NASA basically announced there's no doubt life exist on other planets Kepler 452-b

originally posted by: AshFan
News flash, we are not special in any way. RIP Religion.

Unless the entire universe is special, and we are just part of it. Still makes us special. There is a Buddhist proverb that the creation is a finger pointing at God. Having the realization that the universe is greater than just us is not at odds with that.

a reply to: openminded2011

Unless the entire universe is special, and we are just part of it. Still makes us special.

Everyone is special in their own special way.
Have a trophy.

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: neoholographic
There is available circumstantial evidence that points to there being life on other planets in general. However, there is no direct evidence for life on any particular planet (or moon).

Using out own solar system as an example, which we can study in relative detail and relatively directly, we can say that places such as Europa, Enceladus and Titan are good indications that there are planets and Moons out there in the galaxy that may have the necessary ingredients for life - but that still doesn't mean have no solid evidence for there being life on Europa, Enceladus, and Titan.

Yes, worlds such as those moons I mentioned (and maybe Kepler 452-B) as examples of places that have the ingredients to support life provide enticing general evidence for life in the galaxy, but there is no evidence that those specific places actually have life.

Just because your blind personal belief wants those places to have evidence for life, that doesn't mean it they do. They are still simply places that could possibly be hospitable for life, but that in itself is not evidence of life.

Wrong again. We have solid evidence that life exists on other planets. This is why Hawking said Aliens ALMOST CERTAINLY exist and Dr. Kaku said this:

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

The reason Scientist are becoming less uncertain about life existing on other planets is because of the EVIDENCE.

They're not waking up and saying maybe I will say Aliens ALMOST CERTAINLY EXIST for no reason. They're saying these things based on the evidence.

There's NOTHING that prohibits life from forming on other planets and that says life can only happen on Earth.

This universe has no choice but to produce life, stars, comets, solar systems and more over and over again. There doesn't need to be an evidence that a specific place has life. WHO MADE THIS CLAIM?????

WHERE DID I SAY A SPECIFIC PLANET HAS LIFE ON IT?

Where did Hawking or Kaku say this?

You actually supported EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING and then you tried to refute it by debating something that nobody ever claimed. This is just NONSENSE. yOU SAID:

Yes, worlds such as those moons I mentioned (and maybe Kepler 452-B) as examples of places that have the ingredients to support life provide enticing general evidence for life in the galaxy, but there is no evidence that those specific places actually have life.

ENTICING GENERAL EVIDENCE FOR LIFE IN THE GALAXY!!!!

That's exactly what I've been saying and the discovery of Kepler 452-b provides more of the EVIDENCE.

You then switch to a STRAWMAN that has nothing to do with what I said or what Hawking or others have said. You said there's NO EVIDENCE that specific planets have life. First, nobody claimed this but secondly this contradicts what you just said.

If there's EVIDENCE for life in the galaxy then what prohibits life from forming on other planets?? Why is life in the universe restricted to just earth? Scientist are not just going to stick there heads in the sand in the face of evidence and this is why Hawking said Aliens ALMOST CERTAINLY exist and Dr. Kaku said this:

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

He didn't say there's definitely Aliens on Europa or Kepler 22-b so your argument is just silly and you contradict yourself. Like I said, our universe has no choice but to form solar systems, planets, galaxies and life. Unless we find some kind of special ingredient that shows that life in the universe can't occur anywhere in the universe but earth, then you can easily say based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE life exists outside of earth.

Are you totally blind to the word 'almost'? Does 'almost certain' mean a guarantee to you?

And really, you should look up the word 'evidence' – there is absolutely NO evidence of any other life but that on this planet. I think you are confusing 'evidence' for 'probability'.

If you'd change those two words around I/we could possibly agree with what you're saying. Otherwise, you look a little, well, desperate.

originally posted by: 321Go
I think you are confusing 'evidence' for 'probability'.

Perfect way of putting it.

There is a high probability that life exists elsewhere due to circumstantial evidence regarding the size of the universe and the veracity of life as we know it, but there is no real evidence of life itself...

...(although I personally believe it does exist elsewhere -- by my personal feelings about don't matter, nor make it any more probable).

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: 321Go
I think you are confusing 'evidence' for 'probability'.

Perfect way of putting it.

There is a high probability that life exists elsewhere due to circumstantial evidence regarding the size of the universe and the veracity of life as we know it, but there is no real evidence of life itself...

...(although I personally believe it does exist elsewhere -- by my personal feelings about don't matter, nor make it any more probable).

Thanks.

I also believe there is likely to be life elsewhere. The 'probability' of simple single-celled life existing beyond Earth is very high, but as you increase the complexity of life, the 'probability' of that life existing decreases due to many many factors. Advanced intelligent life will be extremely rare, but not impossible.

Life in itself does not translate to certain intelligent life.

originally posted by: neoholographic
“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

Unless they're not.

originally posted by: 321Go
Are you totally blind to the word 'almost'? Does 'almost certain' mean a guarantee to you?

And really, you should look up the word 'evidence' – there is absolutely NO evidence of any other life but that on this planet. I think you are confusing 'evidence' for 'probability'.

If you'd change those two words around I/we could possibly agree with what you're saying. Otherwise, you look a little, well, desperate.

You sound ridiculous. How can Hawking be ALMOST CERTAIN if there was no evidence? This is just an asinine comment. Yes there's evidence and I said nothing about a GUARANTEE.

Sadly, you fall into the same ILLOGICAL PITFALLS as others before you. It's you that looks silly. You said there's ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF LIFE ON ANY OTHER PLANET EXCEPT THIS ONE.

You sound worse than the poster you talked about 100% guarantee.

Let me clue you in to why Hawking can be ALMOST CERTAIN and Dr. Michio Kaku can say this:

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

They can say these things because 1st, we're evidence that life exists in the universe.

2nd we know that the universe is a favorable place for life, to exist and we find things like extremophiles where life still exists in the harshest conditions.

3rd the universe forms planets, life, stars, solar systems and galaxies and as NASA just said, earth like planets are "QUITE COMMON."

So based on the EVIDENCE Hawking, Kaku and others can say these things. Absent this EVIDENCE they couldn't say these things.

Now, if we looked at these things and discovered earth was the only place in the universe where conditions for life could exist or earth had some special ingredient that excluded life from forming anywhere but earth than Hawking, Kaku and others couldn't say these things.

So when you make the asinine comment that there's ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, that says more about the insecurity of your belief and has nothing to do with science.

originally posted by: neoholographic
You sound ridiculous.

Dude...

By any measure you care to define, I guarantee you that you are the only one who looks ridiculous. Even a basic grasp of the English language is beyond you.

Here are some quotes by Hawking:
"To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational..."
Here he is talking about the mathematics of probability, not of absolute certainty.

"We believe that life arose spontaneously on Earth, so in an infinite universe, there must be other occurrences of life. Somewhere in the cosmos, perhaps intelligent life might be watching these lights of ours, aware of what they mean. Or do our lights wander a lifeless cosmos, unseen beacons announcing that, here on one rock, the universe discovered its existence? Either way, there is no better question. It's time to commit to finding the answer, to search for life beyond Earth. The Breakthrough initiatives are making that commitment. We are alive. We are intelligent. We must know."
In this statement he poses a couple questions and uses the adverb 'perhaps'. Most telling is the last sentence "We must know" in which he admits he doesn't know so we must find out.

To answer your points:

1. He, or any other scientist, has not spoken of any 'evidence' at all – only the likelihood or probability that life exists elsewhere. We are evidence that life exists on this planet, not the universe as a whole, although I concede that some orders of life elsewhere is a very high probability.

2. Only Earth is a favourable place for life as far as we know. How do you assume from a single example that life is favourable elsewhere? The examples of life you talk about occur on Earth – there is no evidence of these extremophiles existing elsewhere in the universe, or even our solar system.

3. The Earth-like planets NASA talks about refer to only one criterion – which is all they are immediately looking for – that the planets orbit a liquid water zone around their star. That is the only reference of similarity to Earth they are making.

I repeat, there is no evidence outside of our own planet that life exists elsewhere. That is a fact that absolutely nobody – not even Hawking – can deny or refute.

Ultimately, we probably believe in the same things, it's just that I will defer to evidence, proof, logic and probability rather than the juvenile assumptions you're using.

People still holding on to the "life on another planet" thing, huh? The theory of creation doesn't sit well with humans, does it? lol WE ARE the "aliens". Our bodies are nothing more than space suits.

Besides, why do we spend so much time, energy and money exploring space? Does it matter what's "out there"? Does it help us or our planet? So again, why do we spend so much time, energy and money exploring space; when we could be using our time, energy and money fixing our planet, that's on the brink of being uninhabitable?

Since when has NASA been straight up and honest with the people who pay for NASA to exist? And, Stephen Hawking is an IDIOT! He's angry with God, for obvious reasons. Being smart does not make one WISE.

originally posted by: JuJuBee
Since when has NASA been straight up and honest with the people who pay for NASA to exist?

I'm just going to place these here and I hope that you and others who believe as you do watch them.

They come courtesy of the nice people I met at NASA Ames:





BTW: Guess what was in the box?

Is it a two-way radio for the inhabitants of K452b?

a reply to: JadeStar

I'm tempted to answer a cat with a radioactive isotope, but that's just the humorist in me.

originally posted by: 321Go
Is it a two-way radio for the inhabitants of K452b?

lol, i wish!!!

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: JadeStar

I'm tempted to answer a cat with a radioactive isotope, but that's just the humorist in me.

Schrodinger just laughed from beyond the grave!

a reply to: 321Go

Wrong on all fronts.

Look at your quote:

"We believe that life arose spontaneously on Earth, so in an infinite universe, there must be other occurrences of life.

THERE MUST BE OTHER OCCURRENCES OF LIFE.

This is exactly what he said in his special on this topic. He then goes on to speculate and he says:

Somewhere in the cosmos, perhaps intelligent life might be watching these lights of ours, aware of what they mean. Or do our lights wander a lifeless cosmos, unseen beacons announcing that, here on one rock, the universe discovered its existence?

EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE SAID!!

There MUST BE life in the universe based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. Hawking has went over some of the same EVIDENCE in his special on this. Without any EVIDENCE he could never say there must be other occurrences of life. He could of made this statement fourty years ago if it had nothing to do with the current AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

You're not making any sense.

He said:

"To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational," he said, according to The Sunday Times.

What numbers is he talking about????????

Again, it's ASININE to say there's no evidence because the numbers he's talking about comes from EVIDENCE. It's not just about probability, it's about the EVIDENCE that has been discovered over the years. Without this evidence Hawking would never say ALIENS ALMOST CERTAINLY EXIST.

You know why you couldn't make this statement 30 or 40 years ago, because there was no EVIDENCE!

51 Pegasi b (abbreviated 51 Peg b), sometimes unofficially named Bellerophon, is an extrasolar planet approximately 50 light-years away in the constellation of Pegasus. 51 Pegasi b was the first planet to be discovered orbiting a main-sequence star,[1] the Sun-like 51 Pegasi, and marked a breakthrough in astronomical research. (The first exoplanet discovery was made by Aleksander Wolszczan in 1992, around pulsar PSR 1257.) It is the prototype for a class of planets called hot Jupiters.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is EVIDENCE THAT LIFE EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE that wasn't available 30-40 years ago because we have found that earth like planets are "QUITE COMMON" as NASA said when they announced the discovery of Kepler 452-b.

Now let's say, we found EVIDENCE that earth like planets are very rare and most planets are Jupiter sized planets that aren't in the habitable zone and we haven't found any planets around a G2 star like our own.

THIS WOULD BE EVIDENCE AGAINST LIFE FORMING IN THE UNIVERSE.

So again, to say there's no evidence is ASININE!

originally posted by: neoholographic
So again, to say there's no evidence is ASININE!

No, to say that there is evidence is asinine. Instead of spending so much time arguing your incorrect position and making yourself look more and more foolish (if that's even possible at this point), why not invest some of that time and energy into learning how science works? It's not hard; They teach this stuff to 8 year olds ffs.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

But don't you get it? THERE ABSOLUTELY IS EVIDENCE FOR ALIEN LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS because the ASININES FROM URANUS TOLD MICHIO KAKU AND STEPHEN HAWKING and then they told neoholographic too. Ergo, IT'S ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE AND SCIENCE!!!

Don't you understand that?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

What????

You haven't said ONE THING that has anything to do with Science. Most of your post are inane ramblings about nothing. You hear ASININE COMMENTS coming from the head in the sand crowd like:

100% Certainty
Absolute Evidence
Guarantee

These things are just IDIOTIC and have nothing to do with Science. Somehow people thinks science has to be 100% certain about things before they can look at the available evidence and reach a conclusion as to what theories best describe the available evidence.