Aliens?

[Melthavion]

WARNING-rambling-on post mode...

It's easy and funny to kid about this, but my opinion in all seriousness is that you just can't apply statistics to this problem, at least not in a meaningful way. We just don't have even enough information to base a statistical analysis on. 99% of all the statistics I've seen, read or heard about probability of alien life is fundamentally flawed, and made mostly of speculation and educated guesses at the very best. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as that's what you're selling it as...

I prefer to temper statistical reasoning with more logical thought. My first post contained at least some hint of seriousness. Is it possible that in all the universe we are all the life that there is, was, or will ever be? Sure,no way to know. But I don't think it's likely, whether you approach the problem from a logical or theological perspective. I won't get into religion on this, but I did really like the comment Drake's friend made...

Logically though, the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. It took 1.5 billion years (by our best estimates) for life to appear. Humans have been around for a few hundered thousand. About 19/20th's of that time we barely had rudimentary language. In the relative blink of an eye we're on the virge of becoming a space-faring civilization. In another 1/20th of that time we could have bounded to yet unimaginable advancement, or become extinct, both fairly easily. The universe itself, again by our best estimates, is about 14 billion years old. This is where my chronocentric comment comes into play, and the reason why I think programs like SETI are almost guaranteed to fail. Those stars and galaxies that Azelais was talking about in the Hubble deep-field photos, many are MILLIONS of light years away. Our own galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter, and contains roughly 100 billion stars. So as we look from star to star for radio signals, first any civilization would have to have followed a similar technilogical route as us and be using radio communications, and the timing would have to be just right for us to detect it.

Think about it, if another sentient species had its own SETI program, ongoing right now, on a star a mere 10,000 light years from us (this would easily still be in our galaxy), and pointed their dishes at Sol, they'd see a world as void of advanced life as any we've seen with our program so far. If they happend to do a spectrographic analysis, they'd see perhaps that conditions are favorible to a system that could develop or support life, but tha't about it. In about another 10,000 years they'll be receiving our first radio transmissions. We may not even be around by then, or we may be there with them when they get them...

So, in 14 billion years, or the endless ages yet to come on the trillions upon trillions of star systems, how many civilizations could develop, mature, then die away into extinction without us ever having realized it? How many just support non-advanced life? We can create the building blocks of life in simulated environments in a lab using fundamental resources that we know now exist on other bodies in our own solar system, and probably simulate the conditions on early pre-life Earth. We know that abundant water on many of these bodies is not rare. There's no way yet to even begin forming a statistical analysis of this, but it's not something easily dismissed either once you think about it. So, if I had to GUESS, I'd say that the probability approaches certainty that life on other planets exists, or did exist, or will exist. And most likely advanced intelligent life. I also would GUESS that the probability of us ever detecting or finding it (unless it's in our own solar system) with curent or any feasibly forseeable technology is almost nil. Much less actually communicating with it. The exceptional possibility would be it being sufficiently, and unimaginably more advanced than us, and willingly making contact on its own.

Just to comment on the idea of other forms of life, Azelias is right, diatomic oxygen is a metabolic toxin, and a waste-product of the metabolisms of early life on earth. There was very little to no O2 in the atmosphere during the early stages of life on earth, but it built up over time as organisms flourished and continued to churn it out. So, life could evolve or die...those that adapted to a metabolic pathway that utilized the ever more abundant O2 in the atmosphere survived and dominate the planet today. There are still organisms that cannot tolerate any O2 around today though, like obligate anaerobic bacteria. There's also organisms that utilize sulfurous or ferrous metabolism. But all life on earth (that we know of) is carbon-based. By our best understanding of the elements and life, silicone would make another decent candidate for the basis of life, but it's probably not too terribly feasible, considering silicone is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust and good ol' Terra still chose to go the carbon-route. But who knows what different conditions might have led to. And there's probably other possibilites we don't understand yet.

On a lighter note, any one been watching Steven Spielberg's "Taken" on Sci-Fi channel? What do you think of that? I've found it pretty entertaining regardless of feasibility so far. Oh well, my fingers tire...

-Mel

[Drell Gi'nor]

Mel, don't think i'm being argumentative but... how can you not get into religion if you're going to state that the evolution really happened and the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
I mean, religion is a set of beliefs and a faith... faith is believing in something you can't see and is an abstract thought. so ones religion could be atheism or just the belief that evolution really happened/happens and I could argue all day and night that it isn't because my religious beliefs don't concur... anyway =)

Drake: interesting that your friend is 'religious' but says "damned"... ::shrug::

and there is a difference between religious and christian, btw =)

[Inahnia]

Uh oh....since when can't "religious" people say "damned"? It's a perfectly good word...seems like I've even read it in the Bible a few times...

[Melthavion]

Not sure what you mean Drell, or what you're getting at...I just meant that I won't get into the religious aspect of any debate along these lines.

I mean, religion is a set of beliefs and a faith... faith is believing in something you can't see and is an abstract thought. so ones religion could be atheism or just the belief that evolution really happened/happens and I could argue all day and night that it isn't because my religious beliefs don't concur...

I agree completely. Religion is these things. Science is not. I believe evolution occured because it did, and does, and will. Not believing it doesn't make it not so. It's like saying that mixing vinegar and baking soda doesn't produce gaseous CO2, because I don't believe in chemistry. Believing in science requires no faith, no abstract thought, nor belief in something you can't see, touch, feel, smell, or taste. By your own definition, atheism nor science can be a "religion". Well, I guess you could make a philisophical arguement for atheism, but it would be only that. And before you even go there, the theory of evolution does not state that we evolved from monkeys or that there is no god

I can't debate nor argue with anyone about what they believe in, because that's all it is...what they, or I, believe in. And that's really the reason I won't debate or discuss the theological side of my post. Other than the things clearly marked as my opinion or belief, nothing I said in my previous post is about what I believe in or my faith in something. It's all pretty hard fact based on our latest scientific evidence, that we've seen and measured.

Drake: interesting that your friend is 'religious' but says "damned"... ::shrug::

Like Inahnia said, it's used in the bible, and probably other major religous texts as well. As well as several other "unsavory" words or language...::shrug::

and there is a difference between religious and christian, btw =)

Kinda like the difference between a square and a rectangle, eh?

-Mel

[Inahnia]

Well said, Mel! Much better than I would have done!

[Rutaq]

Mel, don't think i'm being argumentative but... how can you not get into religion if you're going to state that the evolution really happened and the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
I mean, religion is a set of beliefs and a faith... faith is believing in something you can't see and is an abstract thought. so ones religion could be atheism or just the belief that evolution really happened/happens and
and there is a difference between religious and christian, btw =)

I am not sure I really want to open this can of worms, but Drell has a point. Religion is a set of beliefs, this is true. Religion is also, at some point, a set of facts.

Now most religions are built on a set of mythos which explained the world or gave a simple morality. Much of Christianity is built on fact. Faith in Christianity does not simply have to come from, "Well, here's a point I don't understand so I'll just accept it on faith." There is science here that can back up theological claims.

On a different note, while my creationist view is a bit more moderate, we early microbiological study and atmospheric condition analysis is sketchy at best. Science is still unanswering to the question of what actually created the planet and the universe. The major problem with evolution (not microevolution) is that it cannot be recreated in a lab and therefore is largely left to speculation.

So, to answer this, yes, I believe in the possibility of little green men.

[Melthavion]

Hehe, old topic...but I love discussing this stuff...

Rutaq: I understand your points, and I think that's a good example of how science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I know lots of people have attempted (and will continue to attempt) to explain religous beliefs with scientific evidence to back it up. Of course, if you can prove it, it's not really faith any more

Which early microbiological studies are you referring to? I think that science and religion, in terms of creation, are trying to answer two different questions that are often confused. Scientists ask HOW the planets, the universe, and ourselves came to be, religion asks WHY.

As to evolution, I'm not sure what your distinction is between the terms "evolution" and "microevolution", but any largely accepted scientific theory is gonna be very slim on speculation, it's not something scientists tolerate very well at all. We can't recreate the formation of stars in a lab either, but we're pretty sure how it happens.

[Rutaq]

Yes, but I think non-Christians (and I speak only of Christianity here...I don't pretend to be an authority on all religions) have this perception that if something is made of facts, the need for faith is removed. Also, I think non-Christians generally think faith is the basis of the Christian religion; faith is a part, but it is often misinterpreted.

For example, I have a father, you have a father. Now, I have an expectation that when I am wounded, my father will pick me up and comfort me. That is faith. The fact is that he is my father, whether I have faith in him or not. It's scientifically provable that he is my father. That doesn't diminish my faith in him, his character or who he is.

As to the how and why, you have a point, to a degree. What's the point of how if you don't know why? What motivates science if not a deeper desire to understand, and at that point, you are moving from simply how into why. The difference is, though, that religions in general (I told you I wouldnt generalize, but here I go) don't ask why, they purport to KNOW why.

I beg to differ on the point of speculation when it comes to science. I'm not a "don't take the sick to the hospital because God will sort it all out," kind of guy, but I do think that much of what I have read from evolutionary biologists makes amazing leaps of speculation, mostly because they are working from very inconclusive evidence.

One of the studies I read not too recently proposed that because a certain lizard had striated toes (somewhere between 9-12 of them), and because fish flippers are striated as well, obviously (though we have no record of a transitional species) that lizard evolved from an ichthyological form. I could just as easily say that since a bird's wings are striated and cocked at an angle, similar to this rear leg, the lizard actually evolved from a flying version rather than an aquatic environment.

The truth is, we really don't know enough to qualify the existence of the lizard species evolution. It could have striated toes because it lives near water, or ponds, or because it acts as an aid in climbing certain surfaces in its home environment.

For a good read, I suggest you look up anything by Michael Denton. He's a cellular biologist who contends that anyone in the microbiological field can easily see God if they look for him. But read through his contentions. It's fascinating.

Microevolution - I am referring to evolutionary traits which are in response to environmental conditions. For example, Giraffe's necks evolving over time higher and higher because of diminishing low-level plant growth.

[Melthavion]

Yes, but I think non-Christians (and I speak only of Christianity here...I don't pretend to be an authority on all religions) have this perception that if something is made of facts, the need for faith is removed. Also, I think non-Christians generally think faith is the basis of the Christian religion; faith is a part, but it is often misinterpreted.

Faith is part of any religion that claims a belief system that can't be experienced or observed by everyone the same way. I don't mean spiritual experiences, I mean just from the perspective of differentiating from the way science functions, where ideas are based on repeatable, observable results or conditions.

For example, I have a father, you have a father. Now, I have an expectation that when I am wounded, my father will pick me up and comfort me. That is faith. The fact is that he is my father, whether I have faith in him or not. It's scientifically provable that he is my father. That doesn't diminish my faith in him, his character or who he is.

Ok, but to me you're still talking about two different things. The fact that biologically he's your father, and your faith that he'll behave in a manner you describe and expect. All (biological) fathers certainly don't behave that way. And the fact that you expect and have faith yours will is probably based on direct personal experiences of just that. But now we're getting more into psychology.

As to the how and why, you have a point, to a degree. What's the point of how if you don't know why?

There can be lots of reasons to know how, even if not why. I don't think legitimate science has ever tried to prove WHY God created the universe, or us in it. HOW the natural world functions is very useful and important to us even if we never know the greater why's.

What motivates science if not a deeper desire to understand, and at that point, you are moving from simply how into why.

What is it then? I've always considered that was a major motivating factor for scientists.

The difference is, though, that religions in general (I told you I wouldnt generalize, but here I go) don't ask why, they purport to KNOW why.

I agree. Where as even a well supported and widely accepted scientific theory is still just a strong probably to any real scientist.

I beg to differ on the point of speculation when it comes to science. I'm not a "don't take the sick to the hospital because God will sort it all out," kind of guy, but I do think that much of what I have read from evolutionary biologists makes amazing leaps of speculation, mostly because they are working from very inconclusive evidence.

Well, scientist do LIKE to speculate, but it's not tolerated well in theories was my point. If you publish a paper in a major scientific journal on any subject, you'd better have some darn good experimental evidence to back it up, or you're risking some serious and long term damage to your credability and career. As far as scientists making speculative statements, that's a little different. We all do that.

One of the studies I read not too recently proposed that because a certain lizard had striated toes (somewhere between 9-12 of them), and because fish flippers are striated as well, obviously (though we have no record of a transitional species) that lizard evolved from an ichthyological form. I could just as easily say that since a bird's wings are striated and cocked at an angle, similar to this rear leg, the lizard actually evolved from a flying version rather than an aquatic environment.

I don't know this study, or its source, but if he published that in an actual credible journal without any evidence, I bet he's probably not doing front line work in his field any more. If he just made that statement in an article as an idea that he's investigating, well that's different. A scientist will speculate and come up with theories, but that's just the beginning. It's then off to the lab or to the field to try and make your theories work, and test how sound they are.

The truth is, we really don't know enough to qualify the existence of the lizard species evolution. It could have striated toes because it lives near water, or ponds, or because it acts as an aid in climbing certain surfaces in its home environment.

We have theories on the evolution of entire species, I don't think anyone is claiming to know exactly all the details.

For a good read, I suggest you look up anything by Michael Denton. He's a cellular biologist who contends that anyone in the microbiological field can easily see God if they look for him. But read through his contentions. It's fascinating.

Hmm, that name sounds familiar...I know some people that say you can easily see God if you eat certain plants that grow in the deserts of the southwest, I'm not so sure about that. The problem is, God is not a universal experience like most things science deals with. For God to be easily seen in something for any two people, they'd have to be looking for the same thing. And that gets at the heart of my point, science and spirituality deal with different things that are sometimes easily confused. The range of spiritual or religous beliefs among scientists of even the greatest repute varies as widely as any other population segment, from complete and staunch athieism (sp?) to faith that would shame the Pope.

Microevolution - I am referring to evolutionary traits which are in response to environmental conditions. For example, Giraffe's necks evolving over time higher and higher because of diminishing low-level plant growth.

That's evolution. That's what Darwin described (well, with tutles and iguanas, but the same idea). That's not exactly how it works, but the idea is there. The idea that people commonly mistake for evolution, that we evolved from amoeba or monkeys, is left to that broader less formal speculation, and I can tell you there's a great number of scientists that don't buy that any more than a priest. It's possible for original phyla, classes, and orders to evolve that way I guess, but there's not enough evidence to support it very strongly. Where as things like species divergence, genetic migration, and trait preservation and selection are directly observable and pretty strong theories and deal with the species level of things.

-Mel

[DHD]

Talking about non-Christian faiths, Jews, Christians and Muslims have the same roots. (Christianity evolved from the Jewish faith and the Islam from Christianity.) And Christianity tried to hide facts if they collided with their dogma (best known example: Copernicus discovery of the sun as the middle of our solar system instead of Earth... and it's rediscovery by Gallileo).

And I believe in extraterrestrial life and the occult. I believe there are thousands, if not millions of lifeforms in the universe. Some are basic (like bacteria, amoebes (sp?)) and some are advanced, maybe even superior to mankind.

[Rutaq]

Talking about non-Christian faiths, Jews, Christians and Muslims have the same roots. (Christianity evolved from the Jewish faith and the Islam from Christianity.) And Christianity tried to hide facts if they collided with their dogma (best known example: Copernicus discovery of the sun as the middle of our solar system instead of Earth... and it's rediscovery by Gallileo).

Interesting perspective. True, origins were the same, but I would be careful about generalizations. Judaism and Christianity are closely tied through the fact Jesus is the son of Joseph, granting him the royal jewish lineage of David, and of Mary, who herself was descended from the House of David, granting Jesus the physical blood tie as well. In fact, he's often referred to as the Root of David.

That said, however, the Jewish faith (excluding Messianic Jews, obviously) is decidedly non-Christian. In most Jewish circles, his existence is even of question (more of the orthdox view.). I believe I have seen enough factual evidence to support not only his existence, but his claim to deity as well.

Don't get me started on Islam - just read the texts of the Quran and accompanying Islamic laws and you see Muhammed exercising a great deal of whimsy and little consistency.

Now, as to the mistakes attributed to "Christianity," remember that factions exist and that humans are by no means perfect. Look at the Crusades. Thousands died for vanity there. This comes from a personal desire to controvert the sovereignty of the Bible. There are more examples - Copernicus (as you said), the Salem Witch Trials. Even clergy are not above greed, corruption, pride and deception. None of these traits were displayed or revered by Jesus, nor did Jesus suggest that war or violent conversion was necessary or endorsed. These were the acts of desperate humans who used the cloak of religion. They did not espouse Christian values.

So, be careful with generalizations.

[Melthavion]

A bit of wisdom I heard one time, It's wise to Not judge a man by his religion, but a religion by the men that follow it...

I'll leave it there for you to think about.

Let's not let this degrade into a religous debate. We were talking about science and religion in general, and how they relate to the possibility of extraterrestrail life, or little green men in general

-Mel

[Kahvi]

Yes Virginia there are aliens and smarter life forms out there <or so i believe>

Okee I highly believe in other life out there..the galaxy is too high and to far for us to be alone. Religion has nothing to do with life out there.

Plus i seen some wierd stuff when i was a kid..UFO to be presise. and it was flying low

so i do believe in life on other worlds

kahvi

[Tinuvhiell]

I saw a show on the Discovery Channel, or maybe the History one, about how some people believe we were placed here on earth by aliens- or maybe just that in our history there have been alien visitations. It was mentioned that there could be passages in the Bible that could be interpreted as alien influence. And it was also mentioned that there are cave paintings and other drawings of flying objects that could have been UFO's.

[Inahnia]

Well, personally, I have no doubt of it. I saw a UFO once, along with about 5 other people. It was not flying low, but it was absolutely not anything like a normal aircraft or a normal star.