Aliens Are Real-Naturally! So Why The Fuss And Skepticism About UFO’s?

hey, i was just proposing some different ideas of how civilizations might progress. it seems too linear to just up the physical scale of energy sources. i thought what was needed was movement not just into larger things, but things in new dimensions, so to speak.

i wasn't trying to prove anything.

wow, didnt know you could classify beings in terms of "types". well what type would we be 25,000 years ago when man barely started to pick up sticks and throw them. can we just assume that there are really only four types of life forms? plants,insects,animals and advanced animals (such as our selves) that are able to adapt and advance to greater methods of living. can we guess that other beings (E.T's) were once primitive but have been living longer or just have a more advance biology to them? instead of saying type I or type XVI? maybe so called aliens with the big heads small bodies are humans from the far future or distant relatives in some way? who knows? look how man is slowy growing a larger head and smaller body to adapt to his surrounding. most animals have done this over time also. they usuall get smaller as evolution goes on due to adaptation. maybe one day humans will be able to use 95% of our brains instead of the 10-15% that scientist claim. i dont know.... just wondering though

[edit on 29-10-2007 by S.O.Blilbobby]

reply to post by indierockalien


Thanks for explain it.

I understand that it must be a difficult position.

But you have to remember the way you were before that happened and think that we may be even more sceptical than you were (if you were a sceptic) and that each person has their own way of dealing with things.

So, don't be frustrated, if you are as sure as you sound about it and you know that it is something hard for us to believe, give us at least a little more time.

reply to post by Observer_PR


Thats an ironic statement.
First of all, probabilities have a direct correlation to facts.
Probabilities are not "merely" possibilities, as some have been using as an argument for justification against this debate.
It's a false representation of the meaning of a probability. Using that logic a probability of 1:1 would have the same meaning as a probability of 100:1 or 1,000,000:1. If your argument is that they are all "merely" possibilites than the concept of what is probable is meaningless.

Give me 1,000,000,000:1 odds that if I play the lottery tonight I will win and I promise to split half with you - WHEN I win. I'll take my chances and marginalize the IF part of that.


[edit on 29-10-2007 by xEphon]

We don't have to explore space to find answers. The answers are right on our own planet and in our own bodies. We have the ability to create and ability to evolve neither one cancels out the other, because they coexist on the same line. Ironically the bible says we are the image of our creator. I firmly believe in an outside force be it Aliens with advanced technology or a god. Others say everything is energy made up of Atoms, then we are ONE and same and we are god.

The reasons behind my beliefs are not because of religion, or the bible, or anyone else. It's because of the overwhelming overall evidence that is in our everyday lives. Is that not proof enough? IE: When you look at a fruit tree for instance. It doesn't know what the sun, dirt or water is. It doesn't know why it bears fruit to feed animals and humans, It just does what it does. It even has thorns that protects it's fruit so lower dominants won't gorge themselves on the fruit. How and why is this?? unless of course it was done by design. From the very seed to the adult tree it is designed to do what it does it's all coded in it's DNA in the seed from the beginning. Nothing will change unless some event, man or god or aliens alters that DNA. Then you would have evolution which is a change. If you break it all down to the ATOM then yeah we are one and the same.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I think there is no one who suggests there is not life in the universe other than ours for that would be ridiculous

Really? As far as I know, as of this day, the only life anyone knows to exist is here on Earth, except perhaps for a few bacteria that snuck past the sterilization procedures and are tucked away in the corners of our space probes.

Now, there might be life somewhere else out there in the universe. It's pretty big. But you go ahead and show me how bigness creates life. You explain to me how if you have a bag full of bits of metal and you shake it long enough, it becomes a ticking watch or a sewing machine. Oh, you have to have billions of bags and shake them for billions of years, then it just happens? Now, that's ridiculous.

Until somebody finds other life, there is absolutely no reason to assume that it exists anywhere else in the universe, or ever has. Right now, it really looks like we're the only game in town.

reply to post by Nohup


You're right! Living proof is what is needed. But the bottom line is that there is an enormous amount of real estate comprising the universe, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly special about our neighborhood. The star that's our sun is nothing special and the Earth is just the third rock from it.

Are we so special to think that we are the center of the universe? Even scientists are wary of thinking so. They have done it before and been proven wrong. We are just a speck of dust in the outer reaches of the Milky Way galaxy which in turn is a miniscule part of the mindboggling expanse of the universe. To think we are alone is naive.

Courtesy: New Yorker Magazine, Inc.

Originally posted by Nohup

Now, there might be life somewhere else out there in the universe. It's pretty big. But you go ahead and show me how bigness creates life. You explain to me how if you have a bag full of bits of metal and you shake it long enough, it becomes a ticking watch or a sewing machine. Oh, you have to have billions of bags and shake them for billions of years, then it just happens? Now, that's ridiculous.

Until somebody finds other life, there is absolutely no reason to assume that it exists anywhere else in the universe, or ever has. Right now, it really looks like we're the only game in town.

First a watch is not created without intelligent influence. Now if you said; if you take a billion different life forms can another produce a watch then I would say yes.

When you look at what is needed to sustain life it is mathematically feasible that the universe is full of it. What we normally think of as 'life' is based on chains of carbon atoms, with a few other atoms, such as nitrogen or phosphorous, so the universe is full of the basic requirements for life, and we can even speculate that other forms of life are out there as in silicon as example.

We can speculate this because the Anthropic Principle is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn't be asking the question why.

Looking at life on earth the big question is how DNA came about for we have not been able to reproduce it in a lab from non-living material. A good reason for this is there most likely was some other simpler form prior to DNA that evolved into DNA and was totally replaced by the stronger. We could be trying to make your watch by using a lump of metal when we actually need to be making the many small parts first to be successful. At this time we just do not know what those small parts are/were.

This all started rather quickly after the earth cool at roughly 500 million years old. With the average age of a sun at around 10 billion years this gives enough time for a planet to produce life such as ours. For us it was about 2.5 billion years for life to evolve from single cell to multi cell and then another billion years to further evolve through fish, reptiles and then mammals, but the process has and keeps on speeding up. It only took 100 million years for the earliest mammals to evolve from simple lemurs to us for we are just fine tuning of a vast evolution process.

What this means is life for us is about a 4 billion year process and that gives an average sun 6 billion extra years of fudging to get it right. Instead of 500 million years the earth could have taken 5 billion to make the first DNA and we would still get here in plenty of time.

With the ever-increasing rate of the evolution process it is also statically feasible that other intelligent life has also evolved (Anthropic Principle once again) and can be up to 100 million years ahead of us or billions behind us. It could even be billions of years ahead of us, but their starting planet would most likely be gone.



[edit on 30-10-2007 by Xtrozero]

Good Reply Xtrozero.

At first it seemed that this was going to turn into a debate over creationism with the argument being life is too complex to "just happen." For which I would have responded. If life is too complex to "just happen," wouldn't that also apply to God?

But alas - I didnt have to go there =]

Originally posted by mikesingh
To think we are alone is naive.

Again, since we don't really have much of a clue as to how life formed here, we similarly have no idea how it can form anywhere else. Just because we're a pretty average planet orbiting a pretty average star doesn't mean anything. It's absolutely unproven that just because you have a certain mix of chemicals and particular gravity and temperature and magnetic field that life just automatically has to happen. Nobody knows how we get from random strings of amino acids to a simple cell with a DNA filled nucleus that wants to duplicate itself, a semi-permeable wall that allows nutrient exchange, and all the other little component parts.

I think it's naive to not consider the possibility that there is other life out in space, but it is naive to simply assume that there is with no conclusive positive evidence.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
With the average age of a sun at around 10 billion years this gives enough time for a planet to produce life such as ours. For us it was about 2.5 billion years for life to evolve from single cell to multi cell and then another billion years to further evolve through fish, reptiles and then mammals, but the process has and keeps on speeding up.

Yes, but how did that single cell "evolve" out of a bunch of chemicals? That's the big question. Once you have the single cell, then you're off the the races. But where did that first one come from? The tendency is to think that if you have the right chemicals and you mix them all together in some water and blast them with lightning bolts for a long time, that single cell just falls together somehow.

The Miller-Urey Experiment showed you could get amino acids to form that way, and life needs amino acids to live, so a lot of people just take that the next (illogical) step and assume that's how life happened. But amino acids don't evolve into cells. Life evolves. Cells evolve. Not chemical compounds.

There are even some recent experiments that made the news about labs building their own DNA strings, which a lot of people took as the creation of artificial life. But what it really was is more like some people managed to create a floppy disk with some code on it that they still have to put into a computer (an already formed cell) to get it to work. Nobody's built any computer.

So maybe we're just a huge cosmic fluke, and the only life anywhere. It's every bit as possible as there being life elsewhere. Alien bacteria could fly in on the next comet. But as of right now, we're the only life we know of, and it's misguided to just assume there's other life out there.

Originally posted by xEphon
At first it seemed that this was going to turn into a debate over creationism with the argument being life is too complex to "just happen." For which I would have responded. If life is too complex to "just happen," wouldn't that also apply to God?

Just to play both sides of the net here, I don't think it's necessary to invoke a mythological diety to explain how a complex form can seemingly appear out of "nowhere" in the past. The thing to consider is that time is not necessarily as we perceive it, that it becomes much more irrelevant at sub-atomic levels, and it doesn't inherently move in a straight line from the past to the future. Particles zip in and out of virtuality all the "time," and time doesn't mean anything when you're virtual.

I have a pet notion (not even good enough to be a theory) that complex forms, such as a single cell, may be constructed in reality from virtuality in the past by the consciousness/ intelligence/ imagination of someone or something in the future. Doesn't have to be "God," whatever that is. It could be you or me or Stephen Hawking or some hive mind of gigantic bee creatures on the other side of the galaxy. After all, imagination is consciousness, which makes things real, and moves things around all by itself on a sub-atomic level. And if you think hard enough about the past (or go there by remote viewing or OOBE) maybe you can affect it. Not big things, like saving JFK, but little tiny things, like moving a few molecules around.

You just need to get past the "cause" and "effect" assumption, that time only moves in one direction. Like I said, it's not a great theory, but it does open up some possibilities that don't require any supplicative prayer or Christmas presents.

Allow me to introduce myself, I am a tightly wrapped skeptic and have experienced alien intrusion as well as seen unexplained craft up close and strange lights in the night sky. I have a theory on all of this and will write it out in the near future. As for this threads title; Believe!.

Originally posted by Nohup
So maybe we're just a huge cosmic fluke, and the only life anywhere. It's every bit as possible as there being life elsewhere. Alien bacteria could fly in on the next comet. But as of right now, we're the only life we know of, and it's misguided to just assume there's other life out there.

Sure it's possible, but very unlikely. Even the advocates of the theory of evolution have little faith in it.

Holy Sir Fred:

"At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon."

Chandra Wickramasinghe:
"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primordial soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to really talk about it, but I think that the idea of comparing the appearance of life, or at least its first components, can not be compared with complete random actions because those components have a tendency to get together in that way and not in a different order, in the same way that if you have a bag of Lego (tm) bricks and you shake it the probability of getting some pieces together is bigger than that of completing a Rubik cube without seeing it (at least this is my perception of they way those chemicals react and get together to create different chemicals, but I may be completely wrong).

Originally posted by ArMaP
... if you have a bag of Lego (tm) bricks and you shake it the probability of getting some pieces together is bigger than that of completing a Rubik cube without seeing it (at least this is my perception of they way those chemicals react and get together to create different chemicals, but I may be completely wrong).

No, that's a pretty good comparison. Of course, some of the Lego pieces are going to stick together if you shake the bag long enough. But the comparison would be like shaking a bag of Legos long enough so that they would build a complex, double-helix Lego 10,000 miles long, inside a semi-permeable sphere of Legos, that would also have consciousness and be able to automatically reproduce itself. Quite a trick.

Originally posted by Nohup
But as of right now, we're the only life we know of, and it's misguided to just assume there's other life out there.

Hmm I thought I kind of explain all this, but I would say the odds for us being unique is almost off the scale. You my friend are under the assumption that since we do not know of other life then we must assume it is not there. You also assume that since we cannot recreate life from chemicals then once again we must be unique. You are basically saying that the limitations of us humans is enough proof that we are alone.

Originally posted by Nohup
complex, double-helix Lego 10,000 miles long, inside a semi-permeable sphere of Legos, that would also have consciousness and be able to automatically reproduce itself. Quite a trick.

As I stated I do not think DNA just appeared on the scene for just like our own evolution from a single cell animal DNA also evolved from something much simpler than what it is today. The fact that the very basic compounds that make up DNA are common throughout the Universe tells us the ingredients are out there everywhere. We do not know the steps from carbon to DNA, but I would bet it was a long slow process of many steps, but just because we do not know it yet really means nothing in speculating if there is other life in the Universe.

Here's a very interesting excerpt from a Roundtable Conference where the participants included Stephen J. Dick, Chief Historian at NASA and Director of the NASA History Office, James Ferris (moderator), Research Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Director of the New York Center for Studies on the Origins of Life, Debra Fischer, Professor of Astronomy at San Francisco State University, Dave Itzkoff, author of the New York Times Book Review's "Across the Universe" column, Avi Loeb, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard University and a member of the Institute for Theory and Computation of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and David Marusek, author of the science fiction novel, Counting Heads.

Loeb: I’ll mention just two brief comments from the point of view of an astronomer. The first comment is that when everything started, when the universe started, there was no water around, there was no oxygen, and there was no carbon. We are sort of an afterthought—the existence of life came about after stars burned hydrogen and made heavy elements.

And one of these stars is the sun and there was some debris left over from the formation of this star—some pieces of rock, one of which is the Earth. On the surface of the Earth, there was liquid water that allowed chemical reactions to take place and to end up as complicated, complex molecules that allowed organisms, like we are, to exist. So it seems circumstantial that complexity came out from the very simple initial conditions of the universe. But it’s not something that was pre-planned—it’s not like the universe was designed for us to exist in it.

Now the question is: are there other places where there are circumstances similar to that? The first thing that comes to mind is that it requires liquid water. So are there other places where we can find liquid water—other pieces of rock near other stars that have liquid water? Can we find evidence of that in our solar system, for example? Or can we find evidence for complex life as we know it in the way that it affects the environment, like the atmosphere, by observing other planets around other stars? That’s the common view that astronomers have on this subject. Now, it’s also possible that there is life out there in a very different way that we are not imagining. We often think about it in the context of our environment here, but you could imagine that instead of water, perhaps ammonia can be used to support complex molecules to make chemical reactions that take place and so forth.

The entire roundtable discussion is a good read. Have a look at it if you have the time.

Here's the link... www.philoctetes.org...

Cheers!