Thread: If we are all there is

You have to realize, and if you watched all of contact you would know this, the electromagnetic emissions that we have been creating (tv, radio, etc.) have only been powerful enough to travel sufficient distances to be seen by other life forms in the galaxy for the last 60 years or so. This means that any evidence of our existence has at the most only had a chance to travel about 60 light years, and so there are only about 64 stars that are close enough to us to have seen so far, many of which are not part of a star system. There may be billions of star systems in the galaxy, but any evidence of life takes a very very long time to travel and so maybe we just haven't had time to see it yet.

We'll find out if we're alone one day, but we won't be alive to see it

why is it so hard to consider that we might be alone?

[Edit] I'm not saying we are, or that I think that, but why ...?

Actually, almost every government besides the US accepts the existence of U.F.O. activity. The Mexican Government has called for the end of the U.S.' embargo against U.F.O. activity

I adore how we send radio signals. I just hope other species would know how to interpret them. They may be without the technology. They may have the technology, but call it a fluke.

We may very well be alone. I wouldn't doubt that most planets don't use deoxyribonucleic acid at all. Hell, there could be silicon-based lifeforms. Perhaps on some planet, they've stripped all their resources and were forced to become what we'd call abiotic--robots. It may take several millenia before we locate a species with true language and technology.

Unless, of course, they master the wormhole before we do.

Originally Posted by Keeper

why is it so hard to consider that we might be alone?

[Edit] I'm not saying we are, or that I think that, but why ...?

'cause the universe is so damn large!

Originally Posted by Abra

I adore how we send radio signals. I just hope other species would know how to interpret them. They may be without the technology. They may have the technology, but call it a fluke.

We may very well be alone. I wouldn't doubt that most planets don't use deoxyribonucleic acid at all. Hell, there could be silicon-based lifeforms. Perhaps on some planet, they've stripped all their resources and were forced to become what we'd call abiotic--robots. It may take several millenia before we locate a species with true language and technology.

Unless, of course, they master the wormhole before we do.

I read an article somewhere (I think it was in wikipedia) about how it is highly unlikely that life could exist in a non-carbon based system, as carbon is the simplest and can make the most complex structures. The article also points out how this is carbon chauvinism, and that belief that molecules are required for life is chauvinistic as well: molecularly chauvinistic

just remember, most of this is just theory ...

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

'cause the universe is so damn large!

Good point

Life made of... Photons? Subatomic particles?

Sounds fun.

Originally Posted by Keeper

why is it so hard to consider that we might be alone?

[Edit] I'm not saying we are, or that I think that, but why ...?

If we are then there is no mistake. I don't mean a creator, but we were obviously ment to exist. Maybe to start off the universe or something...it's been around for what? billions of years? and trillions, and trillions more it will exist more, and more. If we are the only ones in the universe we are the beginning i suppose. If we are the only ones in the universe, i'll laugh for a few seconds, then think of some theorys as to why. If we are then i wont believe in a couincidence, because it's impossible if you check the universe and this the only planet with life.



Imagine a planet the size of the biggest star we know? it makes antares the size undetectable by a microscope, and Antares is HUGE. This star is just beyond big, it's sick. It must take like a million lifetimes to travel around it by walking, assuming it would be like this planet and support life. SICK!!!!!

I read an article somewhere (I think it was in wikipedia) about how it is highly unlikely that life could exist in a non-carbon based system, as carbon is the simplest and can make the most complex structures. The article also points out how this is carbon chauvinism, and that belief that molecules are required for life is chauvinistic as well: molecularly chauvinistic

just remember, most of this is just theory ...

That person sounds crazy if they think other species can't be made of other things. They aren't us.

Originally Posted by Keeper

why is it so hard to consider that we might be alone?

[Edit] I'm not saying we are, or that I think that, but why ...?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=asfstvYUJ0M&feature=related

surely, even by our standards of what is needed to create life( although we can't apply our planet as the rule of thumb for the Universe), a lifeform can be similiar to us aslong as it is based on any element with the group containing carbon, asthey all have similiar properties, especiallyt he whole, it is not very reactive and makes four bonds.

So easily Carbon and Silicon. Also i thought that going down the group you get similiar elements, is Tin similiar to the above two at all? If so surely a Germanium, Tin or Lead lifeform could exist?

From what I understand, Carbon makes sense as the most likely base for life by a long shot. That doesn't totally preclude there being life based on other elements, but it means that if we ever find other life, chances are it will also be carbon-based.

The interesting thing to ponder is not just whether there is currently other intelligent life on other planets, but whether some superior intelligence may have already come and gone many times over. Theoretically speaking, there could have been intelligence on earth beyond our own, but so long ago that we no longer have evidence of it.

well skysaw when you think about it. Let us pretend that life on earth began to evolve 20,000 years earlier that it did. That would mean we would see the human race with technology 20,000 years ahead of us. They would look completely different.

So it is a given that in the Universe other planets that formed earlier and whose time it took for sentient beings to evolve was shorter, truly great civilizations may have come and gone.

I've never believed in evolution. Granted I haven't done a whole lot of research on it, and there may be something I'm missing, but it seems to be a contradiction that over millions of years, a life form would have adapted to life on this earth and "evolved" yet if this does indeed explain how that life form is able to exist, how did it exist during the millions of years it took to adapt?
In other words, take the human heart. Scientists say it would take millions (if not billions) of years for such an organ to evolve to what it is today. However, without the human heart, we can't exist. So how did our early ancestors live up until the point that such a complex organ was "complete" in its evolution?
The eyes would take millions of years to evolve, in the mean time, how were animals able to find food which would sustain them? The deeper you look into it, the less it makes sense.
With all that being said, if life did exist on another planet, then what are the odds that it would be intelligent? Out of all the millions of species on earth, only 1 is intelligent. So even if we did find a planet chocked full of life, the idea that it would contain an intelligent life form would be very unlikely (though not impossible).

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, almost every government besides the US accepts the existence of U.F.O. activity. The Mexican Government has called for the end of the U.S.' embargo against U.F.O. activity

In some US fire fighter's manual about how to handle disasters, there is a section about what to do in a UFO disaster. It even gives a situation about how there could be alien bodies, and what to do to save them.

Also, in the 50s, there was a conference that determined what the government should do if they experience alien interaction, and the decision was that the public should remain uninformed. The HG Wells "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast which resulted in widespread panic, was an example of why that decision was made.

If america found out we were the only ones in the universe we would start to expand are territory.

Originally Posted by Truth Paradox

I've never believed in evolution. Granted I haven't done a whole lot of research on it, and there may be something I'm missing...

The deeper you look into it, the less it makes sense.

Given that you haven't done much research on it, you should recognize that the second quote is merely an assumption on your part. In fact, the deeper you look into it, the more it makes sense.

It's pretty easy to find begining reading on the topic. Go you and acquire some.

I believe that we are in the matrix.

The machines has already taken control.

Now we are all alone.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Given that you haven't done much research on it, you should recognize that the second quote is merely an assumption on your part. In fact, the deeper you look into it, the more it makes sense.

It's pretty easy to find begining reading on the topic. Go you and acquire some.

I think you misunderstand me. I haven't done much research on it, that's true... But I also haven't done much research on anything I can refute with pure logic. Is there any way to refute the proof I gave against evolution? It totally goes against the law of entropy. We find dinasaur bones, but yet magically there seems to be no evidence of the millions if not billions of transitional "missing links" between any species which would have to be to prove evolution with any validity. Darwin himself said on his deathbed that he was wrong about evolution.

To suggest that it took lungs millions of years to evolve to the working lungs that exist in the human body is completely ludicrous. So what? Our early ancesestors didn't breath? Maybe because they couldn't breath, their brain evolved so that it wouldn't need oxygen for the period of time it took for the lungs to then be complete and then... wait no... it doesn't make sense any way you slice it.

Originally Posted by Truth Paradox

it doesn't make sense any way you slice it.

And again, it doesn't make sense because you haven't studied it.

There are millions of examples of life without lungs, hearts, eyes, etc.

Is there any way to refute the proof I gave against evolution?

Yes. But if you won't read the basic texts, there's no point in reiterating it here.

It totally goes against the law of entropy.

If you believe entropy has anything to do with the subject, please explain clearly how you see it fitting in.

Darwin himself said on his deathbed that he was wrong about evolution.

Untrue, but Christians love to spread this story. Please read the following page and its citations: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

Originally Posted by skysaw

If you believe entropy has anything to do with the subject, please explain clearly how you see it fitting in.

Entropy, also known as the second law of thermodynamics. It states that order does not spawn from chaos and that the universe is running down.
Evolution also defies the first law of thermodynamics as well as the law of biogenesis which states that life cannot arise from non-life. It is important to note that these are not theories, they are laws. If I were to believe in evolution, I would have to unlearn scientific fact which has been proven in order to believe in a theory. Why on earth would I do this?

Originally Posted by skysaw

Untrue, but Christians love to spread this story. Please read the following page and its citations:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

You are probably right about that, it does sound plausible and come to think of it, I believe I heard this from a Christian, heh.

However, here is a quote from Darwin that is just as good:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

^There are numerous examples of exactly that.
Take the bombardier beetle. It has a defense mechanism which combines two chemicals and an inhibitor. The two chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide) are explosive when mixed together, thus the beetle stores the inhibitor which prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely. When the beetle attacks, it shoots out the two chemicals and mixes them with an anti-inhibitor which nullifies the effects of the inhibitor and causes the explosion.
How could this system have evolved step by step while still utilizing such dangerous chemicals? All parts are necessary for any of them to have an adaptive advantage.

Also, Darwin wrote this:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

^Darwin himself understood the flaws in his theory.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Yes. But if you won't read the basic texts, there's no point in reiterating it here.

I still don't see the need to read about evolution, as I have read so much proof against it and there is simply no evidence supporting it. However, I will go back and read up on it so that, if nothing else, I will be able to disprove it more accurately.

Actually, The second law of thermodynamics applies to the distribution of heat or energy and does not apply to the forming of structures in matter. This is of course obvious in nature with the formation of crystals.

Originally Posted by Truth Paradox

I still don't see the need to read about evolution, as I have read so much proof against it and there is simply no evidence supporting it. However, I will go back and read up on it so that, if nothing else, I will be able to disprove it more accurately.

Absolutely ridiculous. There is such a mountain of scientific evidence for evolution, including dramatic observable cases within insect species that have taken place over short time periods. "Evidence" against it always seems to come from very bad science, including a complete misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You have to realize, and if you watched all of contact you would know this, the electromagnetic emissions that we have been creating (tv, radio, etc.) have only been powerful enough to travel sufficient distances to be seen by other life forms in the galaxy for the last 60 years or so. This means that any evidence of our existence has at the most only had a chance to travel about 60 light years, and so there are only about 64 stars that are close enough to us to have seen so far, many of which are not part of a star system. There may be billions of star systems in the galaxy, but any evidence of life takes a very very long time to travel and so maybe we just haven't had time to see it yet.

Additionally, the electromagnetic emissions are not strong enough to last very far past our solar system anyway. They degrade over distances and become random noise that will not be able to have any decipherable information...not even evidence of a source. Just noise.

Secondly, with the universe being about 14 billion years old, many many civilizations have arisen and disappeared already (theoretically). There is actually a higher likelihood that we can discover some communication from one of them...but in what form, who knows? We cant make the mistake of thinking that any other intelligent life is necessarily existing exactly at the same time and that we are limited by that incomprehensible distance. Theoretically, many have already existed and there has been ample time for some kind of communication to have traveled large distances. We only need to discover it (if it exists).