Do you believe in life on other planets? (1 Viewer)

[CharlesD]

A rock is alive (in its way).

No it isn't. Life can broadly be defined as a natural, self-sustaining system that reduces/reverses entropy within its self. Rocks do not fit this definition.

 

[Andrew Pratt]

Max also think the Moon's effect on our tides also played a role in the evolutionary processes that occured.

I'm also well aware of the various chemical reactions that go on in the calvin cycle in both C3 and C4 variations and you are correct about its impressive efficencies compared to many other reactions. I'm also aware of the bacterium near the sea vents that use hydrogen sulfide to produce the energy they need. I guess my point is that while we know a little about life on this planet theres a tremendous amount we don't yet know. I'm sure we'll discouver something new that will change our perceptions on life in general in the future.

Anyway I still say the chances that we are alone is highly improbable...the real question is how common is life? To answer that question we need to know more about whats out there...

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, I'd certainly second that notion. Which is all the more reason funding for basic research is needed, not to mention a healthy, healthy boost to NASA's budget. But with the designated successor to Dan Goldin, Sean O'Keefe--the former head of the Office of Management and Budget, no less--that looks unlikely. O'Keefe wants to do his boss's bidding and slash what's left of NASA's budget to the bone. We have a budgeteer nominated to helm NASA, not a rocketeer.

Man, I wish I could be more optimistic in this thread.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Belief is meaningless. Wanting a thing to be true does not make it so. There is absolutely no reason to think that life exists outside of earth: we have no evidence of any. Likewise, there is no reason to think that we are alone until we explore every planet in the universe, which we can't.

I find it amusing that this topic, like the existence of a God or an afterlife, is so hotly debated when nobody has ever produced a shred of convincing evidence for either side of any of these debates.

The only thing we can do is choose a "default" position: that is, barring any evidence either way, do we assume the positive or negative? It is logical to assume the negative, otherwise anyone could make up anything they want and we'd all have to take it at face value. For example, I cannot claim that unicorns exist, and then say, "Well, prove that they don't." The burden of proof falls on me, the person presenting the existing of something.

Likewise, you can't say that there is life outside of earth, because you can't show it to me.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Very good post.

Another thing, to stir up the pot a little: It's unfortunate that "UFOs" sometimes get mixed into such speculation. If one rejects the "evidence" for flying saucers, he or she is not rejecting out of hand the concept of life on other planets.

Still, though, until there is evidence for such, all we can say is, "Who knows?"

Carl Sagan's posthumously published--and excellent--meditation on our culture's slippery slide into pseudoscience and belief in weird things, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark, was mentioned earlier. Consider the book strongly recommended.

 

[Darren Davis]

One of the more interesting bits of "evidence" I've seen pertaining to UFOs was a realvideo broadcast about three hours long from a convention of retired military personnel. It was a pretty big convention and there were many, many speakers who said that UFOs are real and that the government knows that they are actually a common occurrance. In fact, one man said that the first time one showed up on radar while he was working he called NORAD and it was really no big deal to them. There were a lot of other stories. Once again, I'm not a UFO fanatic or anything but the video was definitely interesting to say the least.

 

[Andrew Pratt]

JAck that sagan book has been on my must read list for some time now...maybe over christmas I'll have the time to read it.

 

[Max Leung]

The only thing we can do is choose a "default" position: that is, barring any evidence either way, do we assume the positive or negative? It is logical to assume the negative...

Why do we have to pick one or the other? Science doesn't work this way! Scientists don't ASSUME there is no life in the universe, and then go about NOT looking for it!
This is how a scientist would go about determining if life exists in the universe:
1) Life exists on Earth.
2) Earth obeys the same natural laws as the rest of the universe.
3) Life obeys the same natural laws as the rest of the universe.
4) Given the above, we hypothesize that life can exist outside of Earth.
5) Look for signs of life outside of Earth. Build better models for predicting how to go about this. Refine models. Test these models on Earth (i.e. a recent NASA probe has life-detecting instruments...which were tested on Earth with, *drum roll*, positive result! )
6) Take life into outer space...see how it fares. If life survives, then we CANNOT say that life is not capable of living outside of the Earth.
You are forgetting that science not only observes, it also PREDICTS. Given what we know about the variety of life on Earth, and the laws of nature, and that the material needed to sustain life is abundant in the universe, we can PREDICT that life should exist outside of Earth. Given our knowledge, we can narrow our search for life...by predicting that life cannot exist inside and around a black hole, or that life would not be likely around a neutron star. Currently, it is not possible for a scientist to assume the negative!
Remember, a scientist cannot say "ghosts do not exist". He can only say "there is no physical evidence for the existance of ghosts". Period. End of story. A scientist who says "there are no such things as ghosts" is stating a belief, not a fact. Any scientist who pushes this statement as fact is not a real scientist, IMO. Thus, a good scientist cannot say "We haven't found any evidence of life outside of earth, therefore life does not exist elsewhere in the universe." That is bad science.

 

[Max Leung]

Andrew, get that book! At least read the Baloney Detection Kit chapter.
It's a great book...Sagan's best IMHO. Although I am also fond of his Pale Blue Dot.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Max, either you misunderstood what I wrote or, more likely, I didn't state it well. Of course you're right, and when I said "assume the negative," I meant that there is no evidence for extra-terrestrial life.

And this is why science is the only valid method of determining how the universe works: it is, when done properly, the only objective approach to handle observations, experiments, and theories.

As far as UFOs are concerned, you'd have a real hard time convincing me that they are Aliens from Dimension X. For evey person who has "evidence," there are a dozen who are able to expose it as not. Oh sure, you could brush them away as being part of some sort of conspiracy, but that's really pushing the bounds of believability. The simpler answer is: UFOs are not aliens.

There are also thousands of believe who absolutely believe in astrology, communication with the dead, biblical "codes" that predict the future, Nostradamous, and crying statues of the Virgin Mary. People, we have a to be a bit more skeptical. In this crummy world, everyone's always trying to pull a fast one on you or trying to sell you something.

 

[Jack Briggs]

The entire "UFO" myth reminds me of long rides and drives I'd take in the Mojave Desert back when I was involved with motorcycles. On a straight stretch of road on a hot day, you'd see those mirages that made it look as if you were headed toward a small lake. When you got closer, the mirage would disappear.

Similarly, when one digs into the subject of flying saucers, the alleged "evidence" becomes as substantive as those summer highway mirages.

There's nothing there. And if there were, we'd all know about it.

The real Universe is far, far more exciting than the nonsensical meanderings of Budd Hopkins, Whitley Streiber, David Jacobs, et al.

 

[Brad_W]

There's nothing there. And if there were, we'd all know about it.

I think when people look long and hard enough they see what they want to see. An airplane at night to us is a UFO to them and so on and so forth. The same goes with "miracles," as long as people have the "need" to believe in something... they'll see it.

Does it mean that they actually see these things in reality? Absolutely not.

 

[NathanP]

If it hasn't, this thread is bound to turn into a Creation vs. Evolution thread..
Is there life on other planets?
I don't mind if there is or not!
I once read a book by an Astronmer called
"The Creator & the Cosmos" it was very interesting..
It'll turn any Evolutionist into a Creationist in a week

Well, this book pointed out how perfect our planet really is and if our planet had only miniscule changes in Size, Position in the Universe, amount of comets, stars, metorites, and planets around us along with various other things, we'd never be here..
I've read a bunch of other books on this subject, and by no means am I an expert, but I'd say it's a rare chance this could happen..
But, it could..
I also have a conspiricy theory that Area 51 is a cover-up for something even greater..
Alot of people feel the same way..
Well guys, in closing I just want to say I'm not going to bash someone's beliefes or whatnot, I'm just sharing my view of things..
Nathan

 

[Jack Briggs]

Our perfect planet? With its tectonic shifts and molten core threatening to erupt in the form of any number of species-threatening super-volcanoes? A planet which appears to have undergone at least three mass extinctions?

Of course, outside forces--i.e., comets, asteroids--appear to have cause those mass extinctions.

We are the beneficiaries of a great cosmic draw, a rare combination of fortunate processes.

As for "Area 51"--maybe spacecraft have been tested at this top-secret facility. But the spacecraft (or hypersonic craft) originated here on Earth, if they exist at all.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Our perfect planet? With its tectonic shifts and molten core threatening to erupt in the form of any number of species-threatening super-volcanoes? A planet which appears to have undergone at least three mass extinctions?

And tornadoes, and monsoons, and hurricanes, and ice ages, and sand storms, and earthquakes, and wobbly axis, and intake of dangerous UV rays...

Just another case of people inventing a "fact" and then using it to "prove" something because they can't use real facts.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

"The Creator & the Cosmos" it was very interesting..

It'll turn any Evolutionist into a Creationist in a week

Try "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennet. It'll bring him right back.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Yes!

 

[Ryan Wright]

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2001/split/569-2.html

Oceans might be common and diverse in our solar system and in other solar systems, according to David Stevenson of Caltech, who regards the old notion of a narrow "habitable zone" (Venus too hot, Mars too cold, Earth just right) for liquid water oceans as erroneous.
Stevenson spoke earlier this week in San Francisco at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union at a session intended to bring together two scientific communities that scrutinize very different realms--the planets and the seafloor on Earth.
The connection? Observations from the bottom of the ocean show that microbes thrive both in near-freezing seawater and in near-boiling effusions from thermal vents. These conditions might turn up in many other planetary environments.
For example, the Galileo spacecraft has provided evidence for watery oceans on three of Jupiter's moons-Callisto, Ganymede, and Europa. Subsurface oceans could be kept liquid by warmth from tidal forces (Jove wringing its satellites) or from radioactivity. Torrance Johnson of JPL, also speaking that the meeting, said that Europa's ocean might be 75-150 km thick and could thus harbor twice the water in Earth's oceans.
Stevenson added that observations also hint at oceans on Titan, Triton, and Pluto. In the case of Titan (soon to get the Galileo treatment when the Cassini spacecraft reaches Saturn in 2004) an ocean would be a mixture of water and ammonia (acting as antifreeze). Under some circumstances water might even be found inside Uranus and Neptune.

 

[Rain]

Well, I'm going to chime in once again.

I'm hearing much discussion of conditions on other planets being unhospitable to life yada yada yada.

Let's step back for a moment and take a broader perspective...

At the present time, we have only very limited knowledge of the workings of life, the universe and everything (if I may borrow from Mr. Adams) and the knowledge which we do have is rather self-centred.

What I mean to say is, while we may have a reasonable understanding of why Earth supports life as we know it, we have no understanding at all of other possibilies for life elsewhere.

Did we evolve into what we are because the conditions on our planet were "right"? Or, did we evolve into what we are to adapt to the conditions we were given? Seems to me it's a combination of both.

Let us open up our minds for a moment and think about the possibilities. Could there be "life" out there that has no similarities whatsoever to ours? "Life" which thrives in conditions that would be instantly fatal to us? Could there be other forms of "life" right here with us, but on a completely different level, such that we are not even able to perceive it with our senses or any measuring device we have yet created?

I would agree that sending radio signals out into space or hoping that little dudes with two eyes, two arms and two legs are going to step out of a saucer to say "hi" is probably a bit naive. But what else might be out there?

Of course, this is a very convoluted philisophical debate and any speculation would vary greatly depending on how we choose to define "life." However, I'm suggesting the possibility that any definition we come up with could be further broadened.

 

[Jim Benard]

I believe there is life out there but we probably won't find out for sure in our lifetimes.

I would love to be around if we found another civilization just like ours. It would be astonding to "compare notes" between the two worlds. Imagine studying all of their history, battles, inventions, etc. Assuming we were lucky enough to find a planet that has evolved on the same timeline as ours, questions like how did they create electricity, what they use for fuel, how did they combat polution, do they have homeless people, does wealth drive their society, how did they engineer their computer chips, what wars have they lived through, etc. Like in an old Star Trek episode, all of the natural resources should exist on other planets in the universe. There is no reason why another species could take those resources and make their planet as evolved as Earth is.

It would be something to live through that type of discovery... With the digital age all of our history will be preserved for future generations to share. Just look at all of the recent great movies based on our history. Can you imagine finding another world that has done the same and getting to watch their history played out for the first time? wow....