Challenge Match: peacejet vs TheMythLives: Contact!

The topic for this debate is: "ManKind, In One Way Or Another, Will Make Contact With An Intelligent Alien Species Within The Next Twenty-Five Years."

peacejet will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
TheMythLives will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debater must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

Hello everyone, firstly I would like to thank TheMythLives for agreeing to this debate and MemoryShock for setting up this debate. The title of this debate is “Contact: Mankind will make contact with an intelligent alien species within the next twenty five year’s”. This topic is a very interesting one, and special thanks to MemoryShock for assigning this topic, and moreover assigning the pro position to me. And thus I will be arguing that alien contact is possible in the next twenty five years. Ill keep this opening post short and simple and use this opening to explain the concept of contact.

I generally avoid posting in topics about aliens and ufo’s in the boards as I am paranoid about the thought of aliens stalking me and such things. But I think this will be a great outlet for me to post what I have learnt so far and also, I am sure that it would be useful to other members as our website is primarily for discussion’s regarding these kind of topics.

I believe that aliens do exist and that we will be able to make contact soon.

So there comes the question. What does the word ‘contact’ mean?

The word ‘contact’ has different meanings in this case.

Conspiracy theorists and members like us-

For members like you and me here in this website and also other conspiracy theorists all over the, the word ‘contact’ would mean alien space ships coming down to earth and landing in the worlds major cities and aliens emerging out and mingle with humans in a peaceful manner encouraging inter galactic friendship, though the aliens might be hostile and it is better to think both the sides of the coin. But the GFL incident would have dampened this spirit and also made to conclude that there are no such as aliens and hence there will be no contact ever. There are always some hoaxers who will utilize this ‘contact’ and make millions of it. There is always a bad side to everything. And Ill post evidence and data as this debate progresses that there are alien life forms all over the universe.

Scientific Community-

For the scientific community who are trying to prove that life exists on other planets not with the flying saucers we are seeing in the skies above us, but with the application our knowledge of science to prove with indisputable evidence that “life exists elsewhere in the universe” and thus answer the age old question “Are we alone?”. Thus, we are sending probes to mars as from the ancient time, there were supposed to be “martians” on mars, and though the initial Viking and Pathfinder probes found it life less unlike what was previously thought, but the recent observation of methane being released in large amounts to the atmosphere from underground through vents, reveal that mars could be inhabited with primitive life forms like bacteria, which are capable of surviving the extremities of climate. And thus, these are primitive life forms, and so there may be life forms else where in the universe in various stages of development and at least one species might have developed enough to be in a position to receive our communication and reply to us or better still to the happiness of conspiracy theorists visit us. Thus you can see that scientific community is on its own path in the search for ‘contact’. One such community is the SETI(Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence), which all members might be aware of.

Thus I have explained the word ‘contact’ clearly so that confusion does not arise in the course of this debate, and since I have drawn a very clear line between the two fields, I will post evidence according to the field as the debate progressed.

Socratic Question’s-

1.Do you think that alien life exists?
2.If you think alien life exists, why do you think that we cant achieve contact?

I am not really good at opening statements so I will mak ethis short and to th epoint. I would like to thank Peacejet for contacting me about this debate and for MemoryShock for setting it up. I will answer your questions first and then explain in detail further on into the debate:

Do you think that alien life exists?
Personally, I do not think that alien life exists on other planets.

If you think alien life exists, why do you think that we cant achieve contact?
Since I do not believe in intelligent life on another planet, I will explain why
during the context of this debate.

I have the con position, so I must be able to prove that life does not and cannot exist on other planets. In this process I will use scientific experiments, mathematics and science articles to prove my position. I will be using a planet that already has life (EARTH), as the bases of what is needed for life to survive and show how impossible it is for life to start on its own (Minusing the religious aspects as this is not a religious debate, but a scientific one).

Much thanks to Peacejet for defining what was meant by contact.

First Rebuttal-

Do you think that alien life exists?
Personally, I do not think that alien life exists on other planets.

I would say that there is alien life out there in the universe. And it would be silly to think that we are alone in this large universe.

There is an equation known as drake equation which gives an estimate of alien species in the universe. It is based on the assumption that earth like conditions exist else where in the universe.

In the autumn of 1961 Frank Drake, who had made the very first SETI observations in Project OZMA, hosted a three-day conference at Green Bank, West Virginia, USA, to discuss the likelihood that other civilisations in our galaxy might be trying to make contact with us.

Drake had realised that what, on the face of it, seemed an impossible task, could be broken down into a number of parts, each of which could be looked at separately. The individual parts could then be combined to enable an estimate to be made. He thus set out the agenda of the conference in the form of an equation, now famously known as the Drake Equation. The concept is based on the assumption that other lifeforms require similar conditions to those here on Earth.

The equation is,

N = ( R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc) x L

Each part of the equation comprised either a number or a factor and during the conference the team of scientists discussed each term in detail and made their best estimate of its value. The individual terms were then placed within the Drake equation to evaluate the number, N, of civilisations with whom we might communicate:

How accurate is this?

How accurate is the current estimate of N?

The problem is that while some of the factors involved in the evaluation of Rcc are reasonably well known, we can only make educated guesses for others. Neither do we have any real idea of the typical value for L (More on L), so our final estimate for N is not expected to be accurate.

In fact it has been said that the Drake Equation is a way of encapsulating a lot of ignorance in a small space! Evaluations of N in the early days of SETI were probably on the optimistic side with values of up to 1,000,000 considered possible.

Some now say that intelligent civilisations will arise only rarely and thus that we might be the only one existing in our Galaxy at the present time. The true answer will no doubt lie somewhere in between and the SETI projects could perhaps be regarded as an experimental way of finding the answer of how often advanced civilisations arise.

Link-Drake's equation

So, as you can see there is intelligent life else where in the universe, if not in our galaxy.

That contradicts your stating for my two Socratic questions that intelligent life form does not exist in the universe.

I will be using a planet that already has life (EARTH), as the bases of what is needed for life to survive and show how impossible it is for life to start on its own (Minusing the religious aspects as this is not a religious debate, but a scientific one).

This makes me to think to ask a socractic question.

Socratic question-1

If you think that it is impossible for life to start on its own do you think that life started here on earth?

Socratic question-2-

Are you going to start the age old creationism vs. evolution issue again? (Though you stated that you don’t want to involve religious aspects, I see some being involved in your stating)

I think Ill wait for clarification regarding this before proceeding any further. Thank you for the understanding.

reply to post by peacejet


If you think that it is impossible for life to start on its own do you think that life started here on earth?

Well I believe God started life on earth, hence there is no other life forms out there.

Are you going to start the age old creationism vs. evolution issue again?

As I have stated I do not wish this to be involved in this issue, after all this is a science debate not a religious debate. But if you want to make it that, thats fine with me.

But this statement bothers me:

So, as you can see there is intelligent life else where in the universe, if not in our galaxy.

All based on an equation? Lets have a more precise look at the Drake Equation:

The integers that are plugged into this equation are often subject to wide interpretation and can differ significantly from scientist to scientist. Even the slightest change can result in vastly different answers. Part of the problem is that our understanding of cosmology and astrobiology is rapidly changing and there is often very little consensus among specialists as to what the variables might be.

Consequently, the Drake formula relies on ‘stabs in the dark.’ This makes it highly imprecise and unscientific. The margin of error is far beyond what should be considered acceptable or meaningful.

So if there is not a general understanding between scientist, how is this at any level or measure accurate. It just does not make sense.

Another major problem of the Drake Equation is that it does not account for two rather important variables: cosmological developmental phases and time

Again, since the equation does not seem to grow with science, rather its stuck in the past, has many different meanings and understandings between scientists. Time is highly important to any study, because everything changes with time and the cosmos certainly change over the spand of a few years. If anything the Drake equation is now a bust and a failed attempt to prove that life is on other planets or in other galaxies.
The Drake Equation Bust-2007

Since you started with a equation, I will start off with mathematics myself.

First some background: Ralph Muncaster holds a Bachelor or Science degree in Engineering and a MBA degree from Colorado University. He is well decorated as an engineer and put his understanding of what he holds in his research and studies. Lets see how it works out:

The simpliest form of life, scientist all agree, that was some sort of basic cell, most likely baterium, without a nucleus. But even the most basic cell needs to have the major components to function, DNA Molecules and amino acids. The DNA holds the nucleotides and the Amino Acids are the proteins. So if the first cell of life is going to start on another planet, what are the odds of this happening? Lets examine some more of what cells need to live and there structure:

- Chirality for example- Nucleotides in the DNA, base pairs must be the same orientation- left handed or right handed. All the amino acids in the DNA chain must be of the same orientaion, or it simply does not work. Therefore, if the chirality is not correct, the cell does not even start to function and does not even come into existence.

The very simplest bacteria that science can imagine will have approximatly: 100,000 nucleotides (however, science has never seen it before, but thats what they feel it will need to at least live). However, the smallest bacteria that science has seen and knows of is 500,000. And 10,000 amino acids, is the smallest amino acid that science knows of.

So simply put the cell would need a minimum of 100,000 nucleotides.
10,000 amino acids.
Add them up and we get 110,000. Now we have a 50% chance that the cell starts and a 50% chance that it does not. What are the odds? (using simple statistics 0.5x0.5
110,000 times = 0.5 to the power of 110,000 in base 10 = the following 1 in 10 to the power of 33,113. And the odds come out to 10 to the power of 33,113 for the odds of a Random Chirality Probability. A huge impossibility. Let me put this in some sort of perspective this is like:

1 in 10 to the power of 33,113 is the same as winning 4700 state
lotteries in a row with only one ticket for each!

Another problem is the life specific amino acids- odds of this happening by chnace- 10 to the power of 6,021. Correct Amino Acids in the right place t chance in 10 to the power of 13,010. Correct Genetic material placement: 1 chance in 10 to the power of 60,155.

So lets review:

1) Chirality= 10 to the power of 33,113
2) Life Specific Amino Acids= 10 to the power of 6,021
3) Correct Amino ACid placement= 10 to the power of 13,010
4) Correct Genetic Material= 10 to the power of 60,155
5) And most importantly, gene placement, correct gene placement= 10 to the power of 528

Add it up it comes to the total of 10 to the power of 112,827 and worst of all its 1 out 10 to the 112,827. 1 !!!!

1 in 10 to the power of 112,827 is the same as winning 16,119 state lotteries in a row with only one winning ticket.

Check out this probability.

This is like taking any selected electron. And I mean ANY, from the Universe, person, star, planets, galaxies, everyhing and anything. Now if you were to somehow lay that out on a table and have all those electrons just laid out before you all mixed up and such. You can choose one electron and have it hidden anywhere on the table. You have a better chance of picking that one electron than life starting on its own or life being on another planet. But wait its not over yet!

You have a better chance at picking that one electron 1,376 time in a ROW! And remember that is just for one cell, and all of this needs to be correct, just to get one dead cell.

Seeing the impossibilty of the cell starting on its own, I doubt that life can somehow come together and create intelligence if a certain spark is missing. So in other words, there can be no contact because life simply cannot exist on other planets.

This is minusing the heat, water, ice, and other temperatures. As well as planets that are like earth but missing important atmospheric structures. To many variables for life to exist and not enough evidence to even consider the possibility.

Special thanks to Ralph Muncasters books and mathematics for putting all of this into perspective. All of these statistics can be viewed on pages 138-142 in his book Dismantling Evolution.

Soctratic Questions:

1) How did you come to the conclusion that life can exist on other planets?

2) If you believe life is on other planets what makes you think they are intelligent?

[edit on 8-2-2009 by MemoryShock]

Second rebuttal-

Before proceeding, I would like to point out one conflicting/contradicting fact.

Well I believe God started life on earth, hence there is no other life forms out there.

And,

As I have stated I do not wish this to be involved in this issue, after all this is a science debate not a religious debate. But if you want to make it that, thats fine with me.

You are providing very contradicting facts by saying that God created/started life on earth, which comes under creationism. And you are saying that you don’t want to involve religion in this. But sadly you are introducing religion in this.

Fine, lets have it your way. If you are saying that God started life on earth and hence there are no other life forms out there. How do you know that there are no other life forms out there? Did God himself come and tell you this?

This makes me wanting to ask a question.

Socratic Question-1-

Why do you think God created life only here on earth? Why not elsewhere in the universe, were we destined to be like this?

Not deviating any further into religion. I will answer my opponents Socratic questions.

1) How did you come to the conclusion that life can exist on other planets?

I will base it on the reported visitations of aliens documented over the years by reliable sources all over the internet, and those who had a chance to see the intelligent beings will justify this. And all evidence is discounting CGI and fake youtube videos and most importantly Chinese lanterns.

If you want, I can explain what I said to the maximum extent, but you might already know it, and it would be a waste of debate time.

2) If you believe life is on other planets what makes you think they are intelligent?

Since, I have said that life existed on other planets. And I have to prove that they are intelligent. I will refer you to one of the articles that appeared in National Geographic.

article

Until now, the search for intelligent life has been somewhat hampered by inadequate technology—too few stars surveyed at too low a sensitivity by Earth and space-based telescopes.

And since you mentioned probability and statistics,

"It's a matter of statistics, really," said Barnett. "Depending on who you talk to, the universe is 12 to 15 billion years old. Humans have only been around for 40,000 years. We really are the new kids on the block. It would just be too tough a pill to swallow to believe that nothing else has evolved in all that time and space."

If that doesn’t make this clear, we can go one step further, about how life need not necessarily be based on DNA and carbon based but can be based on other elements also. The article appeared in the December 2007 edition of Scientific American about alien life forms existing here on earth itself, and I will link the NASA article here,

NASA Article

The article states that, there can be mirror life forms, where, currently we know that the amino acids are left handed in chirality and DNA are right handed in chirality. And life could begin with the amino acids being right handed and DNA being left handed.

And also life could be based on arsenic and silicon too.

Arsenic life form’s- Arsenic and phosphorous are found to have similar nature and structure. And thus arsenic which is poisonous to us and phosphorus which harmless can be reversed in the case of alien life forms, where phosphorus is dangerous to aliens.

Silicon life- Silicon has same valence electrons as that of carbon, and since they could form long chains they could be the basis of life.

And if this is only on earth, think of the other planets.

So, as I mentioned, besides from DNA and RNA, we have many other bases for life, and surely some must have evolved into intelligent species. Since you are great at probability calculation, try doing a for intelligent life forms based on this, and you will see how intelligent life forms are possible.





[edit on 9-2-2009 by MemoryShock]

Why do you think God created life only here on earth? Why not elsewhere in the universe, were we destined to be like this?

I cannot answer that question because I am not God. Sorry, but I wish I knew, but I cannot.

Fine, lets have it your way. If you are saying that God started life on earth and hence there are no other life forms out there.

No I just left out God in my above posts,but seeing that you continue to push that issue. I will meet it then.

The only stumbling block to the idea is that arsenic-based DNA tends to break down quickly. "You don't want to build your DNA out of a compound with a half-life in the order of a couple of minutes," points out Steve Benner of the Foundation For Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Florida.

So if the DNA breaks down quickly, could it last long enough to sustain any portion of life. Highly doubtful.

However, he points out that it could be a good thing in extreme cold, where chemical reactions move very slowly.

But how much cold can sustain life?

However, silicon is less abundant in the universe and its structures are much less stable and much more reactive than carbon's, particularly in the presence of oxygen where it produces a solid

Less abundent? Less stable? And much more reactive and oxygen is needed for ALL life, therefore if the silicon theory means solidifying the host, death is almost certain.

Back to the cold temperatures needed for the 2 life theories:

If water existed (on mars), it would have been locked up as ice. As a result, the formation and evolution of life forms would have been exceedingly difficult.

So if it was extremely cold and if water somehow was on other planets, frozen in ice. The evolution of life would have been amazingly difficult and highly impossible, the cold would kill any forms of life and kill many cells or bacterium. Same with heat, if its too hot cells and bacterium cannot form. Much like the supposed and theorized first days of the earth a violent and firey earth, could sustain no life. I'll explain the rest below.

Source

Source

But if any of the life existed with these type of genetic and life forms a huge problem occurs to the Contact scenario. A big problem:

If these life forms were to come to earth, simply put, they would DIE. Arcenic needs Extreme cold to even be considered, but not to cold as to kill the life forms. Silicon needs so many things that it is almost impossible to think that they would even be alive.

I can do a quick probability on the possibility of life being made of silicon or arcenic based compounds.
0% percent chance, the factors that they need to sustain there life are incredibily vast and to large of a gap.

Mirror life forms could work because its the same as our life but backwards, the same things needed and by my rebuttal above have proved that chances are that life exists on other planets is ZERO.

So, as I mentioned, besides from DNA and RNA, we have many other bases for life, and surely some must have evolved into intelligent species.

The bases for life are still theories and NOT yet FACT, which is highly important to remember. Do not assume that just because they think that it could happen this way, that this is the way it happened. Evolution is still a THEORY and has not been proven as fact. So therefore, surely evolution could not have taken place, because there are no life forms that can evolve because there are no life forms in the universe, but us.

This really seemed interesting to me.

It would just be too tough a pill to swallow to believe that nothing else has evolved in all that time and space." Barnett Said

A tough pill to swallow huh, I wonder why, because it would add more evidence that God created the heavens and the earth and possibly put the nail in the coffin for macro-evolution and cosmic evolution.

Socratic Question:

1) If this life is intelligent and if they came to earth, how would they survive that long trip?

[edit on 9-2-2009 by MemoryShock]

Socratic Question:

1) If this life is intelligent and if they came to earth, how would they survive that long trip?

Your question itself contains the answer. We are now talking about alien life forms more intelligent than us, and hence they would be capable of communicating with us and their technology would be far more advanced than our primitive one we are using now. And they will surely have technology that is capable of traveling near the speed of light and also modifying space-time continuum to travel large distance in the time span of days. (Think anti-gravity devices, magnetic propulsion systems)

As I read through the post, I note that you take consider the conditions are similar to earth and the star around which the planet orbits is similar to our sun.

But, life forms are capable of adapting to the environment around it. Consider your saying from the earlier rebuttal that the probability of life being on other planet is low (but not impossible) as greatly mentioned with the example of electrons.



The above image is the Hubble’s ultra deep field image looking back in time to nearly 10 billion light years away, and the region of sky in the image is smaller than a grain of sand held in the sky at arms length. And this image contains billions of galaxies and each galaxy has billions and billions of stars, and your low probability value should say that there should be life at least in some of them.

Ultra deep field image options

And, as I mentioned earlier life will adapt to the environment, and if some primitive life forms like plants which serve as the base for higher intelligent life, can exist in different colours and have different photosynthetic mechanism compared to that of earth.

Green, yellow or even red-dominant plants may live on extra-solar planets, according to scientists whose two scientific papers appear in the March issue of the journal Astrobiology. The scientists studied light absorbed and reflected by organisms on Earth, and determined that if astronomers were to look at the light given off by planets circling distant stars, they might predict that some planets have mostly non-green plants.

Link

And how will this contact be possible? you might ask

It is very simple; this scientific contact will be through the various space telescopes peering deep into space.

As you all know Hubble has already discovered earth like planets and the successor of Hubble will take that one step further in spotting planets.

The JWST( James Webb Space Telescope) will have the optics required to directly image a planet orbiting a parent star, and is scheduled for launch in 2013.

JWST

If that is not enough, there is another mission to search for earth-like planets in the goldilocks zone around the parent star.

Here is a link to the image detailing the region it would look at and that too within our galaxy alone.

image

Kepler official website-

Home

Now I have mentioned how scientific contact will occur.

Peacejet:
Your question itself contains the answer. We are now talking about alien life forms more intelligent than us, and hence they would be capable of communicating with us and their technology would be far more advanced than our primitive one we are using now.

Hold on a big second. How do you they are more intelligent than us? Have you seen an alien, talked to, touched? Thats pure speculation a lot of reaching. And when did we jump to them being more intelligent than us?

Anway..

And they will surely have technology that is capable of traveling near the speed of light and also modifying space-time continuum to travel large distance in the time span of days. (Think anti-gravity devices, magnetic propulsion systems)

And surely they will not have time travel capabilities.

And, as I mentioned earlier life will adapt to the environment, and if some primitive life forms like plants which serve as the base for higher intelligent life, can exist in different colours and have different photosynthetic mechanism compared to that of earth.

Your asuming that life can start by itself, which has never been proven, never been observed and has been seen. Only speculated about.

The above image is the Hubble’s ultra deep field image looking back in time to nearly 10 billion light years away, and the region of sky in the image is smaller than a grain of sand held in the sky at arms length.

LIGHT

10 billion light years? Thats only a distance, not a time. There are many issues with just how far the stars are, as seen here:

The problem with parallax is that even the nearest stars are so far away that the jump made as the Earth changes its position by 300 million kilometers is very small; the nearest star will only move less than one arc second. But the parallax method was only able to determine distances of stars that were no more than 50 light years away from the Earth.

You probably notices accept for parallax, every technique is dependent on the others. Tully-Fisher is based on the Cepheids, the Cepheids on Main Sequence fitting, and Main Sequence fitting on parallax. If parallax gives results that are off by say 20%, none of the other techniques will be more than 20% accurate either.

Measuring how far away distances are is not 100% accurate and therefore, cannot be proven to be that far away. I have no problem saying that the galaxies are billions of light years away, but remember that is a distance not a time. Also, the even if one ratio is off the whole problem will recieve errors and not just small errors, but huge errors.

As far as the plants go, I have no idea about plants. I hate that type of study, sure its possible that different color plants are out in the solar system (if life can start by itself), I myself have red plants, yellow and blue plants in my backyard. So of course they can be different colors. I have no idea about photosynthesis, only this. In a related article for your link about plants:

So back in the beginning of our history when we didn’t have as much oxygen on the planet, plant pigments would have been much more towards the blue.

They say that at the beginning there was less oxygen than today. Which as we all should know is a bold face lie. (related link: PLANTS

But in scientific research there was seen that the 'early earth' had more oxygen. As stated directly: They found that it was 32% oxygen, compared with 21% in the modern atmosphere.. from TIME

Swiss astronomer Michel Mayor of the Geneva Observatory reported that he and his team had discovered 45 previously unknown planets orbiting a handful of nearby stars. There's good reason for all the excitement.

Mayor himself was the one who spotted that first exotic world, and in the years since, he and other investigators have counted about 270 more, but land in the cosmic exurbs is decidedly inhospitable.

Even Mayor's newest, smallest planets are unlikely to be pastoral places. All of them lie so close to their suns that they complete one orbit in 50 days or less — compared to the lazy, 365-day journey Earth makes — meaning that any water or incipient life on their surfaces would simply sizzle away.

Times-2008

We continue to see problems, either the planets look just like earth and might have the same conditions. Its either too hot, too cold, moving too fast, sure we can look at a planet and say that it looks earth like, but we cannot tell for 100% sure until we actually go and stand on the planet. Telescopes can attempt to reach the surface, but so much power would be needed. Contact is not just going to happen.

Nice speculation, but in reality it just seems less possible everytime. Now I have mentioned why scientific contact will not occur.

Socratic Question:

1) How do you KNOW that life is intelligent on other planets?

Closing Statement-

Socratic Question:

1) How do you KNOW that life is intelligent on other planets?

The answer is simple logic; we humans are evolving as intelligent species, then is there any law that other species elsewhere in the universe should not be intelligent?

And surely they will not have time travel capabilities.

Traveling near the speed of light does not necessarily mean time traveling. The space ships can travel at greater speed, reducing traveling time.

Your asuming that life can start by itself, which has never been proven, never been observed and has been seen. Only speculated about.

I never assumed anything. I just said primitive life will evolve to more complex life forms and those life forms will adapt to the environment around it. All that is required to start life is the correct conditions like we have on earth. The rest automatically occurs.

10 billion light years? Thats only a distance, not a time

All I can say is that you are wrong.

Proof-

Light year is defined as the distance traveled by light in one year. And this directly corresponds to how long the light has traveled to reach us.

You are assuming the speed of light is infinite. But that is not the case.

"Because light takes time to get here from there, the farther away 'there' is the further in the past light left there and so we see all objects at some time in the past," explains Floyd Stecker of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

To give you a real feeling of how far back in time we see.

We see the relatively close moon as it was 1.2 seconds ago and the more distant sun as it was about 8 minutes ago. These measurements—1.2 light-seconds and 8 light-minutes—can be thought to describe both time and distance.

The distance to more remote objects such as other stars is so great it is measured in light-years—the distance light will travel in a year, or about 6 trillion miles (10 trillion kilometers).. Even the nearest star system, Proxima Centauri, lies more than four light-years away, so it appears to us on Earth as it was just over four years ago when the light began its journey.

And since the ultra deep field image looks at galaxies nearly ten billion light years away, we are looking at galaxies as they were nearly 10 billion light years ago. And your probability will reveal that out of the billions of stars in each galaxy at least one would have evolved into intelligent species.

Link-

back in time

And your mentioning of parallax here is useless as this is a method of detecting planets around stars and is primarily for ground based telescopes.

Space telescopes like Hubble have managed to image a planet orbiting another star directly.

Formalhaut b

And we are taking that to a step further. And kepler mission will do the same with higher precision. And we will find the habitable planet and hence make contact.

And based on the evidence I have presented so far, I conclude that scientific contact will be made within a few years

Conspiracy theorists and members like us-

The big piece of news is,

(NOTE- Not related to 2012 theory of nibiru/planet x, pole shift)

Scientific interpretation of the monks’ statements makes it evident that the Extra Terrestrial powers are watching us every step of the way. They will intervene in 2012 and save the world from self-destruction.

contact!

The above link will show you how conspiracy theorists and members like us will make contact. And this cannot be denied as Tibetan monks are known for their spiritual power.

So, I have thus mentioned how both we and the scientific community will make contact in the near future. And now, Ill leave this to the judges to decide how well I argued. And, I would like to thank my opponent for this wonderful opportunity.

Yours truly,
Peacejet.

The answer is simple logic; we humans are evolving as intelligent species, then is there any law that other species elsewhere in the universe should not be intelligent?

More assumptions mate, your already assuming that life can start on its own. Intelligent life is no where else, but on earth.

I never assumed anything. I just said primitive life will evolve to more complex life forms and those life forms will adapt to the environment around it. All that is required to start life is the correct conditions like we have on earth. The rest automatically occurs.

Assumptions are all over your posts. Your assuming that life can START on it OWN, your assuming that life is already in existance on another planet. If the correct conditions is all we need then surely scientist should have been able to create life in the lab and amazingly it has not happened yet, I wonder why?

Light year is defined as the distance traveled by light in one year. And this directly corresponds to how long the light has traveled to reach us.

Thats funny because Harvard was able to slow down, stop and speed up light.

"Two years ago we slowed it down to 38 miles an hour; now we've been able to park it then bring it back up to full speed." Lene Hau isn't talking about a used motorbike, but about light

Its alright its a common mistake, not many know about the Harvard experiment. But if light can be slowed and such then surely it can happen in outer space. All that was used was atoms and clouds and other outer space materials.

Less than five years ago, the speed of light was considered one of the universe's great constants.

Light energy raises the atoms to higher energy levels in ways that depend on the frequency and intensity of the light. The laser illuminating the cloud at right angles to the incoming beam acts like a parking brake, stopping the beam inside the cloud when it is shut off. When it is turned on again, the brake is released, the atoms transfer their energy back to the light, and it leaves the end of the cloud at full speed and intensity.

Hau's team stopped light for one-thousandth of a second. Atomically speaking, "this is an amazingly long time," Hau notes. "But we think it can be stopped for much longer."

1 thousandth of a second might not seem alot, but this was a very controlled experiment imagine if in outer space te same thing would happen. Light could be held for much longer and who knows light might be able to be sped up. Adding more evidence that light is by far a constant and possibly could be sped up.

And since the ultra deep field image looks at galaxies nearly ten billion light years away, we are looking at galaxies as they were nearly 10 billion light years ago. And your probability will reveal that out of the billions of stars in each galaxy at least one would have evolved into intelligent species.

No, wait, if we are looking into the past, then surely we will see our planet and ourselves, which will have life on it. But science is still up in the air about the whole Past idea. Nothing in that area is definate.

And this cannot be denied as Tibetan monks are known for their spiritual power.

I can deny them. The world was supposed to end in 2000. Nothing yet. But then again I do not know much aboutthe Tibetan monks. Also I believe the monks never directly said anything of that sort, but some other outside person. Like a traveler or someone who went to see them. The Monks never said anything of the sort directly, nice try mate.

HARVARD

As you have read, I have provided proof of why Contact will not and cannot occur. It just cannot happen, assumptions and speculation is all we have, no real proof or hard evidence that anything of that nature can/could exist. My calculations have proven and my other sources and knowledge have shown the impossibility.

I wouldlike to thank Peacejet for this very interesting debate and now its up to the judges.

Peacejet wins this debate through split decision. Congratulations to both Fighters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Judgement - peacejet vs TheMythLives Contact

peacejet TheMythLives
opening : 1 -1
1st : -2 1
2nd : 2.5 -1
3rd : 1 -1.5
closing : 1.5 -1
-------- ------------
4.0 -3.5
Summary
-------
Peacejet did a better job in the opening than TheMythLives. TheMythLives answered the SQ's ok, but then just ended his statement without breaking any new new ground or beginning his arguments. It seems to me TheMythLives wasn't sure of what he wanted to say at this point.

TheMythLives came back nicely with a solid win in round 1, but I saw the first hints of some ambivalence about whether he would take the relious view or the scientific one. This factor played out significantly in the remainer of the debate.

Rounds 2, 3 and the conclusion all go to Peacejet.

I thought both fighters had some difficulty staying 'on message' and wound up chasing each other 'into the weeds' on more than one occasion. It seemed to me that TheMythLives missed some solid opportunities to win more rounds and even the overall contest if he had decided to go with the religious argument, since Peacejet 'opened the door' for him to do so on more than one occasion.

Both fighters showed real spirit and committment to their positions and fought the 'good fight.' It was a pleasure to see the contest play out.

This time the winner is Peacejet, by a comfortable margin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment for: TheMythLives

At times the spectacle of competition is a bloody one. The worst of those times is when the side we believe in is subjected to the bloodying. But it's hard to deny and feel too defeated when the other guy just played a better game. Such was the case in this debate with peacejet faltering out of the gate, opening his contention with the ill-considered Drake Theory. Most damning to my mind though wasn't TheMythLives quoted refutation of the theory as "imprecise and unscientific", nor his excellent probability wizardry, but rather within the quote by peacejet where it characterized the Drake Theory as "encapsulating a lot of ignorance in a small space". It simply isn't good form to poke holes in one's own argument.

From here peacejet fared little better, choosing to attack his opponent's religious beliefs by citing, in his own words, the "age old creationism vs evolution issue". Being "age old" should have been the first clue as to why this was a poor tactic. And so from here peacejet's arguments degenerated into the realm of wild speculation on the intelligence of alien life, manipulation of the time/space continuum, the veracity of eyewitnesses and, most amusingly, Tibetan monks. All topics most of us here at ATS thoroughly enjoy, but not the stuff of concrete arguments based in reality as we currently know it.

His single best point, to me, about non-carbon based life was easily shown by TheMythLives to be at least highly improbable. Demonstrating that in future debates, peacejet would be better served by more thorough research. On this particular issue I've read several articles which could have gone a long way in weakening TheMythLives defenses of probability. Whether or not it would have won the debate though is much like the question of alien contact and largely still a mystery.

Challenge Match:

peacejet vs TheMythLives: Contact!

The topic for this debate is: "ManKind, In One Way Or Another, Will Make Contact With An Intelligent Alien Species Within The Next Twenty-Five Years."

This is a favorite topic of mine. I personally wish the word limit was 100,000 words per post.

Since we can’t know whether or not alien life even exists, intelligent or otherwise, proving we will or won’t make contact within 25 years was a real challenge for both debaters

As far as I was concerned, the debate could only be won by opening doors or shutting them completely. I was waiting to see which debater would open a door that I couldn’t close, or shut one for good.

Opening Statements
Peacejet’s opening statement is charming, and it’s obvious that it’s a subject that interests him personally. I appreciate that he states his position and then immediately explains his understanding of the word contact, making it clear how it will be used in his argument.

TheMythLives opens with a statement that is succinct to the point of bluntness, which is something I can appreciate. In fact, it can be a very useful way to argue.
He doesn’t waste anytime in letting us know his position when he responds to Peacejet’s questions. He establishes immediately what he’s up against and how he’ll prove his position.
I appreciate his attempt to keep religion out of the debate, stating that this was to be a scientific debate. I understand why he made that choice. I think it was an unfortunate decision - not just for TML, but for the audience as well. The subject title never established that religion was out and it hobbled his own argument (somewhat) from the get go, as we see later on.
___________________________________
First Rebuttal - peacejet

PJ immediately introduces us to SETI and the Drake equation. This emphasizes that, more than just wondering, the scientific community has devoted actual time and energy to exploring the possibility of life existing out there in the universe - and not just here on Earth.
He admits that there are some problems with the equation, but the equation is still useful enough to suggest the difference between probable and improbable.
Peacejet has used the credibility and genuine interest of science to establish that the possibility of intelligent life is more than just his own personal belief.
It’s a strong position at this point, but I have to fault him for closing with: “So, as you can see there is intelligent life else where in the universe, if not in our galaxy.”

There’s no way he can back that up - at best he can only make us aware of the possibility.

First Rebuttal - TheMythLives

TheMythLives doesn’t hedge - and at this point makes it clear that he doesn’t believe life can begin on it’s own - and that God is responsible. He’s committed to this position now. However, this doesn’t prevent him from making good use of both math and science.
He makes clear that Drake’s equation is not proof - and that it may even be unworkable - and that PJ can’t claim to have proven his point based on this. I have to agree with him here.
He continues, using math and biology to demonstrate probability, just as PJ had done, but in another direction, leading away from the idea that it’s possible for life to begin on it’s own by demonstrating just how complex a set of circumstances are necessary for this to happen.
His questions for Peacjet are also good questions, calling attention the fact that his conclusions are also in the realm of belief and based on possibility, not proof.
___________________________________
At the end of this section, I have to say, neither debater has managed to sway me one way or another. Both debaters have me thinking hard about which version of probability is the most probable.
___________________________________
Second Rebuttal - Peacejet

PJ pounces on TML’s conflicting earlier statements - and he’s right to do so. My only objection is that his tone changes here, unnecessarily. He collects himself, incorporating the religious view, using it against his opponent.

He goes on to answer TML’s questions:
“How did you come to the conclusion that life can exist on other planets?”
PJ’s reply surprises me: “I will base it on the reported visitations of aliens documented over the years by reliable sources all over the internet, and those who had a chance to see the intelligent beings will justify this.”

He’s made good use of math and science up to this point - calling into question TML’s religious views being entered into the debate, yet leans on something just as questionable. He relies on witness accounts, but offers nothing but the fact that he knows of these accounts and doesn’t explain how he can actually conclude that life exists on other planets based on this knowledge.

He follows with two articles. I thought the National Geographic article was useful to PJ only in it’s explanation of numbers and probability - the rest didn’t help his argument for the most part.

The second article, however, I thought was fascinating - and offered a new perspective - forcing me to consider that life might exist in forms we don’t recognize right under our very noses, so, why not beyond earth as well?

This helps PJs argument by introducing not only more possibilities, but at the same time, just that
much more information TML has to be able to argue against and disprove.

Second Rebuttal - TheMythLives

TheMythLives answers PJ’s questions - first by admitting he has no answer to: Why do you think God created life only here on earth? Why not elsewhere in the universe, were we destined to be like this?

I wish he had countered by moving directly into his argument dismissing the possibility of life originating from elements other than what we know for certain. Although he can’t prove it’s not possible, it would have contributed to his existing position that life is unique to Earth - he could have gone on to explain that it demonstrates to him not so much the why, but the likelihood that God created life only here on our planet. Instead - while being honest, he more or less quit that battle.

He continues by stating that life forming from materials other than carbon is just theory.
While this is a subject I know nothing about, he does make me realize how complex and specific are the circumstances necessary to the existence and survival of life.
Using theory to open up possibilities can work if you acknowledge that it is just theory. The problem I see with criticizing the use of theory here is that TML has to work harder to dismiss it. The explanation of why certain other elements absolutely wouldn’t work was good, but it only made me consider how much we don’t know contrasted against what we believe we do know now. For me, this part raised more questions than it answered, so I wasn’t convinced it was as impossible as TheMythLives would have liked.

Also, this section confused me because I wasn’t clear which quotes belonged to which links or resources. One link led to a forum discussion.

His next question for PJ is one that always interests me: “If this life is intelligent and if they came to earth, how would they survive that long trip?”
___________________________________
Here I would say Peacejet is ahead, if only because he introduced a new idea that put TheMythLives in the position of having to explain it away, which he couldn’t do as far as I was concerned. Also, the way TML presented his references was confusing.
___________________________________
Third Rebuttal - peacejet

Peacejet replies to TML's question with: “Your question itself contains the answer. We are now talking about alien life forms more intelligent than us...”

This doesn’t prove anything. However, if we accept, even just for the sake of argument, that they’ve arrived, and that they’re intelligent, their ability to travel here automatically suggests that they’re more intelligent than we are.

It’s more difficult, now that TML has asked the question, for him to argue that space travel, or time traveling for that matter, is not possible. Now it becomes about the comparison. We humans are just not smart enough to understand what’s involved in traveling the vast distances or work out how to survive the amount of time required. At least when compared to the hypothetical space traveling aliens.

Peacejet follows with:
“...Consider your saying from the earlier rebuttal that the probability of life being on other planet is low (but not impossible) as greatly mentioned with the example of electrons...”
TML did give an interesting example of just how slim the odds are that life could start on it’s own, but couldn’t rule out the possibility completely.

Peacejet continues by mentioning discoveries made by the existing Hubble telescope, possible earth-like planets, a new telescope in the works with the ability to potentially make even more astonishing discoveries. More importantly, he shows us how much thought, time, manpower and money is going towards answering the question “are we alone?”

This means absolutely nothing as far as proof goes, but if intelligent life does exist, contacting it within the next 25 years is probably more likely if we do look than if we don’t.

Third Rebuttal - TheMythLives

TheMythLives questions Peacejets explanations of how the aliens might travel, factoring in the speed of light, the space-time continuum, anti-gravity devices. But his questions are more of a dismissal of the ideas than an attempt to explain them away.

Farther along TML continues: “As far as the plants go, I have no idea about plants. I hate that type of study...”

It would have made his argument appear much stronger if he had skipped the subjects he didn’t feel confident in instead of calling attention to them.

He also provided several links to sources connected to the subject of extraterrestrial plant life, but what I read there seemed to help Peacjet more than it did TML, so I think he needed to explain the point he was trying to make a little better in this area, and then make it connect to his sources.

He asks Peacejet, in his final question: How do you KNOW that life is intelligent on other planets?
It’s a good question, since Peacejet can’t possibly know, but also a risky question since he can’t know for certain one way or another himself.
___________________________________
Peacjet handled this part better than TheMythLives I feel. At this point, neither debater has been able to convince anyone that this is something that’s actually going to happen, or can’t possibly happen. However, Peacejet has opened up the possibility better then TheMythLives has shut it down.
___________________________________
Closing - peacejet

Peacejets closes with a prophecy connected to the Tibetan Monks: “The above link will show you how conspiracy theorists and members like us will make contact. And this cannot be denied as Tibetan monks are known for their spiritual power.”

This works against him directly if he really wants to call attention to TheMythLives belief in God and use it against him. It hurts his credibility - not because of what he believes, but because he sees it as being more credible than what TML believes.

Closing - TheMythLives

In TheMythLives final statement he again accuses Peacejet of just making assumptions - but then he states that “Intelligent life is nowhere else, but on Earth.”
In this closing statement, I thought it was amusing that TheMythLives used the results of an experiment conducted at Harvard to show that the speed of light can’t be used to measure distance in space because it can be manipulated.

Surely this opens up many, many possibilities. If the speed of light can be manipulated, what else might be possible?

This flings the door wide open as far as I’m concerned, but unfortunately for TheMythLives, it’s Peacejet’s door.

He ends his portion of the debate with: “As you have read, I have provided proof of why Contact will not and cannot occur. It just cannot happen, assumptions and speculation is all we have, no real proof or hard evidence that anything of that nature can/could exist. My calculations have proven and my other sources and knowledge have shown the impossibility.”
I feel that he has shown us why it might be unlikely, but not at all that it’s impossible.
___________________________________
This really is an interesting subject, and as I mentioned earlier - a personal favorite.

I can appreciate how difficult it would be to argue either position since they both involve science as well as personal belief. I thought it was very interesting that both of you incorporated religious and/or spiritual beliefs into your argument, even if they came from completely different angles. I wasn’t expecting that.

Both of you did a good job of making me realize how unknowable much of our universe really is.
As I mentioned at the start, for me it wouldn’t be about proof. TheMythLives didn’t fully convince me contact was impossible, while I feel that Peacejet made contact appear possible - so this win goes to Peacejet.

Thank you judges for the result. I will make sure that I will perform better by doing more research on the topics in my future debates.

A special thanks to TML for debating me. It was a wonderful experience.

And most importantly thanks to mem who spent time and effort on setting up the debate and posting the results.

Speaking just for myself personally, I don't agree with any of the theories or mathematics.

I have not yet seen one single shred of evidence for INTELLIGENT life anywhere in the universe.

Certainly there are days (weeks? years?) when I would gladly attest to the fact that there is none on Earth.

Like many of our fellow ATS members, I think that contact has already been made, and the fact is being hidden from the public.

Nevertheless, great debate guys and Congrats PJ.

reply to post by peacejet


damn good debate Peacejet. You deserve the win and at least the judges were nicer this time around..lol.. congrats pj...

reply to post by Heike


Hi heike,

I really do accept your opinion that convincing evidence is needed for a topic like this.

But the answer is plain simple, which I will try to explain.

Humans are evolving. You can accept how computers have come a long way from the vaccum tubes to the present with GUI etc.. We initially thought that the earth was the center of the universe, and then only we realised that we are insignificant on the universal scale. So, as we evolve we find new things. So, you can see that though we have evolved, we have not evolved much to the extent of actually contacting aliens, but only through their visitations to earth(though most are faked, some are still genuine). So, as we evolve over the years we will see more evidence and eventually contact will be made.

Regarding your saying about mathematical/theory stuff. I have to disagree with you, because, theory lays the foundation for practical/observational stuff. For example, didnt einstein propose relativity in theory and then it was verified over the years and proved? The same is the case here. The theory lays the foundation for actual contact.

Hope I have made my point clear.