Forum: Rants Topic: Are the out there? started by: darksol Posted by darksol on Sep. 22 2000,18:16
So...What do you think, is there intelligent life beyond our galaxy?------------------ Posted by Blain on Sep. 22 2000,18:46
The universe is a pretty big place; I would have to say that there probably is LIFE out there somewhere. As for intelligent life…sometimes I’m not even sure there is intelligent life on earth.
Posted by hyperponic on Sep. 22 2000,18:48
Well...In the multi-trillions of years before us, who knows...but in a split-second (universe time - more like a few billion to us) we appeared and grew from a single cell to our present culture. Assuming that we are able to travel to space and enhabit other planets, this will likely occur in the time period of another 'split-second' (say, a few million years). Now, we have gone from nothing in the universe to a culture that is rapidly expanding across the universe in an extremely short time period, absolutely speaking. Therefore, if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe they must either be 1)not much more advanced than us, 2)very far away, 3) hiding themselves from us, or they don't exist. you probably think i pulled that out of my ass just now. i'll try to explain this a bit... Now, since we came into being and expanded so fast, it seems unlikely that another civilization exists right now, because they would have had to spontaneously form at essentially the SAME TIME as us (remember, a million years is nothing...), which is highly unlikely. Ok, so what if intelligent life does exist? Well, from the first case, we'd have to assume that they've had a LOT of time to advance, seeing as how they would have been around long before us. Which means that they'd almost definetly have developed some means of inhabiting other planets (one star only lasts so long). Now, after inhabiting a few solar systems, their ability to colonize should rapidly improve, to the point of exponential growth (over millions of years). If this is the case, they should have expanded so far that they would have covered all of the universe (is that possible?), or their transmissions would cover a great part of it (i'd think they would be interested in other forms of intelligent life, too). so this couldn't have happened unless they are Very far away...even after they've had millions of years to colonize galaxies, at an exponential rate. Otherwise we would have picked up a signal by now. It seems unlikely that we wouldn't have discovered some evidence by now, if they are ALL OVER THE PLACE (just not around here, heh). This would only leave the third choice, that they found and are watching us, but are hiding so that we can't see/detect them ... or that intelligent life doesn't exist anywhere else right now.. in any case, that was a rant-and-a-half ------------------ Posted by Lordbrandon on Sep. 22 2000,19:12
there HAS to be, i mean hundreds of billions of stars in our galixy alone and then hundreds of billions of galaxys making like a hundred trillion quadrillion stars. theres so many chances for diffrent things to happen theres probably mountain ranges that look exactly like that picture of elvis shaking hands with ritchard nixon, with odds like that how chould there not be. something i dont belive is that theres alieans on earth thats just bull shit. and to think that people belive that our goverment is hiding all these secrets, they cant even hold onto plans for nuclear weapons, why does anyone think we chould keep a secret about crashed alien spacecraft. just think of what our goverment is made up of. coke snorting hicks from texas and fat black ladies at the dmv. thoes people are the best we can come up with, theres no secret socioty of masterminds who pull all the strings, all it is, is trailer park superstision who belive in alieans instead of witches and wearwolfs
Posted by cr0bar on Sep. 22 2000,20:43
Please define what you mean by "life".
Posted by darksol on Sep. 22 2000,21:31
well....I meant the term intelligent life as in having a definite consciousness, the ability to decipher the difference between right and wrong------------------ [This message has been edited by darksol (edited September 22, 2000).] Posted by Sithiee on Sep. 22 2000,23:37
well, first off, right and wrong and conciousness are all relative. perfect example of right and wrong being relative: mp3s. (disclaimer: DO NOT bring that debate in here, it is just an example) i personally think that what most people use them for is wrong, but a lot of people think its right. hence it really depends on your point of view. conciousness is also relative. im concious of my being here, but whos to say my dog isnt also concious of this? just cause he cant say "hey hey, im self aware" does in no way mean he isnt. so, im sorry, but your intelligent life definition doesnt quite work (for me anyway....but it is all relative)now if you just mean other life in the universe, then statistically, there really is almost no way there isnt. not only in our general area, but when you take into consideration the infinite space theorem(see below) theres probably an infinite amount of "intelligent life" living up my ass right now. infinite space theorem: electrons, neutrons and protons make up atoms. there is space between these particles. the idea is that there could be a lot more space or a lot less, and that would severely change the size of the atom. so like if our atoms have 1 unit of space, another set of atoms could have 1(put lots and lots and lots of 0s here) units of space btw the particles, and our universe can fit nicely inside that space. if this doesnt make sense, watch men in black, and at the end, thats kind of what im talking about. if anyone has the textbook definition of this, please correct me... Posted by Hellraiser on Sep. 23 2000,01:20
Of course there is intelligent life beyond our galaxy! If there is any. There certainly isn't any in this galaxy, unless it is far, far away from our planet.Also, hyperponic, it might do you good to pay more attention in science. This universe is not believed to be multi-trillions of years old, evidence so far suggests it is more in the 15-20 billion year range. More seriously, if there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy, then the chances are pretty high that at least a few of those stars have a planet with conditions that can support life of some sort or another, and with 100 billion galaxies to chose from in the observed universe, there's also a fair chance that some of them might have developed life; whether it is like anything on earth is anyone's guess. Depending on how many such fertile planets there are, there might or might not be a planet (or hundreds of them) with life in similar stages of evolution to our own planet. The fact is we don't know for sure if there is sentient life out there, and speculation on the matter is more the stuff of science fiction than science. *Cue Star Trek theme music* We would have to in some way visit or observe these sentient beings, or see evidence of their existence before we could be sure. But until then, I'm sure us humans will be more than happy to continue to "boldly go where no man has gone before" in our attempts to learn all the hidden secrets of the vast universe we live in.... Sorry, I guess I watch too much SciFi and Science shows. ------------------ Posted by Happyfish on Sep. 23 2000,02:25
For someone to answer this question they need to decide where (or it reveals where they think) we came from. If you believe we evolved then, why couldn't it happen elsewhere? Though some ppl might say that the chances of successful evolution are so slim that it's doubtful that life has appeared anywhere else. If there is a God that created our universe and started life, then maybe we are just here to serve him and our lives hold no other purpose. But then again maybe God loves playing around with life forms and created thousands of other life forms all over the universe...and he's just waiting for us to discover each other... (I'm telling you it's a big sim universe, and God is ..well..playing God..)
Posted by darksol on Sep. 23 2000,18:01
the ability to percieve a right and wrong within the conditions of their lives.------------------ Posted by cr0bar on Sep. 23 2000,20:23
I still haven't seen a definition of life that isn't filled with assumptions.It seems to me that the discussion can't go further unless the terms it uses are defined. Posted by Keeps on Sep. 23 2000,22:33
Life is easy. Self-propogating organisms have existed on Earth from virtually the instant the surface solidified. There's no reason to believe this won't happen elsewhere with similar conditions, or even anywhere, regardless of conditions, simply with different components. Multicellular life takes an obscene amount of luck - witness that almost all of life on Earth's has been single celled, with multicellular crammed in quickly at the very end. Intelligence is impossible. There's no facet of standard evolution that leads towards intelligence, as that's not required for efficient breeding. Just look at most of humanity. Cockroaches, as well, are very highly evolved, to the point where they've kept the same basic form with only minor refinements for a hundred million years or so. It took a series of freak coincidences, most obviously the completely arbitrary extinction of the dinosaurs, to grow humanity's oversized brain, any one of which could have kept us from becoming intelligent. In his novel Sundiver, David Brin even seriously imagines forms of life on the sun. This is outlandish, taking the idea to the extreme, but it gets the point across. I wouldn't be surprised to find single-celled life on every planet in this system and the next, and just about everywhere in between. I would be thrilled to find multi-celled life, but that would almost certainly be substantially more rare. It's depressing, but following this, finding intelligence is about as impossible as our own existance. Maybe even more so, since we could have swallowed up the only winning hand for a long time. I certainly hope we're not alone, and there are certainly enough stars to give lightning a good chance of striking twice, but so far it's unlikely, at least in this galaxy. Posted by hyperponic on Sep. 24 2000,01:20
quote: You're just kidding, right? Do you know ANYTHING about architecture? It has been shown that, given enough time and enough people, humans can build very massive and very detailed structures. It's foolish to think for a second that humans are incapable of building pyramids, or stonehenge, or a great wall, or a ziggurat... And if you don't think so, then ask yourself this: why the FUCK would an alien being (or beings) land, build dozens of structures all over the world over various time periods, while human civilizations were built up in the same locations, then disappear without a trace while somehow convincing all of mankind to just 'forget' about them? ----------------- Posted by kuru on Sep. 24 2000,01:45
it's probably out there, and i'm not going to get into why i think so because that'd take forever to explain.i do think that whatever intelligent life exists elsewhere in this universe is not something that we could ever comprehend, just like it probably couldn't comprehend us. we're limited severely by our human definitions, human understandings, and human sight. the truth is, we can't possibly imagine what's beyond the things that we can see.... there could be "life" out there that we wouldn't even consider to be alive, that doesn't share any charactaristics of the kind of life we understand, and has an intelligence that is nothing at all like ours. now if the question is whether or not there are human-like intelligent life forms out there somewhere, i'd say that's pretty damn unlikely.... but given that whatever's out there could be infinitely different than us, the fact that we were a complete freak accident doesn't lessen the chance that some other complete freak accident in a totally different direction happened. i hope that made sense, because the english language is seeming pretty damned inadequate for saying what i mean right now. ------------------ Posted by DuSTman on Sep. 24 2000,01:48
I just saw a program about investigations into UFOs, it was pretty interesting, though they managed to explain the majority of sightings there were a few unexplained ones, Even more interesting was the fact that a russian inquest into one of the sightings actually concluded that it was, indeed, an alien spacecraft. Odd. Posted by darksol on Sep. 24 2000,03:46
cr0bar, kindly explain what your term of intelligent life is. I will try to explain further by saying that when i mean "intelligent life" i would expect a lifeform that is able to have a sophisticated culture, with technology that they upgrade every so often.------------------ Posted by Keeps on Sep. 24 2000,03:57
quote: How are you defining life that there could be something alive that doesn't fit the definition? I realize that alien is alien, but what is there that would keep us from recognizing different intelligences or life as being such? People throw this excuse that it could be different around a lot without thinking it through. I can tell you definitively that dolphins, dogs and cats, for example, aren't intelligent. This isn't because I can't see it through my humanity, this is because they aren't. They certainly feel, and they most definitely have emotions. They communicate. But listen to dolphin songs, or the dog barking monotonously down the street. They're conveying emotion, not information. I've seen a cat get its collar caught and wind around it until it started suffocating itself, at which point it frantically tried to keep spinning in the same direction to free itself until I had a chance to get her free. That's not intelligence any way you look at it, but only emotion. Likewise with life: "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction." Without that, what is it? It doesn't have to be cellular life. It doesn't have to be water-based. It doesn't have to be organic. But without those characteristics, it is not life. That's not human prejudice, that's what life is.
quote: I never said it would never happen. We happened, after all. But if it had already happened within this galaxy in the last couple million years, we would know about it. We've been looking. We've been staring at the sky for millions of years, though you can throw aside most of that due to the lack of records. More recently, the SETI program has been listening, and has found nothing. If there's anyone else in the galaxy, they're relatively new, they're far away, or they're not advanced enough to matter. Certainly, while most UFO sightings are false, once in a while one of them could be real, just checking to see if this planet is available to be colonized. But then again, Earth is brighter than the sun on some wavelengths, particularly military radar. We're shouting to the universe that we're here, and have been for decades. Come within twenty lightyears or more, and they would know we're here, and wouldn't need to bother checking. And why would every race be content to leave us alone? I hope we're not alone. I'd like some variety, and the different concepts another race would certainly have. But for all the twelve billion years the universe has been around, it's more likely that we're the first, and will be, as a race, very lonely for a long time. I just hope that when we do finally start colonizing we don't disrupt any promising candidates. Posted by Rhydant on Sep. 24 2000,05:17
Hrmm.. i like topics like this.i do believe that there is life beyong ours. i mean, look at the pyramids. i think they were built by aliens. humans couldnt of built them. hell, WE couldnt build them now. theres many pieces of evidence to support this, but im not gonna get into that. then theres the thing of how life started. i mean, take the first single celled organisim. its comprised of /very/ basic substances like amino acids and stuff, but the thing is, how did these elements and compounds actually form to creat an intellegnce? we couldnt do anything like that. now i cant say that some higher being did that because we have no proof. then that cell evolved into a simple water plant, then jelly fish, then other boneless organisms, then fish, then reptiles and so on. its just mind blowing to think about it all, because we cant be sure of how it really happened. but anyhow.. ALIENZ RULEZ! er, j/k ------------------ Posted by TonyDennis on Sep. 24 2000,15:42
LordBrandon: If the government can not keep a secret, who killed JFK?-Tony ------------------ Posted by aventari on Sep. 24 2000,16:23
We're talking about life like it's a concrete set of parameters easily used to put things we observe in nice neat boxes. In reality, it's not like that.Scientists are constantly revising the conditions for 'life' everytime they find something new that sort of meets the criteria but sort of doesnt, but acts alive. For example: in my biology class my teacher was talking about viruses, and how we are split on whether they are alive or not. They have dna, they reproduce, but they are basically just protein shells holding that dna reproducing by hijacking the cells of other organisms. is that alive? So a concrete definition is not really available, but when we talk about alien intelligience beyond our galaxy, i'd say you must use your best judgement. Personally i'd say darksol meant anything that uses technology or is self-aware or something like that. Show me an alien, and i'll give you my best guess! So is there intelligent life in this huge expanding universe? I say hell yeah, if there isn't anything other than us right now, there sure will be in the future. i just hope i'll be around to see it. ------------------ Posted by darksol on Sep. 25 2000,02:35
do you really mean that? or is that just bs?------------------ Posted by cr0bar on Sep. 25 2000,05:37
I can't define life. Nobody can.
Posted by Lordbrandon on Sep. 25 2000,07:17
I believe life is anything that causes matter to organize above the complexity of a crystal.That is to me the definition of life.its not realy fair to ask "what is life" or "what is alive" or "what are the common parameters of a lifeform" its really whatever you think it is, there's no universal absolute "LIFE" its an abstract idea that only aplies to your situation. its like asking what is the sientific definition of love. its just a word we made up to try to categorize similar events. its not like asking "what's a proton" a proton is a proton no mater how you look at it. they're the same here as they are in every part of the universe. there's nothing that's kinda a proton, it is a proton or it is'nt, it's an absolute. so when you ask what life is you're not asking what are the exact patterns that outline life, you're asking what are the common conceptions of these patterns. and I definatly belive that viruses are alive. the fact that they can't produce without host cells just makes them parasytic. so if your'e searching for life on other planets I think you'd want to go on a case by case basis, not to blindly follow a ruleset. and to tonydenis: i dont think the goverment is incapable of keeping any secrets, just not really big ones, espesialy when you have to hire technitions to work with the subject and have to inform supireor officers. if the cia did kill kenedy, or was involved with who did, they probably didnt keep records about it, and the people involved dont have any motivation to come forward. Posted by masher on Sep. 25 2000,08:26
One of the accepted definitions of life is that living organisms require a continuous expenditure of free energy.This is straight from NewScientist, vol 167 issue 2251, 12/08/2000, page 20 This definition works for me. ------------------ Remember, its all your fault. Posted by cr0bar on Sep. 25 2000,13:50
Are viruses alive? They can lie dormant without continuously using any energy for many years and still reproduce. When they finally do reproduce, they themselves don't actually do anything.
Posted by pengu1nn on Sep. 25 2000,15:54
i think it is ignorant to think earth is theonly planet that has "life". mars has/had life on it, remember a couple that is right next door to us, the universe is huge, we can't be the life form out there. Posted by Keeps on Sep. 25 2000,16:03
We can certainly define life. That doesn't mean there won't be special cases, but special cases don't invalidate the definition. Viruses are a special case, in some ways alive and in others inanimate. But they are clearly a special case, and can be recognized by most people to be both alive and not. They reproduce, they adapt, they have no metabolism, they don't react to anything except for injecting their DNA into the host cell. I don't think this method of life would work for anything larger, and certainly wouldn't qualify as intelligent, so identifying alien lifeforms as alive still doesn't have any problems. On the other hand, because of the way a virus lives, if we did find an alien virus that was identifiable as that, we would know other life exists.
Posted by darksol on Sep. 25 2000,16:22
actually, they still dont know whether there was life or not no mars. Astronomers and scientists have not been able to put forth enough evidence to support that claim.------------------ Posted by Lordbrandon on Sep. 25 2000,16:34
a grass seed can lie dormant for years waiting for rain, so is a seen alive then?if not then youre saying that a life form created itself from an inadamate object Posted by Bozeman on Sep. 25 2000,16:58
Are amino acids inanimate? If so, yes, life came from inanimate amino acids. (lots of 'em)
Posted by Lordbrandon on Sep. 25 2000,18:10
its not that a definition is inadiqate, its that no one can agree on a single definition because its such a grey area and there are so many exeptions, and so many possible exeptions. thats why I like my definition because I'ts simple and it seem to seperate living objects from inanamate matter
Posted by Keeps on Sep. 25 2000,19:49
quote: No, just of the definition of life as the continuous expenditure of energy. Lordbrandon's might work, since it's simple, and I can't think of anything offhand that breaks it. Maybe the self-assembly things in nanotech research. Posted by darksol on Sep. 25 2000,21:58
say....totally different from the topic at hand, anyone ever read Ender's Game?------------------ Posted by Bozeman on Sep. 25 2000,23:56
I read the whole Ender series. They were great. I reccomend them to anyone, they are written by Orson Scott Card.The definition of life may be ambiguous, but intelligence is probably not as ambiguous. If we find another intelligence in the universe, then either we will join forces and create a new golden age of peace and learning, or the shit will hit the fan and one wil wipe the other out. Or something else will happen, you never know. Posted by darksol on Sep. 26 2000,00:14
back on the topic, cr0, do you really believe in that statement, or are you just fucking with us?------------------ Posted by Althornin on Sep. 26 2000,02:15
The main problem, as i see it, with identifying alien intelligences is that, well, they're ALIEN.So they are different. Who says we'll even be able to tell if they are intelligent or not, or even recognize them as life? assuming we can tell they are life, what if they communicate with hard radiation? We'll think we're under attack or something and they might just be sayin "whassup??". Alien is different. and giving the immense number of stars out htere, we all pretty much agree there has to be some life out there right? and yes, the Ender's Game series is kick ass - 100\% recommended. ------------------ Posted by Lordbrandon on Sep. 26 2000,04:29
....now to make first contact with an alien intelegence, using the universal language of violent slaps in the face.. what! it seems that they've some how misunder stood the universal language!!
Posted by Happyfish on Sep. 26 2000,04:45
life (lf) n., pl. lives (lvz.) Biology. I don't think viruses are alive at all. They don't do anyhting. they just alter DNA. I think they are as alive as computer viruses. Posted by kuru on Sep. 26 2000,05:34
if the only criterion for determining whether or not something is alive is the continuous conversion of free energy, then stars are alive.they're continuously using free energy of atoms moving around in a nuclear reaction to produce radiation, heat and light. ------------------ Posted by cr0bar on Sep. 26 2000,05:52
Now we see the inadequacies of any definition of life emerging. This is my point.
Posted by kixzor2 on Sep. 26 2000,10:23
No.I do not belive (eg. take as truth) that living things/creatures/intelligent beings exist beyond our own planet. Amebas, slime, bacteria, mold, sludge, plants - I belive that these things and the like MAY exist 'out there' but I very much doubt that those things are going to contact us anyday soon.
Posted by pengu1nn on Sep. 26 2000,13:53
i just think it is crazy to believe we are the only life in the universe.the universe is hugh, look at the sky at night, when you see a star (assuming you can see one/two/three/etc...) just think of how many planets are circling that "sun" or one of the million other "suns", there has to be life out there. Posted by hyperponic on Sep. 26 2000,14:38
I think its crazy to believe that there isn't, or can't be, life somewhere else. However, i seriously doubt that it is anywhere near as advanced as we are. In any case, there isn't a chance in hell that any of us will see it...------------------ Posted by Keeps on Sep. 26 2000,16:23
As I've said, life is easy. We'll probably find life everywhere we can survive and most places we can't. Intelligence is more doubtful, but if we did find anything, a more practical "universal language" that we'd have to worry about is smiling. This is, admittedly, judging only from this planet, but we're just about the only species here that bares its teeth when it's happy. Sure, my dog does it too, but that's because she's been raised among humans. For most any wild animal, bared teeth is a threat. This is where ingrown biases and aliens being alien would become a problem, not in finding out if they're intelligent or even alive: simple assumptions like a smile meaning good things.
Posted by Jynx on Sep. 26 2000,19:42
Uh, Keeps, what do you mean, "Life is easy"? Nothing could be further from the truth!Think of the simple act of reproduction in multicelled animals. How do the cells know when to specialize, and what to specialize into? Think of all of the hundreds of thousands of chemicals that need to be created at a specific time, in a specific quantity, to cause a healthy baby. Think on this, as well--we have made educated guesses at what the "primordial soup" consisted of, and have been able to recreate the environment. If life is so "easy", then why are we so totally unable to create it ourselves? As for the topic at hand, I believe that there is a pretty good chance of life somewhere else, but more than likely it will be some unicellular organism. While I believe that the possibility is there, it is fantastically small, even given the large number of possible solar systems. ------------------ "If it's not one thing, it's two." Posted by cr0bar on Sep. 26 2000,21:23
quote: Believe in what statement? One thing I really love is having people quote dictionaries to me. Really, genius at work. . . I still contend that "life" as it is generally thought of is simply a human construct. For every possible definition of life there are counter examples i.e. stars, viruses (and it's viruses goddammit not 'virii'), or even galaxies or the universe itself. Perhaps the question should be "Are there entities other than humans that we could interact with in the universe?" and not "Is there other life/intelligent life in the universe?" While I would argue that a star or a galaxy is alive, I wouldn't argue that I could sit down and have lunch with it. ------------------
Posted by Keeps on Sep. 27 2000,02:25
quote: Look at the fossil records. The earth is about 4.6 billion years old. The oldest rocks are about 4 billion years old, indicating 600 million years was the time it took for the surface to cool enough to form the crust. Simple prokaryotic life has existed as far back as 3.7 billion years, only 300 million years after there was a surface for life as we know it, which is relatively instantaneous. Primitive algae formed at this time. However, it took until about 2.1 billion years ago, more than one and a half billion years, to form even eukaryotic life - single celled life with nuclei - even with a reliable sun and rather high radiation. In comparison, it took 1.2 billion years to form stable continents in the Archean period of the Precambrian era, from 3.7-2.5 billion years ago. This is geological time we're dealing with. It wasn't until about one billion years ago that we first start seeing multicellular life - more than a billion years after cells originally discovered the advantages of symbiosis by forming nuclei. After that, it's all good. Exchanges of genetic material become far more prevalent, and life races through more and more complex species. After a couple million years of rudimentary tools in the stone age, human civilizations appear around 10,000 years ago. So, because life appeared practically at the moment conditions became favorable, even just on this one planet, I say again: life is easy. Complex life is not, and it certainly took a great deal of mutation and radiation soaking to get where the rest of the world is right now, not even counting ourselves. Posted by Keeps on Sep. 27 2000,21:48
What doesn't? Taking less than seven percent of the span of the earth's existance to hit on the right random chances to form life? Taking half the time it took just for the planet to cool down? I'm not saying you should be able to go to Walmart and create life in your basement, but life created itself about as soon as it could, creeping into every niche it could find.
Posted by hyperponic on Sep. 27 2000,23:04
quote:
------------------ Posted by Keeps on Sep. 28 2000,00:35
quote: No, they're not. That's my point. We're one for one for life appearing practically instantly as soon as conditions were right for that kind of life. There's also no reason something completely different couldn't have appeared before the surface cooled just to be wiped out by changing conditions, or to believe that given more time something wouldn't have come to life. It wouldn't have been our life, but all life doesn't have to be water- and oxygen-based. And there's no reason to think it doesn't appear literally everywhere else. We have no evidence against it, and only circumstantial evidence for it. Posted by Happyfish on Sep. 28 2000,02:34
quote: Interesting. So, back to what I said about viruses: Are computer viruses alive? Are computers alive? Surely a computer is as well organized as a solar system (well, maybe not if it's running windoze, but..) This message has been edited by Happyfish on September 27, 2000 at 09:35 PM Posted by pengu1nn on Sep. 28 2000,05:36
that doesn't sound to easy!
Posted by Hellraiser on Sep. 29 2000,15:05
I think that "intelligent" life is defined by the ability to spell words correctly, which would definitely exclude Lordbrandon. Since he is not an intelligent life form, his definition for life cannot be said to be the product of intellectual reasoning, therefore is not something we can base our opinions on the nature of life on. Thus we are back to square one.If you believed any of that, you're more gullible than I thought. :P In all seriousness, Life is more of a concept than a concrete and definable word. So asking if there is life on other planets is rather useless. First we would have to see an example of the subject in question, then determine if it fits our concept of "life." If it does there is. If it doesn't we need to keep searching. That's all there is to it. You'll never be able to prove that there is no life elsewhere in the universe, unless you visit and thoroughly explore every possible location in the universe, and in the time it would take you to do that, life could form at one of the locations you already visited. However, all it would take would be to find one life form outside of our own planet to prove that there is life elsewhere in the universe than our own planet. You can't argue with that, and since we have nothing to base the probabilities on, you can't say how high or low the chances of there being life on other planets are or aren't. That's a matter of personal belief, not science or reasoning. ------------------ Posted by Ozymandias on Sep. 29 2000,23:05
Just out of curiosity...Why, exactly, is this in the Rants forum as opposed to The Classroom??------------------ Posted by darksol on Oct. 01 2000,03:29
i accidentaly started it up in here------------------ |