Bill Clinton, not surprised if aliens visit

[quillius]

It is not all speculation. If you've read any of the discussions on here you know that we regularly talk about UFOs and extraterrestrial life because there is evidence that they could exist in the real universe, not just in someone's imagination.

That UFO's and ET could exist isn't a statement of fact but a reasonable assumption based on what we have learned of life in general and the vastness of the universe. If the odds of advanced intelligent life are 1 in 100 billion then there could be several 'civilizations' spread out through the universe. That ET is visiting Earth is not a reasonable assumption however because we don't have solid evidence for that yet and what we know so far tells us that such journeys would be incredibly costly, dangerous and slow, even at the speed of light. Could aliens have figured out a way to travel cheaply and easily around the universe? Maybe, but we don't know yet if that's even possible.

Hi S2F, not sure here as it did read a little like a statement of fact, either way he does say that there is evidence and I believe this is what Bendigger would like to see/hear about.....as would I (we would welcome Scowl this side of the fence lol....)

Edited April 16, 2014 by quillius

[S2F]

Hi S2F, not sure here as it did read a little like a statement of fact, either way he does say that there is evidence and I believe this is what Bendigger would like to see/hear about.....as would I (we would welcome Scowl this side of the fence lol....)

I can't claim to speak for scowl though I think the two points I brought up could be considered decent evidence for the existence of ET. The size and scope of the universe and the tenacity and versatility of life as we know it...

Good to see you around again BTW.

[quillius]

I can't claim to speak for scowl though I think the two points I brought up could be considered decent evidence for the existence of ET. The size and scope of the universe and the tenacity and versatility of life as we know it...

Good to see you around again BTW.

strange position I find myself in, as far as whilst I agree with what you have said the sticking point would be should these 'assumptions' be considered as decent evidence......I think they can, but if push comes to shove I would have to back down and say that they dont constitute evidence and are almost merely speculative. So in summary I agree with you but I also think we are both wrong (thats a new one on me)

thanks buddy

[S2F]

strange position I find myself in, as far as whilst I agree with what you have said the sticking point would be should these 'assumptions' be considered as decent evidence......I think they can, but if push comes to shove I would have to back down and say that they dont constitute evidence and are almost merely speculative. So in summary I agree with you but I also think we are both wrong (thats a new one on me)

thanks buddy

Taken in that light, I agree. Though If I'm going to be wrong at least I'm in good company!

[quillius]

Taken in that light, I agree. Though If I'm going to be wrong at least I'm in good company!

(emoticons = when a 'like' isnt quite enough)

Edited April 16, 2014 by quillius

[scowl]

I can't claim to speak for scowl though I think the two points I brought up could be considered decent evidence for the existence of ET. The size and scope of the universe and the tenacity and versatility of life as we know it...

First, we don't know how big the universe has to be to make more than one planet with life on it. It may be only big enough for one at a time. There may be long periods where there is no life in the universe at all.

Second, the "tenacity" of life on Earth is completely dependent on Earth's incredibly stable conditions which have prevented life from being destroyed on it countless times. Everything from its temperature to its pressure to its atmospheric content to its stable orbit and dozens of other factors have combined to make it a perfect place for life to survive and evolve for billions of years. A significant change of one these conditions change could kill all life. Life is not tenacious at all -- it's lucky. It may be more common for life to exist on a planet for a while and then die off forever after conditions have changed.

[Myles]

First, we don't know how big the universe has to be to make more than one planet with life on it. It may be only big enough for one at a time. There may be long periods where there is no life in the universe at all.

Second, the "tenacity" of life on Earth is completely dependent on Earth's incredibly stable conditions which have prevented life from being destroyed on it countless times. Everything from its temperature to its pressure to its atmospheric content to its stable orbit and dozens of other factors have combined to make it a perfect place for life to survive and evolve for billions of years. A significant change of one these conditions change could kill all life. Life is not tenacious at all -- it's lucky. It may be more common for life to exist on a planet for a while and then die off forever after conditions have changed.

I agree.

Personally I think there is other life out there.

However, I don't believe aliens have or are visiting Earth. I also don't know that the life out there is intelligent. How long was Earth here before humans? Since humans, Earth has been lucky enough to avoid extinction events.

[S2F]

First, we don't know how big the universe has to be to make more than one planet with life on it. It may be only big enough for one at a time. There may be long periods where there is no life in the universe at all.

Second, the "tenacity" of life on Earth is completely dependent on Earth's incredibly stable conditions which have prevented life from being destroyed on it countless times. Everything from its temperature to its pressure to its atmospheric content to its stable orbit and dozens of other factors have combined to make it a perfect place for life to survive and evolve for billions of years. A significant change of one these conditions change could kill all life. Life is not tenacious at all -- it's lucky. It may be more common for life to exist on a planet for a while and then die off forever after conditions have changed.

That's true, we just don't know enough about conditions throughout the universe to know how common life may or may not be. Even with incredibly low probabilities though there could be other life somewhere. There are estimated to be as many as 100 billion galaxies in the universe. That gives us an astounding (almost unimaginable) number of potential planets to harbor life. With those kind of numbers I just can't bring myself to entertain that we may be the only life to be found anywhere.

[Space Commander Travis]

With those kind of numbers I just can't bring myself to entertain that we may be the only life to be found anywhere.

I sometimes get the feeling that's what some people want, because it would prove their dogmatic insistence right that UFOs can't be extraterrestrial visitors. They way they enthusiastically quote the Drake Equation and what have you that proves how intelligent life must be so incredibly rare, it's almost as if the sole reason they keep insisting that is so that it proves that UFOs can't be ET.

[scowl]

With those kind of numbers I just can't bring myself to entertain that we may be the only life to be found anywhere.

Someone smarter than me gave me a good way to look at how we humans misinterpret the meaning of large numbers.

There are 200 billion pennies in circulation right now. I just checked my pocket I have five coins in my pocket. You will tell me that with 200 billion pennies floating around, at least one of them must be a penny. 200 billion is a very large number therefore that must influence which coins are in my pocket right now.

There are perhaps 400 billion stars in our galaxy. What if there were only 100 billion. Or only a 100 million? Or only a 100 thousand? Would that change your view that there must be life somewhere else in this galaxy? Most people would say 100,000 stars is still a large number to them so they will still be just as certain that a planet with life is orbiting one of them. The irrelevance to them that the odds are four million times less likely in that scenario shows that they're not evaluating it logically.

People who rely on life on Earth as evidence of extraterrestrial life are experiencing the opposite of the Gambler's Fallacy: instead of assuming you're probably going to win after losing, you're assuming you're probably going to win again after winning. Winning doesn't influence the odds of winning again. If Earth got lucky it doesn't mean another planet had to.

[bendigger0]

"With those kind of numbers I just can't bring myself to entertain that we may be the only life to be found anywhere." Especially when we keep seeing indications of some mysterious "flying disks" in our atmosphere. Is it "life"? Guess it's one of those Unsolved Mysteries.

[bendigger0]

It is not all speculation. If you've read any of the discussions on here you know that we regularly talk about UFOs and extraterrestrial life because there is evidence that they could exist in the real universe, not just in someone's imagination.

What "evidence" are you referring too?

[AtlantisRises]

Without a clear understanding of the requirements or mechanism required for abiogenesis I don't see how we can assume that just because a planet ticks all the earthlike boxes that it is likely to have life. Admittedly the number of potential planets is incredible, but without understanding what is needed to move from nonlife to life we can not really determine how likely it is that life exists elsewhere.

In billions of years Abiogenesis appears to have occurred only once on the one planet we know is capable of sustaining life. That seems to suggest that just because the building blocks of life are present it does not mean that they will build life in the majority of circumstances.

[Space Commander Travis]

Without a clear understanding of the requirements or mechanism required for abiogenesis I don't see how we can assume that just because a planet ticks all the earthlike boxes that it is likely to have life. Admittedly the number of potential planets is incredible, but without understanding what is needed to move from nonlife to life we can not really determine how likely it is that life exists elsewhere.

In billions of years Abiogenesis appears to have occurred only once on the one planet we know is capable of sustaining life. That seems to suggest that just because the building blocks of life are present it does not mean that they will build life in the majority of circumstances.

perhaps it was only necessary once. Perhaps it would ******* up evolution good & proper if it happened again and again.

[AtlantisRises]

perhaps it was only necessary once. Perhaps it would ******* up evolution good & proper if it happened again and again.

I suspect it would have a hugely detrimental effect on evolution. I also don't see any reason for that being relevant. There is no reason that a natural process won't occur just because it will adversly effect another natural process.

I concede the possibility that the original event leading to life or the existance of life itself may have made conditions unfavourable for abiogenesis. Rising oxygen levels being an obvious change.

[AtlantisRises]

And that was a poor choice of words.there is no such thing as something being detrimental or benefical to evolution.

[quillius]

Someone smarter than me gave me a good way to look at how we humans misinterpret the meaning of large numbers.

There are 200 billion pennies in circulation right now. I just checked my pocket I have five coins in my pocket. You will tell me that with 200 billion pennies floating around, at least one of them must be a penny. 200 billion is a very large number therefore that must influence which coins are in my pocket right now.

There are perhaps 400 billion stars in our galaxy. What if there were only 100 billion. Or only a 100 million? Or only a 100 thousand? Would that change your view that there must be life somewhere else in this galaxy? Most people would say 100,000 stars is still a large number to them so they will still be just as certain that a planet with life is orbiting one of them. The irrelevance to them that the odds are four million times less likely in that scenario shows that they're not evaluating it logically.

People who rely on life on Earth as evidence of extraterrestrial life are experiencing the opposite of the Gambler's Fallacy: instead of assuming you're probably going to win after losing, you're assuming you're probably going to win again after winning. Winning doesn't influence the odds of winning again. If Earth got lucky it doesn't mean another planet had to.

not sure on your penny analogy, if there are 200 billion in circulation and you have 5 coins in your pocket, the likelihood (probability) of you having one is totally dependant on how many other coins are in circulation to give you the 'total' value.....if say 205 billion in total then yes it would be almost impossible for you not to have a penny out of the 5 coins. If there are 200 trillion then it is very unlikely you have a penny.

[quillius]

What "evidence" are you referring too?

scowl, it would be good to have your answer to the above question which is in response to your statement:

there is evidence that they could exist in the real universe,

[+OverSword]

When addressing the likelyhood of life evolving I think back to the episode of "planet earth" about caves. In the very final segement in a very isolated and huge cave called lechuguilla there was extremophile bacteria that apparently had evolved in total dakness that were feeding off of the very rock of the cave wall. Who would ever have speculated that possibility?

lechuguilla

[scowl]

scowl, it would be good to have your answer to the above question which is in response to your statement:

Are you talking about evidence that extraterrestrial life could exist? Life exists here and there's no evidence that suggests it can't exist elsewhere.

This should not be confused with evidence that it does exist which we don't have at this point.

[quillius]

Are you talking about evidence that extraterrestrial life could exist? Life exists here and there's no evidence that suggests it can't exist elsewhere.

This should not be confused with evidence that it does exist which we don't have at this point.

yes, you said '' there is evidence that they could exist in the real universe''

I know this doesnt mean 'does' hence why you used the word 'could', I was more interested in the evidence that you said exists, as per your quote.

Dont worry too much as I am signing off now until next week.

Happy Easter, to you and to all.

[scowl]

not sure on your penny analogy, if there are 200 billion in circulation and you have 5 coins in your pocket, the likelihood (probability) of you having one is totally dependant on how many other coins are in circulation to give you the 'total' value.....

Sorry, we don't know how many other coins are in circulation. The question remains: "Do you believe I have a penny in my pocket?" Don't let this lack of information affect your answer.

Surely with 200 billion pennies in circulation of course you'll believe I have a penny in my pocket because 200 billion is very large number. I mean that's half the number of stars in our entire galaxy! If you believe there's life orbiting one of those stars other than ours then you'll believe there is a penny in my pocket.

This is the argument people use to justify their belief in extraterrestrial life. Only an ignorant fool would think that it's possible that the only life in a galaxy with 400 billion stars is on Earth.

[scowl]

yes, you said '' there is evidence that they could exist in the real universe''

I know this doesnt mean 'does' hence why you used the word 'could', I was more interested in the evidence that you said exists, as per your quote.

The life on Earth is the evidence. Conversely if there were no life in the universe then that would be evidence that the universe does not contain life.

[Sweetpumper]

Conversely if there were no life in the universe then that would be evidence that the universe does not contain life.

Then there wouldn't be anyone to need evidence.

[S2F]

Sorry, we don't know how many other coins are in circulation. The question remains: "Do you believe I have a penny in my pocket?" Don't let this lack of information affect your answer.

Surely with 200 billion pennies in circulation of course you'll believe I have a penny in my pocket because 200 billion is very large number. I mean that's half the number of stars in our entire galaxy! If you believe there's life orbiting one of those stars other than ours then you'll believe there is a penny in my pocket.

This is the argument people use to justify their belief in extraterrestrial life. Only an ignorant fool would think that it's possible that the only life in a galaxy with 400 billion stars is on Earth.

I would say that there is a decent chance that there would be a penny in your pocket. I've never claimed that extraterrestrial life is a certainty, I've only ever said that it is a possibility. It is my belief that it exists elsewhere, nothing more. I agree that nobody could know for certain (outside personal experience, if we include such) going by the evidence we currently have available. If we include personal experience such as sightings or abductions and the like that still is not enough to proclaim ET existence as fact without some very compelling evidence. That is the crux of the whole ETH debate.