Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
GMC Forum _ CHILL OUT _ Do You Think We Are "alone"
Posted by: Ivan Milenkovic Aug 3 2011, 10:07 AM
Ok guys, we all did read about forms of "life" existing in outer space, because there are so many starts, galaxies, it would be nearly impossible that we are "alone" in the Universe.
however, do you feel that some other forms of life came and exist on Earth, except we aren't aware of them? 
Posted by: Chris Evans Aug 3 2011, 10:19 AM
not sure, although I often think my wife comes from another planet 
( I can say that here, she doesnt frequent the GMC forum, phew )
Posted by: Daniel Realpe Aug 3 2011, 10:25 AM
I agree that it's nearly impossible that we're alone in this universe. If they are here or something, I really don't think so
Posted by: MickeM Aug 3 2011, 11:14 AM
Yeah, I think Tony (in another thread) was even visited by a few that hadn't yet adapted how humans behave.
Posted by: Sinisa Cekic Aug 3 2011, 11:51 AM
"The Truth Is Out There"
Posted by: fkalich Aug 3 2011, 12:20 PM
The difficultly lies in our having a sample of 1 event to draw conclusions from. Yes there are 200 billion galaxies, each on average with 200 billion stars in them. On the surface it would seem ludicrous for us to be the only event, "why would we be the only one?". But you get back to the sample of 1 that limits us from drawing any statistical conclusions.
That being said, the conditions conducive to the emergence of sentient life may be very rare, perhaps occurring only a few times in a galaxy. Having a large moon may be critical. Having a large outer planet like Jupiter certainly is. But it is highly probable that most solar systems are formed with small inner planets composed of heavier elements, and large outer gaseous ones.
Then again a species has to survive long enough to develop culture. Most of what we think of a unique to man is our culture, and that took 250 thousand years to develop (most in the past 5,000 years). Our species nearly became extinct at some point, perhaps down to just a few thousand of us. This is why humans are lacking much variation. People tend to think the races are very different, but in fact they are not, as animals go we are a very homogeneous species. If we compared our DNA pairs, Ivan and I would vary in about a million base pairs out of the 50 billion we have. If I compared my DNA to an African, we would also vary by only about 1 million base pairs.
To think we are the only ones here is silly, 40,000 trillion experiments are going to produce the conditions, and enough of them will have gotten past the obstacles. My guess is that there are 10,000 tool making species in each galaxy, meaning 2,000 trillion sentient species out there.
That may seem like a lot, but that is only one tool making species for every 20 million stars.
however, do you feel that some other forms of life came and exist on Earth, except we aren't aware of them?
Posted by: Fran Aug 3 2011, 01:26 PM
I obviously don't know, but I believe we are "alone", or else they would have already eaten us
Posted by: Sollesnes Aug 3 2011, 02:55 PM
Good post, fkalich!
The only thing in common for all things we know as life, is the need for liquid water (recently discovered). Water literally litters the universe, and I see no reason at all to think we are the only living beings in the cosmos, not the only intelliegnt beings either.
There is even a very high chance for microbial life as close as on Saturns moon 'Titan'.
And to the question: I don't think there are aliens on earth. I believe any encounter with technologically superior beings would probably involve some form of robotic presentation, to avoid any virus or bacteria contamination for both sides. And if they are anything like humans, logic dictates they would not come in peace.
Also very interesting is the chance for us to be "aliens" ourselves. I'm not thinking of any new-age BS, but life may very well have been transported around in the universe on astroids. Tardigrade-like beings could probably have survived within astroids for a limited amount of time, and thus life could have spread between star-systems and maybye even further. Our oldest ancestors might very well be 'aliens'.
As the chance for life to create itself is very small (but certaintly is there, and even that gives a fair amount of life out there (as fkalich sais)), the biological needs to sustain life landed from meteors containing tardigrade-like beings is not as difficult or rare or time-consuming as what is needed to create life in the first place.
Posted by: Gabriel Leopardi Aug 3 2011, 03:18 PM
I don't have too much information about this but I can't believe that knowing that there are so many other galaxies out there we are alone... I think that there must be life in other places.. and I hope that they never decide to attack us! 
Posted by: Michael AC Aug 3 2011, 03:40 PM
That would depend on your viewpoint of Evolutionary Science or Creation Science. I subscribe to the later that the galaxies were created for signs and seasons and to show the magnitude of a creator and the uniqueness in each one of us.
With the prior viewpoint it is completely understandable that would follow in a belief of life in other galaxies.
Posted by: MonkeyDAthos Aug 3 2011, 03:55 PM
there might be live in our solar system, Jupiter moon's Europe.
the moon is cover, with ice and below it, people think there might be a vast ocean, and they are hoping to find life there microbacterium maybe but well life is life.
and we have aliens among us, what do you think Satriani is 
a normal bald guy? why do you think he use sun glasses almost all the time!
Posted by: Azzaboi Aug 3 2011, 07:47 PM
Sure there's microscopic celled life, but you will never find another intelligence lifeform. America actually faked the whole Aliens/UFO thing from the start with their stealth tech planes and helicopters and movies to what we see to look like.
If you look closely you might even be able to spot one in their 'Moon Landing' high budget, low quality 'doctored' motion picture!
But seriously, your asking Evolution vs Christain believe. If you believe in Evolution then you better watch out for some crazy aliens coming to invade and blow us all up (possibly us being the aliens knowing all those trigger happys)!
Posted by: thefireball Aug 3 2011, 08:06 PM
I'll just say I doubt there are others out there.
Posted by: MonkeyDAthos Aug 3 2011, 08:13 PM
sure you might just found microscopic life, but don't forget that's how it all started, i don't say in the next 10,100 years but million, they might evolve in some crazy ass Alien.
If you believe in Evolution then you better watch out for some crazy aliens coming to invade and blow us all up, ahah that's a soo ego humanist though q:
Posted by: Sollesnes Aug 3 2011, 09:24 PM
Remember that evolution doesn't necessarily mean growing into anything more complex or advanced. Whatever reproduces the most...
Azza, why do you believe there could be micro organisms, but not beings we would recognize as intelligent? It strikes me as an odd way of thinking. Intelligent could be.. like us? If there are beings out there that somehow got technology to utilize shortcuts in time-space (how else get to earth?), there would have to be a million at the same stage as we are for each of those...
Road from microbial life to life functioning the way we see on earth today would not be a difficult one, if the conditions are right (which there are no reason to doubt there being).
Sure if you put your thinking in the creationist side, I'll respect that of course, but by your post it didn't seem so (and it being a mostly american phenomenon among developed countries)?
Posted by: fkalich Aug 3 2011, 09:56 PM
Good posts all. Regarding sentient life, and this is interesting, neurologists today generally subscribe to believing that consciousness is rooted in the neocortex. This is based on the fact that lesions in the brain have been observed to remove elements of consciousness. For example their are people with damage to one part of the brain who will tell you they are blind, but can still catch a ball, or point precisely to a light source. Still they will insist that they are blind. Sight is still there, but they are not consciously aware of it. Other than higher mammals, other animals may have little or no conscious self at all. I expect they all have a little of it, but the light may be quite dim in most, they may be nothing more than biological robots running on auto pilot, giving an illusion of consciousness.
It may be very rare to have evolved conscious life on any planet, as only higher members of one family (mammals) appear to have done so. Dog lovers will be happy to know that dogs are an advanced mammal with a relatively large proportional neocortex. Cats have this as well, but a little less pronounce than dogs. It makes me a bit sad that my two fish are probably little more than biological robots, they give the illusion of being conscious. But so do robot dogs playing soccer.
Posted by: Adrian Figallo Aug 4 2011, 01:31 AM
i always ask myself the same question, maybe under water? who knows, but tis very intriguing , i think our 5 senses limit us in many ways.
Posted by: jstcrsn Aug 4 2011, 03:45 AM
Azza, why do you believe there could be micro organisms, but not beings we would recognize as intelligent? It strikes me as an odd way of thinking. Intelligent could be.. like us? If there are beings out there that somehow got technology to utilize shortcuts in time-space (how else get to earth?), there would have to be a million at the same stage as we are for each of those...
Road from microbial life to life functioning the way we see on earth today would not be a difficult one, if the conditions are right (which there are no reason to doubt there being).
Sure if you put your thinking in the creationist side, I'll respect that of course, but by your post it didn't seem so (and it being a mostly american phenomenon among developed countries)?
I am not picking on you ,just replying to the evoulution talk
if that is your theory ,let me ask you ,is it possible that we could find new information that says our figures our off
example , the scientific elite thought the world was flat until they got new info proving there science was wrong
could that hapen again with oue evolution theory ?
let me help any body out
if you say yes. we could get new info - you have just determined it is still just a theory
if you say no you, just don't ,you will probably sound foolish
Posted by: MonkeyDAthos Aug 4 2011, 04:14 AM
if that is your theory ,let me ask you ,is it possible that we could find new information that says our figures our off
example , the scientific elite thought the world was flat until they got new info proving there science was wrong
could that hapen again with oue evolution theory ?
it could in my opinion, when we "create a theory", we are trying to prove something that we "expect", so our theory is, at the very beginning ,corrupted with our expectations, there aren't any perfect theories, just approximation of it (the perfect).
beside.
X Livings Beings evolve into more complex ones, it took millions of years, but yet you can't assume that all Livings Beings in the universe (assuming that they exist, intelligent or not), will evolve in the same as us, you will fall into the solipsism in my opinion, thinking that way.
so yep, unless you get the theory of evolution, with "Rational", valid info..you cannot advance on knowledgment and i am pretty sure one day we will.
Posted by: Mudbone Aug 4 2011, 07:37 AM
Its funny how people misinterpret the word "theory". A theory is the gathering of facts into a single concept used to explain things. Gravity is also a theory, but I don't think anybody will be testing it by jumping off a building. It was mentioned earlier that the worlds top scientists said that the world was flat. This is not true. Pythagoras figured out that the world was spherical in the 6th century BC. Many civilizations accepted that the world was spherical, but I'm not going to get into why the flat Earth concept prevailed, because I know some people will get bent out of shape.
Anyhow, for those of you outside of the US, you have to check out the TV series called "Cosmos." It was originally aired in the early 80's, back when we were a more intelligent country. Its really sad how we have slipped so far away from being the world leader in science. Being so engrossed in science was good for us, and good for the world as well. This show was presented by Carl Sagan, a preeminent astronomer and philosopher. His wisdom and insight is dearly missed. The show elaborates on the cosmos and our place in it. The soundtrack was scored by Vangelis, and its brilliant. If you don't know who he is, look him up 
Heres two clips from the show Cosmos. I highly recommend you watch all 12 or 13 episodes. It might change your perspective on everything. It definitely changed mine.
Posted by: Todd Simpson Aug 4 2011, 08:09 AM
Steve Vai is proof of Alien life
Posted by: Mudbone Aug 4 2011, 09:03 AM
Absolutely
Posted by: The Uncreator Aug 4 2011, 10:14 AM
well statistically we know more about the universe than we do about the furthest depths of the ocean. So I think it is not only possible, but highly likely.
Posted by: Sollesnes Aug 4 2011, 10:47 AM
Carl Sagan is great, one of my favourites. I have a large poster on my room with the "look at that dot" quote
if that is your theory ,let me ask you ,is it possible that we could find new information that says our figures our off
example , the scientific elite thought the world was flat until they got new info proving there science was wrong
could that hapen again with oue evolution theory ?
let me help any body out
if you say yes. we could get new info - you have just determined it is still just a theory
if you say no you, just don't ,you will probably sound foolish
Of course it is just a theory. I am open for anything. Evolution is however the most likely theory to explain the origins of our species.
Evolution is a theory, just like gravity is a theory. But people sometimes have misconceptions of their meanings. Gravity is not just "what goes up must come down". Gravity is space-time and everything that comes with it. It can never be proven, but it's what is most likely with the information that we have. Due to the vagueness in the theory, new information are studied constantly.
There is no way to tell if humans really was 'created' the way we are now through evolution, but we know that evolution is real. We have seen animals evolve to fit new surroundings (due to changes) in closed areas, like the Madagascar. Therefore, in many ways, the theory of evolution is more certain than the theory of gravity, because we have seen every part of the theory happen in real life with our own eyes. It has been observed to be in effect today, like 'everything goes up, must come down'. Gravity is not as certain, yet some people seem to accept the theory of gravity easier than the theory of evolution.
Due to the knowledge then of evolution happening right now, the only logical assumption is to assume that it has been happening forever, and that it is a vital part of nature. That's why you can say that humans and chimpanees must have the same ancestor somewhere back in time, but this of course, can never be proven, as it can not be seen with your own eyes. The only thing you can do, is to look at what we know, and see what makes the most sense with the information that we have. So far, evolution fits everything about the explanation of our origin, but that of course, can never be proven, and might be changed later. The theory of evolution itself however, has been seen with our own eyes, and is not likely to change drastically, but the lines drawn from evolution (how modern species came to be), can never be as certain.
For all we know, we could have been created by a god of some kind, and then evolution has kicked in for other animals, but not humans. We could be descendents from human-looking aliens, we could have evolved from when life created itself, we could be evolved from life spreading to earth from asteroids, etc etc. We can never know for certain how humans and life on earth came to being, - but we have seen species evolve into new species (madagascar for example).
I believe that people beliving blindly in whatever science they believe in, saying it "cannot possibly be wrong", is no better than people beliving blindly in creation, saying it "cannot possibly be wrong". We are all constantly learning.
Posted by: MonkeyDAthos Aug 4 2011, 03:03 PM
+2, the true is in the man
Posted by: MonkeyDAthos Aug 4 2011, 04:19 PM
Edit: Double Post.
Posted by: Michael AC Aug 4 2011, 04:43 PM
In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.
We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.
While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
A theory starts as a hypothesis, an untested idea about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.
While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity is has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.
----------------------------------------
The key to the above is 4th paragraph. As more and more testing is being done, the evolutionary theory is becoming more skeptical as to why we are here. Many scientist are turning to the "theory" (by definition) of creation or are trying to marry the two together in Intelligent design.
Either view cannot be proven by science as neither were or are able to be observed. Both views support micro-evolution which can be observed. Past that it is a matter of choosing a belief in one or the other. That takes you into a whole different discussion, depending on what pair of glasses you are looking at the evidence through.
The Theory of Evolution vs. The Theory of Creationism
Neither is fact or scientific law and should not be taught as such.
Ok, no more from me...LOL...
Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Aug 4 2011, 04:50 PM
My friends what would we do if we would be able to use not 100% but let's say 25% of the total power of our brain? Levitate? Travel through time? Shapeshift? Re-grow severed limbs?
We are not alone for certain, but that doesn't make alien beings an evil invading race we've been way to brainwhased by TV in my opinion!
I for one, believe that the evolutionary process has gone way beyond the human being but in another place for certain!
As Sinisa said: 'The truth is out there!'
Posted by: jstcrsn Aug 5 2011, 03:35 AM
We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.
While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
A theory starts as a hypothesis, an untested idea about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.
While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity is has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.
----------------------------------------
The key to the above is 4th paragraph. As more and more testing is being done, the evolutionary theory is becoming more skeptical as to why we are here. Many scientist are turning to the "theory" (by definition) of creation or are trying to marry the two together in Intelligent design.
Either view cannot be proven by science as neither were or are able to be observed. Both views support micro-evolution which can be observed. Past that it is a matter of choosing a belief in one or the other. That takes you into a whole different discussion, depending on what pair of glasses you are looking at the evidence through.
The Theory of Evolution vs. The Theory of Creationism
Neither is fact or scientific law and should not be taught as such.
Ok, no more from me...LOL...
nicely said ,I just wish they would teach this in our schools
what would we do if we would be able to use not 100% but let's say 25% of the total power of our brain? Levitate? Travel through time? Shapeshift? Re-grow severed limbs? We are not alone for certain, but that doesn't make alien beings an evil invading race
we've been way to brainwhased by TV in my opinion!I for one, believe that the evolutionary process has gone way beyond the human being
but in another place for certain!As Sinisa said: 'The truth is out there!'
what is truth, before we can find it ?
Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Aug 5 2011, 06:47 AM
what is truth, before we can find it ?
Wisely spoken mate! It varies so much and yet we all believe in a certain idea, regarded as the truth, in respect to each thing or situation we are facing. I found this book called 'The book of ignorance' (I translated it from Romanian, although I don't know if this is the real title in English) you will be amazed if you get to read it, about the how many things we believe are true but for they are actually not.
For instance, while reading that book I just found out that the chameleon changes his color in respect to certain feelings it has (joy, fear, sadness etc) NOT in respect to the environment surrounding it
Posted by: fkalich Aug 5 2011, 10:30 AM
Anyhow, for those of you outside of the US, you have to check out the TV series called "Cosmos." It was originally aired in the early 80's, back when we were a more intelligent country.
America is not as stupid as you think, we just don't have the money that we used to have. But not everybody is a mindless zombie. I have one of the best pubic libraries around in my community, Johnson Country Kansas. Our library has everything, and I know what waiting lists often are for checking out items of intellectual merit.
Open questions exist regarding Evolutionary theory, but nothing major is in dispute. Go to any of the Ivy league or top California schools for example, and find me even ONE professor in any of the science departments who would agree that creationism has any scientific basis whatever, or that would have any major dispute with Evolutionary theory. Don't hold your breath looking for one. Maybe you can find one at Oral Roberts, Michele Bachmann's alma mater. Maybe you got that from her. She said that many Noble prize winners believe in creationism. Right! She also does not believe in global warming. Before you ever take what Michele says seriously, always remember....
what would we do if we would be able to use not 100% but let's say 25% of the total power of our brain? Levitate? Travel through time? Shapeshift? Re-grow severed limbs?We physically use 100% of our brains, not just part as some incorrectly say. Now, that does not mean we use them well, but we definitely use them. This is proven with brain imaging, every part of a person's undamaged brain will show electrical activity.
Posted by: tonymiro Aug 5 2011, 11:22 AM
We physically use 100% of our brains, not just part as some incorrectly say. Now, that does not mean we use them well, but we definitely use them. This is proven with brain imaging, every part of a person's undamaged brain will show electrical activity.
Absolutely. Brain imaging also debunks the left brain/right brain creative vs scientific paradigm.
A little OT perhaps but given all the discussion about scientific theory and truth I wonder where people stand viz Karl Popper and falisification?
Posted by: fkalich Aug 5 2011, 01:09 PM
A little OT perhaps but given all the discussion about scientific theory and truth I wonder where people stand viz Karl Popper and falisification?
To me it seems to boil down to "falsifiable" implying you are dealing with a set on which testing is fully possible. The hypothesis that laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe is not falsifiable. However them being uniform on Earth is testable, thus falsifiable. In our human existence, we are forced to have a statistical slant on things, when other possibilities are way out on the tails of the bell curve in our experience, we have to go with them being false, or so.
And generally we will be mostly correct. Sure Newton was not totally correct, but for most practical purposes he was still darn close.
Regarding creationism, that does not even appear anywhere in the bell curve, there is just no scientific basis for it at all, no evidence whatever.
I don't believe in String Theory either by the way, for the same reason. It is sort of like creationism in that way, it is an explanation that can't be proven or disproved, at least as I understand it. I don't consider anything like that to be science, any more than I consider creationism to be science.
Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Aug 5 2011, 01:39 PM
Open questions exist regarding Evolutionary theory, but nothing major is in dispute. Go to any of the Ivy league or top California schools for example, and find me even ONE professor in any of the science departments who would agree that creationism has any scientific basis whatever, or that would have any major dispute with Evolutionary theory. Don't hold your breath looking for one. Maybe you can find one at Oral Roberts, Michele Bachmann's alma mater. Maybe you got that from her. She said that many Noble prize winners believe in creationism. Right! She also does not believe in global warming. Before you ever take what Michele says seriously, always remember....
We physically use 100% of our brains, not just part as some incorrectly say. Now, that does not mean we use them well, but we definitely use them. This is proven with brain imaging, every part of a person's undamaged brain will show electrical activity.
Exactly what I was saying
we usually live taking some things for certain - shame on me for not being more inquisitive before writing this and thank you for showing it to me 
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)