Life on earth is living proof Extraterrestials exists.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by beautyofperil
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

No we are proof of life in the universe.

No, we are only proof of life on this earth.
Unless you have an extra-terrestrial entity in your pocket, you don’t have proof.
While I do think there is life in the universe, right now there is no proof.
And while the numbers point to the possibility of life in the universe, that’s still not proof.

Are we not in the universe? Of course we are proof of life in the universe. We're not proof that life can be found anywhere other than planet Earth, however we are very strong evidence that it can. Statistically speaking there almost HAS to be life elsewhere.

I am a bit confused, your post agrees with Pauligirl, but I sense disagreement, you know the OP is saying basically, that humans are proof of extra terrestrials, not life in the universe, we exist, do we not?

Originally posted by beautyofperil
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

ok, and I'm sorry if you felt belittled by me calling you typical I once lived with a die hard jamaican christian. So you can see my angst I hope.

Ah yeah mon, no worries cool runn'n, ire, and praise Jesus!


You have to admit that I put a new spin on things.. made you think again..?

What's so utterly extraordinary is the proof of life here and our "already always" inclusion in what could still be a perfect paradise, which IS made the way it is because of the dynamic equilibrium balancing earth-moon action.

When you say "Extraterrestrials" in the title, you're referring to some sort of intelligent, self aware, highly evolved sentient beings not unlike ourselves, you weren't talking about extraterrestrial biological life in general, but even when you move the bar, while life on earth infers the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, it won't be proven until the Square Kilometer Array or SKA does it's galactic survey of exoplanets, whereby 1000's can be analyzed simultaneously down to atmospheric molecular composition, and if just one "water world" is found, there it is (doesn't even matter if there's land), and then we shall have the basis for a real Drake Equation and it will be a great day, and a paradigm shift for the world, but until then it's all just speculation, however likely it might very well be, given that it works here on earth (praise God?).

What I really wanted to convey was how extraordinary the life-giving earth-moon-sun system really is, and how how precisely balanced perfectly in favor of life.

Someone else who I shared this with really got it and it freaked them right out, this notion of an intelligent design, but once you look at the data the conclusion, however extraordinary, is inescapable.

And then there's that wonderful, astronomical coincidence called the solar eclipse, and when you realize how freaky it is, and look around at the whole process of life on earth, for me anyway it really fills me with a sense of awe and wondment, and an awesome gratitude that enables me to look at everything including myself and my relation to others and the world around me in an entirely new way.


Solstice and Perihelion

reply to post by InhaleExhale

We're terrestrials, not extra terrestrials.

reply to post by beautyofperil

astronauts left earth went to the moon, it was their place of residence for days, so having astronauts on the moon there was life on another surface that we were well aware of well sitting back here on our rock.

So now human life in space means they become extra terrestrial?

Is this what your saying,

They are still human where ever they are, not alien to earth, so I'm confused

reply to post by InhaleExhale

That's his insurance policy I guess, so that in the final analysis he can stick out his tongue and say na na na na na na I'm right no matter what.

Originally posted by nerbot
You can quote all the numbers and calculations you like until the cows come home, but there is still to this day NO PROOF.

If by "NO PROOF" you mean no direct, empirical proof, then that's kind of stating the obvious.

But the world isn't so black and white, and rational people realize that you don't need direct, physical proof to justify a belief. And it's not as though you either are or are not justified in a belief - there are gray areas where one can be more or less justified in a belief, based on the presence of more or less evidence. You could also be justified in a belief based on an inductive argument based on probability. And based on the probabilities involved, you could be more or less justified in inferring a conclusion.

In fact, the existence of the majority of the objects that constitute your reality you have no direct physical proof for. Their existence is induced based on subconscious statistical calculations. You even base your knowledge of the existence of most other species on this planet on statistical probability, and I think you'd still say that you're justified in believing in them. So the fact that the OP's argument doesn't involve direct physical proof for other life forms can't by itself be grounds for ignoring it.

The OP was attempting to present an inductive argument based on probabilities that they feel leads to a justified belief.

I think this kind of argument rests on the intuition that life isn't special - it's opportunistic and pretty much arises wherever it can. Obviously, you can't base an argument on intuition alone, so we have to ask: Are these assertions supported by fact?

I think so. On this planet alone, humans constitute 1 out of roughly 8.7 million species (with 10-50 million estimated total species). And some of these life forms (extremophiles) not only exist, but thrive in extraordinarily harsh conditions of pressure, temperature and gas.

You also have to add the premise that there's nothing very special about the conditions on our planet. We might assume this, given that our sun is 1 of roughly 300 sextillion stars in the universe. And at this point, you have to attempt to imagine a universe in which our planet is so special that we're the only ones harboring any form of life. In other words, what is the probability of that, given the explosion of life on this planet alone (in its often extreme environmental conditions) combined with the fact that our sun is just 1of roughly 300 sextillion other suns? I think these are the general contours of this kind of argument.

I think it's a pretty compelling one, and I'd even feel comfortable shifting the burden of proof onto someone to prove to me why our tiny little grain of sand is so special.

Originally posted by nerbot
Sure, many people will pipe up and say they KNOW life out there exists or that they've been abducted or seen a UFO or aliens etc. Unfortunately the thing many people conveniently put aside is the fact that we ARE human and therefore we are fallible and not always honest.

When I can see it, touch it and know 100% for myself then I will believe. Until then, there IS no proof so stop with the delusions to feed the wishful thinking.

Well I guess you don't believe in the existence of the vast majority of the universe, as it's not visible and you certainly can't touch it. By those standards, you also don't believe in the bottom of the ocean or any of its life forms, as I doubt you've ever seen or touched those.

Originally posted by nerbot
Life on Earth is only proof of stupidity. Just a ball of dirt hurtling through space with no destination and no purpose.

That's a deeply profound statement you've just made regarding the actual nature of the universe and the human condition. Care to back it up with proof? Or does it just 'feel' right?

In fact, the scientific visionaries throughout history who ushered in one great advancement after another in science, and who have exhibited the deepest insight into the nature of the universe (Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein) would largely disagree with the idea of a purposeless, mechanistic universe.

And I'm pretty sure they'd take issue with your description of the earth as "a ball of dirt".

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Where it starts to get really interesting however is when we consider where we're "at" as our solar system hurtles through the galaxy at 70,000 kph

bump cool simulation of the solar system travelling through spacetime.

reply to post by InhaleExhale


Didn't north americans become new worlders? So if they can become extraterrestrials too no?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Your very enlightening NewAgeMan and no amount of stars can show you how much respect I have for your replies and I am much obliged to you for that. The earth-sun-moon effect is no doubt true and mesmerising in my mind. Your really one of kind on this site

With applause out of the way, here is a link to some scientific info to help others better understand how even the most simplest form of life can be found where ever their eyes may dart.


Abiogenesis

Preferably for me I like this one:

Gold's "deep-hot biosphere" model In the 1970s, Thomas Gold proposed the theory that life first developed not on the surface of the Earth, but several kilometers below the surface. The discovery in the late 1990s of nanobes (filamental structures that are smaller than bacteria, but that may contain DNA) in deep rocks[125] might be seen as lending support to Gold's theory. It is now reasonably well established that microbial life is plentiful at shallow depths in the Earth, up to 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) below the surface,[125] in the form of extremophile archaea, rather than the better-known eubacteria (which live in more accessible conditions). It is claimed that discovery of microbial life below the surface of another body in our solar system would lend significant credence to this theory. Thomas Gold also asserted that a trickle of food from a deep, unreachable, source is needed for survival because life arising in a puddle of organic material is likely to consume all of its food and become extinct. Gold's theory is that the flow of such food is due to out-gassing of primordial methane from the Earth's mantle; more conventional explanations of the food supply of deep microbes (away from sedimentary carbon compounds) is that the organisms subsist on hydrogen released by an interaction between water and (reduced) iron compounds in rocks

Don't miss this link either AstroChemistry and find this quote:

According to the scientists, "...low H2/CH4 ratios (less than approximately 40) indicate that life is likely present and active." Other scientists have recently reported methods of detecting hydrogen and methane in extraterrestrial atmospheres

"The Bubble Theory" is an interesting find as well. But thats for another thread.

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by nerbot
You can quote all the numbers and calculations you like until the cows come home, but there is still to this day NO PROOF.

If by "NO PROOF" you mean no direct, empirical proof, then that's kind of stating the obvious.

But the world isn't so black and white, and rational people realize that you don't need direct, physical proof to justify a belief. And it's not as though you either are or are not justified in a belief - there are gray areas where one can be more or less justified in a belief, based on the presence of more or less evidence. You could also be justified in a belief based on an inductive argument based on probability. And based on the probabilities involved, you could be more or less justified in inferring a conclusion.

All you have managed to say "more or less", when talking about the proof of a belief "more or less" is that it is nothing more than what somebody was able to put together themselves. But still, none of what you have said is actual PROOF. As I mentioned way back on page one, (and was replied to with sarcasm and "wrong") even though I would love to see PROOF of ETs, at this point, all the OP has given is high probability. "more or less"

Originally posted by beautyofperil
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

Didn't north americans become new worlders? So if they can become extraterrestrials too no?

edit on 6-2-2013 by beautyofperil because: (no reason given)

Are Nth Americans Human in your eyes?

sorry for these back and forth but

"Nth Americans can become extra terrestrials too" care to explain how any American can become an extra terrestrial?

reply to post by greatfriendbadfoe


Do you hear that sound??

reply to post by InhaleExhale


North American= us today, New Worlder=when the white man came a knocking. Guess I actually put that backwards at first.

They go to the moon for a few days and play a round of golf.

Good night folks

My brains just farted out loud,

I'm going to the moon

Beware I am one of them

reply to post by beautyofperil


To expand upon your point, all our presence proves in the strictest sense, is that there is life on our planet, which is indeed within the universe. However, it PROVES nothing else. For proof to be found of anything else, we will have to go and discover it.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by draknoir2
Amino acids, nutrients, lightening, gases = primordial sludge, not life.

Do you know what amino acids are? They are the building blocks of life, they make up proteins. Stanley Miller created amino acids when he replicated the conditions of early Earth with hot water, gases and electricity. That's huge, it means that amino acids, the building blocks of life as we know if, could easily form on another planet. In fact we've found amino acids in meteorites much older than the Earth.

edit on 5-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Thank you for the lesson, though I was already aware of this.


Again, amino acids are no more life than are the base elements from which they are made. It's the next step that has yet to be taken. The Miller-Urey experiment DID NOT create life.

You're really underestimating what the outcome of that experiment means (which is why I assumed you didn't know).

It means that the experiment was able to synthesize more than the 20 amino acids required for life.

It does not mean that life was synthesized.

What exactly am I underestimating?

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by nerbot
You can quote all the numbers and calculations you like until the cows come home, but there is still to this day NO PROOF.

If by "NO PROOF" you mean no direct, empirical proof, then that's kind of stating the obvious.

But the world isn't so black and white, and rational people realize that you don't need direct, physical proof to justify a belief. And it's not as though you either are or are not justified in a belief - there are gray areas where one can be more or less justified in a belief, based on the presence of more or less evidence. You could also be justified in a belief based on an inductive argument based on probability. And based on the probabilities involved, you could be more or less justified in inferring a conclusion.

Yes -- if you personally believe ET exists, I think you are justified in that belief, considering the size of the universe and what we know about how adaptive life on Earth can be (e.g., extremophiles).

HOWEVER, that would still only be a personal belief, and it would not necessarily be the "truth" of it. Sometimes people can have a justified belief that is still wrong.

For the record, I personally believe that other intelligent life almost surely exists elsewhere in the universe, but I don't presume or project the reasons behind my belief as being "Proof". It is simply evidence, and circumstantial evidence at that. I think that evidence is overwhelming in favor of life being elsewhere, but it isn't proof.

reply to post by nerbot


ur attitude is for losers. by your logic, cant touch or see it, then there are a lot of things on this earth that dont exist to you! microorganisms, bedbugs, cancer cells. Iam pretty sure you have never seen these in person or even touched them, so they cant exist, right?
Anyone that follows your line of logic are just people that stick their head in the sand, and dont want to believe in anything or have faith that things do happen and exist that you have never seen or touched. Oh, and by the way, i'll let Jesus and God know that you said they dont exist, since you aint seen them or touched them!! lol
Geez, please join the rest of us here in the 21st century!!

reply to post by weknowall

ur attitude is for losers. by your logic, cant touch or see it, then there are a lot of things on this earth that dont exist to you! microorganisms, bedbugs, cancer cells. Iam pretty sure you have never seen these in person or even touched them, so they cant exist, right?

Wrong , all of these things can be tested for and proved by anybody with the right equipment. Their existence has been scientifically demonstrated and documented, Its call 'scientific method'. Its a staggeringly simple concept that im sure even you might be able to understand, try looking it up instead of throwing insults..

This is unlike the idea that there is life anywhere else other than the planet earth. I hope life is out there and im not saying there isnt its just there's just no proof. There's not even a hint of proof at this stage..logical inference does not count as proof.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


If there is no life elsewhere, what is this on Mars? It is quite clear to me that this is not a rock. It is plainly humanoid, with eyes etc where you'd expect to see them. But it appears to be naked. Check it out on Google Mars. It takes a bit of spotting, even if you go to the correct co-ordinates.

47°36'40.80"S, 4°23'7.58"E Elev 1231 metres

Green Man

Here it is enhanced slightly...

Green Man Green