'No way we are alone', says UK space exploration boss

[Grim Reaper 6]

7 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Many, many factors were at play over billions of years that eventually lead to us. I'm not so certain that all of them could be replicated with the same success.

Why?

[zep73]

24 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

That’s very very sad my friend, I have seen many horrific situations in my life due to my military career. Things you can’t even imagine, and in the worst of it I have seen both military and civilians rise to the occasion and not lose their humanity. I hope you can understand what I am saying, and this is truly why in a world so screwed up I can remain optimistic and hopeful that in mankind’s future the best of humanity will defeat the darkness. 

I don’t have any idea what you have experienced personally, maybe you experiences are more horrific than mine if so I am very sorry you have had those experiences and that they have jaded you outlook so much!

I think most people have that in them. They just suppress and deny it.

[Grim Reaper 6]

27 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I think most people have that in them. They just suppress and deny it.

Have what in them?

[zep73]

46 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Have what in them?

Misanthropism mostly, but also a tad of nihilism.

Edited March 14, 2023 by zep73

[Bed of chaos]

If another civilization exists, I wouldn't assume it's the same as earth. Bunch of aliens, toying on cell phones. Someone else could have advanced technology we don't know about (reach us). I assume its very rare though doesn't mean it can't happen. Anyway, I personally wouldn't want anyone to show up. They could very well be hostile.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Bed of chaos

[Trelane]

16 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Why?

The probability of those millions if not billions of factors being repeated are not likely.  To start, we have yet to find another rocky planet similar to ours that has the same conditions solar system wise that we do. Same sequence of star. Same large moon in comparison to the planet that affects the host planet. Large gas giants that act as magnets for planet killer asteroids. So on and so on.

There is a higher likelihood in my opinion that we are simply an evolutionary cul de sac.

[spud the mackem]

22 hours ago, Trelane said:

The probability of those millions if not billions of factors being repeated are not likely.  To start, we have yet to find another rocky planet similar to ours that has the same conditions solar system wise that we do. Same sequence of star. Same large moon in comparison to the planet that affects the host planet. Large gas giants that act as magnets for planet killer asteroids. So on and so on.

There is a higher likelihood in my opinion that we are simply an evolutionary cul de sac.

I disagree we are NOT alone , there are billions of galaxy's , with trillions of planets , maybe not the same as our planet ,but life must happen on even 1 planet per galaxy , the  life will not be the same ,but could be more or less advanced than us , the problem is distance ,so we may never contact ,or be contacted by other life forms . SETI is sending out radio signals ,but other life forms may have found a different way to communicate which we haven't discovered yet ,for example laser beams . Through time Voyager1 or 2 may encounter intelligent life , then it's up to them to track us down and hope they aren't hostile , Cheers .

[+Desertrat56]

On 3/11/2023 at 1:36 PM, Skulduggery said:

I've always thought that maybe, if we could light up the universe and look around, it might be terrifying what we'd find. Weird alien life undulating, feeding and breeding everywhere. It'd be a real jump scare.

Or we are the scary ones.   

[spud the mackem]

Sorry wrong thread

Edited March 15, 2023 by spud the mackem

[zep73]

On 3/12/2023 at 9:52 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Now, here’s the problem the earliest fossil evidence of life on earth is approximately 3.8 billion years old. Yet this is interesting in itself, because this means that life occurred on earth through abiogenesis approximately 700 million years after the planet formed from compressed dust and other remnants of our Star. This is proof that the creation of life is not a uniquely difficult process at all, it’s just another chemical step in a combination of naturally occurring elements and organic compounds that were created during the universe’s creation. 

I cannot find this quote on the abiogenesis wiki page. Are you sure it's from there?

Edited March 19, 2023 by zep73

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I cannot find this quote on the abiogenesis wiki page. Are you sure it's from there?

Which quote?

[zep73]

3 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Which quote?

"Now, here’s the problem the earliest fossil evidence of life on earth is approximately 3.8 billion years old. Yet this is interesting in itself, because this means that life occurred on earth through abiogenesis approximately 700 million years after the planet formed from compressed dust and other remnants of our Star. This is proof that the creation of life is not a uniquely difficult process at all, it’s just another chemical step in a combination of naturally occurring elements and organic compounds that were created during the universe’s creation. "

[Grim Reaper 6]

3 minutes ago, zep73 said:

"Now, here’s the problem the earliest fossil evidence of life on earth is approximately 3.8 billion years old. Yet this is interesting in itself, because this means that life occurred on earth through abiogenesis approximately 700 million years after the planet formed from compressed dust and other remnants of our Star. This is proof that the creation of life is not a uniquely difficult process at all, it’s just another chemical step in a combination of naturally occurring elements and organic compounds that were created during the universe’s creation. "

I already stated that in post 39

 

[zep73]

4 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I already stated that in post 39

I asked where it came from. You said wiki abiogenesis. But... I can't find it on that page! 

Edited March 19, 2023 by zep73

[Grim Reaper 6]

13 minutes ago, zep73 said:

"Now, here’s the problem the earliest fossil evidence of life on earth is approximately 3.8 billion years old. Yet this is interesting in itself, because this means that life occurred on earth through abiogenesis approximately 700 million years after the planet formed from compressed dust and other remnants of our Star. This is proof that the creation of life is not a uniquely difficult process at all, it’s just another chemical step in a combination of naturally occurring elements and organic compounds that were created during the universe’s creation. "

 

Oldest fossils ever found show life on Earth began before 3.5 billion years ago Oldest fossils ever found show life on Earth began before 3.5 billion years ago (wisc.edu)

Edited March 19, 2023 by Grim Reaper 6

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I asked where it came from. You said wiki abiogenesis. But... I can't find it on that page! 

Abiogenesis Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

5th or 6th paragraph 

 The Earth was formed 4.54 Gya; the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 Gya. Fossil micro-organisms appear to have lived within hydrothermal vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya from Quebec, soon after ocean formation 4.4 Gya during the Hadean.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Grim Reaper 6

[zep73]

Just now, Grim Reaper 6 said:

 The Earth was formed 4.54 Gya; the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 Gya. Fossil micro-organisms appear to have lived within hydrothermal vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya from Quebec, soon after ocean formation 4.4 Gya during the Hadean.

I never disputed that life was 4 billion years old. I see that as common knowledge actually. I just pointed out that it was a complex chemistry and must have taken up to millions of years to fully function. By lucky chance.
I don't see how that article challenges that estimation.

Remember the timespan. It is millions of years.

[Grim Reaper 6]

23 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I never disputed that life was 4 billion years old. I see that as common knowledge actually. I just pointed out that it was a complex chemistry and must have taken up to millions of years to fully function. By lucky chance.
I don't see how that article challenges that estimation.

Remember the timespan. It is millions of years.

Do, you believe in Panspermia yes or no?

If, yes explain why and if no please explain why?

[zep73]

6 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Do, you believe in Panspermia yes or no?

If, yes explain why and if no please explain why?

Yes and no.

Yes, because it's possible. No because there is a superior hypothesis that makes is obsolete/unnecessary.

But focus on the "yes", please. I do not want to discuss the hypothesis.

[Grim Reaper 6]

17 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Yes and no.

Yes, because it's possible. No because there is a superior hypothesis that makes is obsolete/unnecessary.

But focus on the "yes", please. I do not want to discuss the hypothesis.

How does Panspermia occur, based upon your knowledge?

[zep73]

6 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

How does Panspermia occur, based upon your knowledge?

An object infected with resilient life gets ejected from one planet, and lands on another. This does not solve the problem of abiogenesis though, it just pushes the problem to another world.