in... well... whatever they freakin' feel like, fine. But dont use words like "proof" to the rest of us. Because you have no proof. You have what you believe. Which is fine.

No, meat, I expected more from you. I just provided proof. Hence the phrase "then the probability is actually complete proof" and "I will explain to you why I feel beyond any doubt that Aliens exist" (wherein my explanation was based in fact). So do you disagree with any points I made in that post or not?

[Jeffery]

No, meat, I expected more from you. I just provided proof. Hence the phrase "then the probability is actually complete proof" and "I will explain to you why I feel beyond any doubt that Aliens exist" (wherein my explanation was based in fact). So do you disagree with any points I made in that post or not?
So then you've proved God exists, the earth is flat, man never landed on the moon......

You've claimed that probability is supporting your theory, and yet not shown how. And you've claimed that anything that is probable is automatically proven, which is definitely not supported by ANYONE in the scientific field.

[Duraza]

Can we prove Jeffery exists?
I think not.

[Take a Look]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kEryR5wj9o&feature=related

LOLOLOL

[meat.eater]

No, meat, I expected more from you. I just provided proof. Hence the phrase "then the probability is actually complete proof" and "I will explain to you why I feel beyond any doubt that Aliens exist" (wherein my explanation was based in fact). So do you disagree with any points I made in that post or not?

Don't try to condescend me. It makes you look even worse.

You do understand that "probability" means the likeliness or chance that something may happen/be real, right? Not that IT IS REAL. Fact means something PROVEN.

The probability of God existing is complete proof to Christians. Does that mean God exists? There's a high probability that I wont roll a 6 on a 20 sided die. Does that mean a 6 can't be rolled? There's a very high probability that aliens exist somewhere in the universe (AND NONE OF US HAVE SAID OTHERWISE), but does that mean that they do?
Until you see Jesus walk on water, until you roll that damn 6, and until there's a piece of alien bacteria under your freakin' microscope, you have NOTHING but speculation, even if that speculation is highly in favor of all odds.

Jeffery even linked an article that disproved the ONLY bit of "evidence" that you claimed to have.

You have now used the words "probability," "possibility" and "theory" in combination with the words "fact" and "proof." You may be as metaphysical and existential as you want, but to the rest of the intelligent mankind, you are simply wrong.

[houckeah]

Don't try to condescend me. It makes you look even worse.
I tried to do what? :confused:

You do understand that "probability" means the likeliness or chance that something may happen/be real, right? Not that IT IS REAL. Fact means something PROVEN.
Yes. I do, meat. If you read my first paragraph you would see how I expressed that nothing is proven. So you must use judgment.

The probability of God existing is complete proof to Christians. Does that mean God exists? There's a high probability that I wont roll a 6 on a 20 sided die. Does that mean a 6 can't be rolled? There's a very high probability that aliens exist somewhere in the universe (AND NONE OF US HAVE SAID OTHERWISE), but does that mean that they do?
Until you see Jesus walk on water, until you roll that damn 6, and until there's a piece of alien bacteria under your freakin' microscope, you have NOTHING but speculation, even if that speculation is highly in favor of all odds.
Okay, so prove to me that what you are seeing in front of you is actually there. You would actually have to show the probability of it being there because you can't prove it.

Jeffery even linked an article that disproved the ONLY bit of "evidence" that you claimed to have.
Jeffery has been ignored for weeks for his insane trolling in other threads. I never showed any evidence, either.

You have now used the words "probability," "possibility" and "theory" in combination with the words "fact" and "proof." You may be as metaphysical and existential as you want, but to the rest of the intelligent mankind, you are simply wrong.
What is fact and proof, meat? As far as I can tell any fact or proofs you have actually have a probability of being incorrect.

[Take a Look]

rofl

[houckeah]

rofl

Isn't it hilarious how I have to repeat myself even more.

[Take a Look]

It is, You could Just leave though.. lol!

[houckeah]

It is, You could Just leave though.. lol!

History would show I like repeating myself over and over until their light bulbs finally go off.

[The Butcher]

History would show I like repeating myself over and over until their light bulbs finally go off.

Or until the bulbs you think you see over your head burn out ;)

[houckeah]

Or until the bulbs you think you see over your head burn out ;)

Oh, no bulbs over my head. What I am trying to express, which here has become moreover of the nature pertaining to fact, is very clear in my head. It does not require a light bulb to illuminate it to such brilliance. In fact, it should be very clear from any point of view (physics or philosophy).

[The Butcher]

Are you coming on to me?

If so, I'm into it.

You can even dress up as an alien.

/joke (no homo)

[Jeffery]

Oh, no bulbs over my head. What I am trying to express, which here has become moreover of the nature pertaining to fact, is very clear in my head. It does not require a light bulb to illuminate it to such brilliance. In fact, it should be very clear from any point of view (physics or philosophy).
In other words, there is no bulb because there is no rea lidea. He's talking through his ass, using double talk and semantics,unable to even keep on the same argument path.

He now claims he never argued proof, and never tried to talk about there being evidence of alien life on mars.

As for me being ignored,he knows he reads every single post I make. Just makes him go through more effort for him tobe mad at me for posting proof he was full of it when he talked about the mars rocks.

[uniquinous]

So then you've proved God exists, the earth is flat, man never landed on the moon......

You've claimed that probability is supporting your theory, and yet not shown how. And you've claimed that anything that is probable is automatically proven, which is definitely not supported by ANYONE in the scientific field.pretty much...

Yes. I do, meat. If you read my first paragraph you would see how I expressed that nothing is proven. So you must use judgment.You've not shown proof or evidence in your favor. You've shown philosophy and theoretical "probability" with absolutely no support. Your claims on bacteria and other evidence of alien life have similar shown no support.

Okay, so prove to me that what you are seeing in front of you is actually there. You can get back into the physical all you'd like, but he can touch, lick, and see his monitor. Now you can give me the probability that all those things aren't real, or don't count, or whatever other ridiculous philosophy you'd like to use which doesn't apply, but the fact still remains that those perceptions are more than you have on alien life.

Jeffery has been ignored for weeks for his insane trolling in other threads. You don't really need to go through the trouble of putting someone on your ignore list if you just ignore anyone logical anyway... :rolleyes:

[Take a Look]

Yeah!

[The Butcher]

... mafia....

:yes3:

[TheBlazedAce]

Dirka, for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. You must be able to come up with a test that would give you concrete evidence that could disprove your theory. Since your claim on doubt being present in all things is unfalsifiable I deem it unscientific by definition and not worthy of our time.

Oh, and, fyi, as dirka you long ago claimed you added me to your ignore list, but when I came back after a long time you responded to me. I honestly DO NOT BELIEVE most of the things you claim, and I again don't believe you added me to your ignore list.

And when you asked meat to prove that the computer screen is in front of him, I already explained that the burden of proof is ON YOU to prove that it is not, not the other way around. Look up "burden of proof" in the context of "logical fallacies"...

-blazed

[meat.eater]

Whatever dirk. You can be as existential and twisted as you want. I'll just know I'm (we're) right. Regardless of whether or not you're capable of wrapping your head around it. Which is really all that matters.

[houckeah]

Whatever dirk. You can be as existential and twisted as you want. I'll just know I'm (we're) right. Regardless of whether or not you're capable of wrapping your head around it. Which is really all that matters.

So you ASK me to explain and then say whatever. Doesn't appear you're right.

[uniquinous]

don't pick out a single word which is dismissive to you as a person as indicative that he is dismissing or incorrect about any part of his (our) supported claim.

[spirit ninja]

WELL...

That's nice and all everyone but lets wrap this all up with the following;

Everyone = 1
dirk = Spin Again.


I honestly thought I had claimed the title of the most stubborn person here.

*slowly passes dirk the belt*