The Main Reasons Why Aliens Don't Exist

You know, I used to be the biggest UFO skeptic in the world. I raised the same points the OP does.

However, Last year, i believe, I saw something unbelievable at Downtown Sacramento, which up to this point has be stunned. I looked in the sky and saw some weird lights that seemed to be rotating and hovering somewhere which seemed not far from the downtown area..I was like "WTF? that thing is HOVERING and not moving in air!".. Luckily I had about 7-8 friends with me at the time, and neither of us had an explanation. The next day I go online in fear and see that other people around the Sacramento area saw the same thing, also describing it the same way I saw it. You can look that up, it's on ATS. One of the VERY FEW UFO sightings that were captured by a NEWS HELICOPTER! I was in shock!

Today, I'm still skeptical of UFO's visiting Earth, since my sighting could be explained somehow, i'm sure...but it DID open my eyes about extraterrestrials in our universe. That was an awesome experience

I find Mars faces using NEGATIVE images.Why waste time when you can cut to the chase? This is Spirit Rover solar panel at bottom for size comparison in case you OVERLOOKED it or missed it or thought it was just rocks.

Any of you ever watched the movie stargate or seen the TV series? THe go'uld is and alien race that came to earth at the time of the pharohs etc and they had built the pyramids and then left the planet.

Now I see a lot of logic in Stargate.

The Pyramids are completly amazing and it is highly unlikly that the egyptions made them especially with the technology they had at the time. Even with our current technology it would be nigh impossible for us to make them.

There was a TV documentary not long a go when some scientists where trying to recreate one and failed miserably.

Think about the weight of the blocks they were carrying, atleast a tone in weight and the wheel hadnt even been invented then!

Have a look at this website for more facts on this matter:

www.outerworlds.com...

i believe this, I believe in other life.

I have to ask what constitutes proof? Eye witness reports are enough to put a person on death row, yet they are as fallible as people who witness UFOs? Take for instance the Phoenix lights. An object the size of a mountain flew over the city at 8:30pm - 9:00pm on a tracked flight path. At 9:30pm - 10:30pm a series of flares were videotaped, and that's the video we all see. Even the governor of Arizona was convinced by what he and the rest of the city had seen.

So, a CITY witnesses a UFO, and everyone is crazy. But we will take one person's testimony of what happened in a dark alley under extreme duress. And possibly kill someone over it. Tell me then, on what can we rely? Yes a person's senses can sometimes trick them. However one cannot write off an account on a scale like that. What more evidence do you want?

reply to post by Lord Altmis


Aliens don't exist?!!!! Really?!!!!! Wow i thought space never ended... That means space goes on FOREVER!!! Now imagine an atom in the cell of a clown in an atom in a cell in a clown!!!! AND IT [COLOR=RED]NEVER ENDS![/COLOR] In all that space you think we're alone...

It is impossible, that in this entire universe, only Earth is populated. I rest my case.

a reply to: Lord Altmis

Here go a few facts that refute the existence of life outside of Earth (incoming wall of text):

FACT #1: Based on our fastest capable speeds it would take 70,000 years to reach the nearest solar system. Even if we went at a fraction of that speed and collided with a small rock on the way the ship would be utterly destroyed. And the probability of life in any one solar system is so astronomically remote, the nearest system would not be merely 70,000 years away but at best billions of years away and more likely trillions of years away. So even if life did exist on another planet, it's irrelevant. Stick with your Bible.

FACT #2: Even if an alien race existed they would still need a cause as well, and on and on, but infinite regress is impossible, because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Moreover, we would not have existed, because an eternity would still be going on before it could every reach this point. Infinite regress is not only proven false on both accounts but inherently contradictory.

FACT #3: There have not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe for life to exist on another planet. Science doesn't know what life is and can't explain how life arose from the chaos of an explosion that sterilized the entire cosmos a trillion times over. "Natural selection" is no help. It can neither create life nor assist the first living thing to start functioning. The first living cell would have had to come about by pure chance. But this is mathematically impossible--and there is no arguing with mathematics.

There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the cosmos. Assuming 10^12 interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (30 billion years) as twice the evolutionists' age of the universe, we get 10^110 (80 +12+18) as the total number of possible interatomic interactions in 30 billion years.

If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe. About 1,000 protein molecules composed of amino acids are needed for the most primitive form of life. To find a proper sequence of 200 amino acids for a relatively short protein molecule has been calculated to require "about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos! No random process could ever result in even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest form of life.

"It is therefore sheer irrationality...to believe that random chemical interactions could ever [form] a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavourable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we see in living systems? To do so with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion, represents a serious breach of scientific integrity" (John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. See In Six Days, pp. 224-25).

Donald Page, an eminent cosmologist, calculated the odds of the universe existing 10(10^1240). Remember, the simplest physical structure upon which natural selection might operate must happen by chance--and it can't.

When anyone says that an eye, for example, couldn't happen by chance, Dawkins responds in an offended tone, "Well, of course an eye couldn't happen by chance! Natural selection is the very opposite of chance!" But Dawkins doesn't mention that natural selection is impossible without some living thing that can replicate itself.

originally posted by: sonics1030

Here go a few facts that refute the existence of life outside of Earth (incoming wall of text):

FACT #1: Based on our fastest capable speeds it would take 70,000 years to reach the nearest solar system. Even if we went at a fraction of that speed and collided with a small rock on the way the ship would be utterly destroyed. And the probability of life in any one solar system is so astronomically remote, the nearest system would not be merely 70,000 years away but at best billions of years away and more likely trillions of years away. So even if life did exist on another planet, it's irrelevant. Stick with your Bible.

FACT #2: Even if an alien race existed they would still need a cause as well, and on and on, but infinite regress is impossible, because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Moreover, we would not have existed, because an eternity would still be going on before it could every reach this point. Infinite regress is not only proven false on both accounts but inherently contradictory.

FACT #3: There have not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe for life to exist on another planet. Science doesn't know what life is and can't explain how life arose from the chaos of an explosion that sterilized the entire cosmos a trillion times over. "Natural selection" is no help. It can neither create life nor assist the first living thing to start functioning. The first living cell would have had to come about by pure chance. But this is mathematically impossible--and there is no arguing with mathematics.

There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the cosmos. Assuming 10^12 interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (30 billion years) as twice the evolutionists' age of the universe, we get 10^110 (80 +12+18) as the total number of possible interatomic interactions in 30 billion years.

I have a few issues with your facts!

1) You are assuming current "public" Terrestrial technology is being employed, and indeed, IF this were the case, you would be correct. The problem is that there are technologies employed currently on Earth that aren't so "public" capable of providing for not just better propulsion, but included a "field drive" capable of providing a 1G acceleration over a long term (1+ years) using rather meager energy sources. The power produced by the USS Ronald Reagan would suffice.

Accelerating for 1 year at 1G provides for FTL...even IF the hard way. At these velocities, space becomes something that is currently unknown to Terrestrial physics.

2) not sure what you're on about here, but I suspect it is not related. Or, you have a really confused notion about the genesis of life...anywhere. You do know, I hope, that life is spontaneous where it appears...needs no "cause"...Life simply IS.

3) Only 10E80 atoms in the whole universe? Well that's patiently untrue! Even the simplest of calculations places approximately 10E80 atoms in just 5.8 Billion people of aprox. size of 70Kg...that is less than the population of Earth, and does not include the atoms contained in the Earth.

So there ya have it...all three "facts" debunked!

Now...the reality; there is a 7.14e-10 probability of actually meeting ET face to face ( 5 chances in 7 billion). The probability of ET visiting is far greater...the probability of ET existing is 1.

a reply to: tanka418

I would just add (in relation to his claim that there hasn't been enough "atomic interactions" to produce life) that Scientists have, quite easily, turned a "soup" of simple proteins (much like what was around in the "primordial soup") into self-replicating molecules - the building blocks of life.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: tanka418

I would just add (in relation to his claim that there hasn't been enough "atomic interactions" to produce life) that Scientists have, quite easily, turned a "soup" of simple proteins (much like what was around in the "primordial soup") into self-replicating molecules - the building blocks of life.

Yet another argument for the ubiquity of life...

1) You are assuming current "public" Terrestrial technology is being employed, and indeed, IF this were the case, you would be correct. The problem is that there are technologies employed currently on Earth that aren't so "public" capable of providing for not just better propulsion, but included a "field drive" capable of providing a 1G acceleration over a long term (1+ years) using rather meager energy sources. The power produced by the USS Ronald Reagan would suffice.

Accelerating for 1 year at 1G provides for FTL...even IF the hard way. At these velocities, space becomes something that is currently unknown to Terrestrial physics.

Do you have a link about that Field Drive you're talking about. I never heard about it. I would like to find out more before reaching a conclusion.
I found this:

Real-world theories and science[edit]
A theoretical solution for faster-than-light travel which models the warp drive concept, called the Alcubierre drive, was formulated by physicist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994. Subsequent calculations found that such a model would require negative mass, the existence of which has never been supported by any evidence, and prohibitive amounts of energy.

However, it has recently been found that by changing the shape of the warp drive, much less negative mass and energy could be used, though the energy required is still many orders of magnitude greater than anything currently possible by human beings' technology. NASA engineers have begun preliminary research on such technology.

I don't know if that's your "field drive", but it's currently impossible to build one and there's no expectance of that changing in a forseeable future.
Also, according to the relativity, time and speed are connected, so if someone were to travel in a FTL spaceship, when they arrived back here, everyone that person knew would be dead and he/she would have missed generations worth of time (depending on the speed at which he/she traveled and the time it took to arrive).

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: tanka418

I would just add (in relation to his claim that there hasn't been enough "atomic interactions" to produce life) that Scientists have, quite easily, turned a "soup" of simple proteins (much like what was around in the "primordial soup") into self-replicating molecules - the building blocks of life.

Yes, they did, but, as you said yourself, they used simple proteins. They needed organic matter to "create" more organic matter, but what originated those proteins in the first place? It has to start from somewhere and cientists still don't understand how organic matter supposedly originated from inorganic matter!

Also, don't get me wrong. I would love to meet an alien civilization, learn about them, their culture, technology, etc, but I simply don't believe it will ever heppen.

originally posted by: sonics1030

Yes, they did, but, as you said yourself, they used simple proteins. They needed organic matter to "create" more organic matter, but what originated those proteins in the first place? It has to start from somewhere and cientists still don't understand how organic matter supposedly originated from inorganic matter!

You do understand that a protein is nothing more than a "kind" of organic molecule, right? And that these proteins can be created out of simple elements like: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen. And that these basic elements exist, to this day, in very great abundance. These proteins do not need any special conditions to be created, only right combination of basic elements. Further, many of these "base elements" (complex organic chemicals in this case) are created in the nova of a star; thus providing a large abundance of building blocks for future life.

ALSO...many of the proteins, building blocks are carried by meteors, asteroids, comets, etc. this is how "panspermia" works.

These mechanisms provide the ubiquity i spoke of...LIFE is in fact EVERYWHERE!!!

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: sonics1030

Yes, they did, but, as you said yourself, they used simple proteins. They needed organic matter to "create" more organic matter, but what originated those proteins in the first place? It has to start from somewhere and cientists still don't understand how organic matter supposedly originated from inorganic matter!

You do understand that a protein is nothing more than a "kind" of organic molecule, right? And that these proteins can be created out of simple elements like: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen. And that these basic elements exist, to this day, in very great abundance. These proteins do not need any special conditions to be created, only right combination of basic elements. Further, many of these "base elements" (complex organic chemicals in this case) are created in the nova of a star; thus providing a large abundance of building blocks for future life.

ALSO...many of the proteins, building blocks are carried by meteors, asteroids, comets, etc. this is how "panspermia" works.

These mechanisms provide the ubiquity i spoke of...LIFE is in fact EVERYWHERE!!!

In the first place, proteins are not life, they're components necessary for life, but are not alive by itself. The idea that a bunch of hydrocarbonets and other substances could magically gather in a single spot and form a cell complete with all of its "organs" all over the universe is simply ludicrous.

a reply to: sonics1030

Indeed, but no one is saying that, you are.

Left to their own devices, in the right conditions, these simple organic compounds will eventually develop into more complex one's, leading to the self-replicating molecules that are the basis of life here on Earth.

Simply put, all the ingredients of life are out there, being made by stars and are in great abundance. What then makes Earth so special that we're the only life, in the entire Universe? That is the ludicrous thing being said here.

a reply to: tanka418

You beat me to it

The Universe is full of the building blocks of life, literally stuffed the rafters. To even think we are the only life in the Galaxy, much less the Universe, is just idiotic given that there are 100 Billion stars in our galaxy alone, most of which appear to have planets..

originally posted by: sonics1030
In the first place, proteins are not life, they're components necessary for life, but are not alive by itself. The idea that a bunch of hydrocarbonets and other substances could magically gather in a single spot and form a cell complete with all of its "organs" all over the universe is simply ludicrous.

I did not say that proteins were alive, I said they are a "kind" of organic molecule...vast difference there.

While it is unlikely that these components "magically" gather...and no One has suggested that these building blocks gather together and produce a single celled entity. On the contrary, these chemicals take a very long time to form the kinds of complex chemistry required to bring forth life. BUT! It happens about like that on every single planet capable of supporting life. Life is spontaneous, and ubiquitous, and while none of us currently has the science to support that statement, I feel that it will someday be accepted as a "rule of thumb".

In the mean time consider this; It takes approximately 4.5 billion years for a planet to form and evolve life forms capable of leaving the home world. As Terrestrials venture out into the cosmos; this statement WILL be proven correct. (think of this as a prediction...)

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: sonics1030
In the first place, proteins are not life, they're components necessary for life, but are not alive by itself. The idea that a bunch of hydrocarbonets and other substances could magically gather in a single spot and form a cell complete with all of its "organs" all over the universe is simply ludicrous.

I did not say that proteins were alive, I said they are a "kind" of organic molecule...vast difference there.

While it is unlikely that these components "magically" gather...and no One has suggested that these building blocks gather together and produce a single celled entity. On the contrary, these chemicals take a very long time to form the kinds of complex chemistry required to bring forth life. BUT! It happens about like that on every single planet capable of supporting life. Life is spontaneous, and ubiquitous, and while none of us currently has the science to support that statement, I feel that it will someday be accepted as a "rule of thumb".

In the mean time consider this; It takes approximately 4.5 billion years for a planet to form and evolve life forms capable of leaving the home world. As Terrestrials venture out into the cosmos; this statement WILL be proven correct. (think of this as a prediction...)

I think of that as wishful thinking. From my point of view, that statement will never be proven right or wrong, because there will always be more to explore, and there will always be people thinking they exist somewhere else.

Left to their own devices, in the right conditions, these simple organic compounds will eventually develop into more complex one's, leading to the self-replicating molecules that are the basis of life here on Earth.

Also, the sheer amount of conditions necessary for the appearence of life as we know it, the proportion they would have to appear in and the timespan at which those conditions have to adapt are so especific and so many, that the probability of them happening all over the universe is next to none. It's not zero, but is pretty close to it.

Aditionaly, there is the problem of the relativity that makes impossible not only to travel faster than light (at least theoreticaly), but also makes it so that, even if ftl travel was possible, if we were to travel to a foreign star system and come back to earth in a ftl ship, when arrived back here, centuries would have passed on Earth and nobody we knew would be alive.

Here's something I always wondered. It seems that Alien abductions tend to be the 'suck the redneck out of his truck and up to the ship' variety. and consequently, there have been alot of people claiming that their vehicle stalled, a bright light appeared, and they were transported into a ship.

but do you know what NEVER HAPPENS? what never happens is a guy reporting that he saw down the street or in the distance, a stalled car, followed by a bright light, followed by Bubba being lifted into a ship. hmmmm.

Personally, given the statistical probability, I feel strongly that there is life in the universe, I just don't think its the kind of life that comes here to pick the brain of our rural friends.

JH

originally posted by: sonics1030
I think of that as wishful thinking. From my point of view, that statement will never be proven right or wrong, because there will always be more to explore, and there will always be people thinking they exist somewhere else.

What part is "wishful?"

There are estimated to be greater than 100 billion stars in the Milky Way. Of those stars astronomers tell us that 40% have Earth like planets. Science also tells us that up to 90% of those stars have planets...at that level planets become "ubiquitous"...so there is half of my prediction proven.

Of the 40%, or approx. 40 billion Earth like Planets about 7.6% orbit "G" class stars (like Sol)...that is something over 3 billion Earth like planets orbiting a Sol like star. The probability for life here is very great!

We should also understand that we are talking about "life" in a more generic sense, and not just "life as it is known on Earth".

Also, the sheer amount of conditions necessary for the appearence of life as we know it, the proportion they would have to appear in and the timespan at which those conditions have to adapt are so especific and so many, that the probability of them happening all over the universe is next to none. It's not zero, but is pretty close to it.

While perhaps more true than either of us realize; please remember that the Universe is so vast that even IF the probability of life was arbitrarily small; life would still be observed as ubiquitous.

Aditionaly, there is the problem of the relativity that makes impossible not only to travel faster than light (at least theoreticaly), but also makes it so that, even if ftl travel was possible, if we were to travel to a foreign star system and come back to earth in a ftl ship, when arrived back here, centuries would have passed on Earth and nobody we knew would be alive.

Yes...good ole "relativity"...which is why we leave the relativistic universe behind, travel at super luminal speeds...

Theoretically speaking; FTL isn't particularly difficult...one only needs to accelerate to a velocity faster than light. Yes, I am fully aware of what the old science stance on FTL is...old school science is just that "OLD"!

More modern work has provided Earth with field drives, and a "warp drive" both well within the realm of current science and technology (at least the field drive).

Thinking about interstellar travel in terms of old school "relativistic" physics is incorrect. a more current paradigm is required; a paradigm based in current science and technology.

If you need references to either of these drive systems I can provide, just understand, that the science and technology does exist to build FTL craft today...and may have already happened.

a reply to: houston101

Quick question...

How many times in your life have you seen "bubba" and his pick-up "stalled" or indeed, even parked, down the road, and bubba doing something around it?

A handful of times? less? (probably)...

Point is; you aren't likely to witness such a thing, even by accident. And, given the actual rarity of such events (abductions)...the probability of a witness is very small.