Ok, so SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) has been at it for thirty years now without so much of a whisper of a signal from an alien race. So where are they?

Consider, life has been on Earth for nearly 4 billion years, of which intelligent life has been around for less than half a million years. A tiny fraction of the history of life on Earth. So, life may teem throughout the universe, but intelligent life may be incredibly rare.

We really may be alone out here. What do you think?

If there is other life throughout the universe, it may simply be too far away for us to find, or in a form that would be unrecognizable to us.

I'll keep hoping to find something though.

(Anyone else in the U.S. see the new Doctor Who premiere on SciFi last night?)

Well, if life is so rare that it's extra-galactic, we may as well be alone - communication will be forever impossible.

I suppose that SETI observers are rather anthropocentric in expecting ET's to communicate in ways we would expect them to, but I suppose it's the only yardstick we have.

Given the universe's physical make-up, though, any complex and intelligent life will have a far better chance of having evolved to such if it's carbon-based, so we would expect some sort of recognisability.

Doctor Who? I've seen a few, not really into it much, though it's not bad.

Well, if life is so rare that it's extra-galactic, we may as well be alone - communication will be forever impossible.

I suppose that SETI observers are rather anthropocentric in expecting ET's to communicate in ways we would expect them to, but I suppose it's the only yardstick we have.I think that looking for radio signals is an intelligent idea. It is the most recognizable signal coming from this planet, anyway.

Given the universe's physical make-up, though, any complex and intelligent life will have a far better chance of having evolved to such if it's carbon-based, so we would expect some sort of recognisability."Carbon-based" covers a lot of possibilities. What if they need a different environment than we do. We may never interact with them the way that aliens in Star Trek interact.

Doctor Who? I've seen a few, not really into it much, though it's not bad.Ah, the season premiere was about humans finally having unequivocal proof that we aren't alone in the universe. It was fairly interesting.

I"Carbon-based" covers a lot of possibilities. What if they need a different environment than we do. We may never interact with them the way that aliens in Star Trek interact.

.

Well, looking at the plethora of environments that the Earth has had over it's history (for most of that history, it's atmosphere would have been toxic even to us) it's almost definite they will need a different environment.

Some methods of communication we can expect to be universal constants, though. Radio is one. It's do damned obvious we can expect any developing intelligence to utilise it.

So, with an assumption that complex and intelligent life may well be a radio using, carbon-based lifeform, the galaxy should be full of signals. Unless, as I suspect, intelligent life is incredibly rare and very likely an improbable proposition for most environments in the universe.

If it isn't rare, we return to Enrico Fermi's paradox, 'so where are they?'.

Of course we're not alone. My martian friend Bob will tell you that.

Ah well , looks like we're not going to get the deep scientific/philosophical debate this subject has drawn on other forums.

Never mind, I might re-try it when the forum has grown.

Ok I willl be serious.

Personall, I think no, we aren't. I mean there are so many other planets out there and so, why only have one speices inhabiting just one planet?
What's the point of all those other planets. Come on now, realistically, they aren't there just for the hell of it. They have some purpose but what that is, no one knows.

Consider, life has been on Earth for nearly 4 billion years, of which intelligent life has been around for less than half a million years.


I personally beg to differ. I believe in a young earth as a 4 billion year old earth has yet to be proven.

But yes, I think we are alone as far as alien life is concerned.

I personally beg to differ. I believe in a young earth as a 4 billion year old earth has yet to be proven.

But yes, I think we are alone as far as alien life is concerned.

A young earth? You mean the creationist argument for an Earth that's just a few thousand years old?

Well, there is sedimentation in rocks dated to around 4 billion years ago. Plus there's the evidence from uranium decay dating for an age to the solar system. Also, how do the creationisits explain the fossil record? The evolution and exctinction of so many millions of species in just a few thousand years?

That's a very different debate, though, but still an interesting point.

I believe there is intelligent life somewhere in the universe. I think it's just a question of if we find them, or if they find us.

What if there is intelligent life near us in the universe, that DOESN'T want to be found by creatures like us?

I personally beg to differ. I believe in a young earth as a 4 billion year old earth has yet to be proven.That's interesting. I believe nearly the opposite. I believe in a 4.56 billion year old Earth because a 6000 year old Earth has yet to be proven.

:) But, as Buddha said, these sorts of questions are only a distraction from the questions that actually matter.

A young earth? You mean the creationist argument for an Earth that's just a few thousand years old?

Well, there is sedimentation in rocks dated to around 4 billion years ago. Plus there's the evidence from uranium decay dating for an age to the solar system. Also, how do the creationisits explain the fossil record? The evolution and exctinction of so many millions of species in just a few thousand years?

That's a very different debate, though, but still an interesting point.

i dont think Earth can be a few thousand years old. if it was, it must have been SUPER fast to have nothing evolve into prehistoric creatures, then dinos, then ice age, then humans. if you add up all the generations of mammoths alone, they would have lived up to about 100 years. and you can find PLENTY of mammoth skeletons. think about it. :D

Earth was around for millions of years, I don't think anyone can argue about it. Like doom5day said, things need time to evolve and so I draw to the conclusion that the earth has been around much longer than us, yetI belive we will be the last speices. Although imagine if we get wiped out like the dionsuars and another speices takes our place. Though I highly doubht that.

Yep, the fossil record indicates millions of species whose evolutionary lineage can be traced over the eaons. Also, given the rate of sedimentation, how could we have the millions of years of sedimentary rock strata that we do?

As far as diversity of complex animal life goes, it only really appeared on Earth after the 'Cambrian Explosion' about half a billion years ago. for the previous 3.2 billion years, bacterial life dominated. It may be that a rare sequence of events led to the sort of oxygen rich atmosphere capable of sustaining animal life.

If these sort of events are rare, the only sort of life awaiting us 'out there' may be microbial.

Life hasn't been on earth for 4 billion years, it was only made 4.2 billion years ago. I bet for a billion years or so there wasn't even oceans on Earth.

My grandmother always says, "The surest sign of intellegent life in the Universe is that they haven't contacted us yet." I know she's quoting it from someone though.

I do believe there is other intellegent life out there, and that they're not all carbon based (I believe in this very strongly).

Enkil, the first traces of bacterial life enter the fossil record about 3.7 billion years ago.

Oh, and the latest theories put the earth's age at about 4.5 billion years.

Also, we know from the periodic table that of all the elements, carbon is more suitable for forming complex compounds such as those in organic chemistry. You COULD do it with other elements I suppose, but it would be far more dificult to form complex creatures such as animals.

Still, it's always possible, but more improbable.

Did anyone here know that DNA, being the basis of life, was created in a volcano out of Silicon when the earth was first being formed? Interesting isnt it.

About the main topic though, the universe is so huge their is no way that their is no more life out there. THe thing is, there is also no way for them to get to us and vice versa. We are certainly not alone but we might as well be.

Well I believe there may be more intelligent species out there..well intelligent enough to stay away from us..lol. But seriously there is no way we can be alone in the universe.

Did anyone here know that DNA, being the basis of life, was created in a volcano out of Silicon when the earth was first being formed? Interesting isnt it.

.

Where did you get that info from? Silicon isn't even an element in organic chemistry. DNA is carbon based, and carbon is formed in stars during stellar nucleosynthesis.

We can find organic compounds, such as those DNA is made from, in all manner of places such as comets, but nobody yet knows how DNA was first formed on the planet. Maybe yours is just one of those theories.

Well, I got it off a TV program being presented by Sir David Attenborough. I forget, its not silicon, its a very similar compound. I agree, it could be wrong.

A young earth? You mean the creationist argument for an Earth that's just a few thousand years old?

Something like that, yes. I'm not saying it has to be, just what I choose to believe.

Well, there is sedimentation in rocks dated to around 4 billion years ago. Plus there's the evidence from uranium decay dating for an age to the solar system. Also, how do the creationisits explain the fossil record? The evolution and exctinction of so many millions of species in just a few thousand years?

One possibly explanation for the sedimentation is the flood (which I do believe). I'm a theist and I believe in the old testament account of a worldwide flood. This would create enough pressure to create the same effect as millions of years of decay.

As for the fossil record - the fossil record is the embarrassment to evolutionists.

Also, all of your are making the assumption that evolution is true. It is a theory. Basically the options are this:

1. Evolution - Old Earth
2. Creation - Old Earth
3. Creation - Young Earth

There isn't really room for a young earth evolutionists, which should be obvious.

If these sort of events are rare, the only sort of life awaiting us 'out there' may be microbial.

Back on topic...

Think about it. What are the chances of life whatsoever invovling evolution? Miniscule. Near non-existent. Highly improbable. That means that homo sapiens are a result of chance. That the conditions to allow even the smallest life to form are difficult to understand the chances against it.

In contrast, if we have billions or trillions of years behind us (or an infinate universe timewise) then chances are also that we aren't the only one's to have evolved. If that's so then other life would exist - and also would most likely be far more advanced than ourselves.

It don't think it matters whether it is Creation or Evolution theory that is correct, all that matters is what theory serves mankind best. And at the moment that's Evolution. After thousands of years basing our ideas on religious texts and teachings, the 20th century saw for the first time massive and sustained progress in science and technology. Creation theory might serve us in the future, but Evolution is doing a fantastic job just now.

As for whether or not we're alone, I think there are definitely other intelligent life forms out there. The universe is just too big. But I'm guessing if they or we do make contact, the chances are they would be as aggressive as ourselves, as the most important variable to progress is competition, violent, unflinching competition. I don't think civilisation will ever be able to weed that out. We've been trying for donkies but are still failing miserably.

Think about it. What are the chances of life whatsoever invovling evolution? Miniscule. Near non-existent. Highly improbable. That means that homo sapiens are a result of chance. That the conditions to allow even the smallest life to form are difficult to understand the chances against it.

In contrast, if we have billions or trillions of years behind us (or an infinate universe timewise) then chances are also that we aren't the only one's to have evolved. If that's so then other life would exist - and also would most likely be far more advanced than ourselves.


It's a good point, and one considered by SETI researchers like Frank Drake with his 'Drake equation'. Yep, there are billions of stars in this galaxy alone, but then, the probability of intelligent life may well be billions to one. Meaning that intelligent life may be so rare it could well be forever beyond our technological reach.

The flood theory of sedimentation is interesting, but I can't agree with it. that amount of sedimentation as a one-off event wouldn't show the different rock strata and gradual change of fossil types through that strata that are well-known and easy to see.

Something as simple as rock strata is the death-knell for creationist arguments as it's rock-solid and obvious proof of a long and varied history of the Earth as well as of its evolving life-forms.

Consider, if there was a creationist event, why would god create a world seething only with bacteria for most of its life? And why do we see increasing complexity of species with many new species coming into existence long after any intial event would have taken place?

It don't think it matters whether it is Creation or Evolution theory that is correct, all that matters is what theory serves mankind best. And at the moment that's Evolution. After thousands of years basing our ideas on religious texts and teachings, the 20th century saw for the first time massive and sustained progress in science and technology. Creation theory might serve us in the future, but Evolution is doing a fantastic job just now.

Firstly, I'd like to say that it does indeed matter. If Creationalists are right, then there's a God. If there's a God (let's say the Christian God) then there's the possibility of salvation, heaven, hell, forgiveness, and so forth. I'd say eternal life or damnation is something that should matter.

I'd say that we'd made some decent technological leaps before the discovery of evolution. After the dark ages near the renaissance and reformation we started making all sorts of inventions such as the printing press long before evolution was an established scientific theory.

Something as simple as rock strata is the death-knell for creationist arguments as it's rock-solid and obvious proof of a long and varied history of the Earth as well as of its evolving life-forms.

Funny, you failed to mention the fossil record.

Consider, if there was a creationist event, why would god create a world seething only with bacteria for most of its life? And why do we see increasing complexity of species with many new species coming into existence long after any intial event would have taken place?


My belief is that he wouldn't. I don't believe in evolution.

I respect your beliefs, but often wonder why creationists challenge evolution when arguing for a biblical creation. Why not accept evolution and that maybe the entire universe itself was created? Surely the big bang could be seen as a creationist event.

Some of the well-argued Intelligent Design debates have merit and carry more weight than simply denying the evidence for evolution.

I respect your beliefs, but often wonder why creationists challenge evolution when arguing for a biblical creation. Why not accept evolution and that maybe the entire universe itself was created? Surely the big bang could be seen as a creationist event.

Creationists argue against marco-evolution, not microevolution. It is understood and proven that small changes are made when animals migrate to different locations, and that if they stay in said places long enough, they because a part of that ecosystem.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, seems so much more difficult to understand.

One question i have always had that none of my evolutionist friends can answer is this:
If the big bang did occur, then how does one explain mating? It seems that both the male reproductive and female reproductive areas would have to evolve at the exact same time so as to [1] preserve the species and [2] allow it to evolve. As even the reproductive area of mice is so complex, how can we say that two different creatures made the same evolutionary jump at the exact same time, and said jumps were still 100% complatible?

Some of the well-argued Intelligent Design debates have merit and carry more weight than simply denying the evidence for evolution.

I agree. But it should also be remarked that too many people just flat-out deny ID because of the religious implications. You'd think God was as taboo as discussing sex toys in a convent.

At any rate, back to the initial topic.

It is possible and probable for life to exist elsewhere in our universe and even in our own galaxy. I don't know if any of you have read about nanobacteria. A while back, a Martian rock was found, and upon studying it, scientists found what appeared to be fossilized evidence of tiny bacteria. The problem was, they were too small to possibly live. Later on, a geologist found similar samples here on earth. So far, research has found them to be self-replicating. But the debate goes on about whether or not they are alive. If it does turn out that these nanobacteria are living, and that they (at least at one time) lived on Mars, the implications would be huge. Life on another planet, and so close to home! However, it could turn out to be nothing.

As research into extra-galactic planets progresses (astronomers have "detected" quite a few now) we should be able to determine which have the highest probability for life (based on what we know now, of course).

Or you can enter the contest: Money for Earth-like planets (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20564107-2702,00.html). Or: Planet Quest (http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm)

Then we can focus our communication efforts on those locations. Life very probably exists out there somewhere. Whether we can communicate with it or not, who knows right now? But SETI currently leads the charge on doing what we can with what we have. Hopefully someone out there knows how to respond to frequencies.

The bigger question (dependent on the first): what do we do when we find new life? That day will blow everyones' minds (assuming that we hear the details; governments may want to withhold the information out of concern for the public well-being). A few years back astromoners tracked an asteroid that looked like it would hit the earth the next day. What's the first question the government asked: do we tell people? When someone finds life they'll likely ask the same thing.

Its very hard to come to a decison about this, the universe is always expanding. And with every star that explodes new planets are formed. So you would think that there is another planet out there which could sustain some form of life. Intelligent or not.

As much as you guys are correct about the probability of life existing elsewhere being high, the question is about the probability of intelligent life.

Yes, the universe probably seethes with bacterial life. It appeared on Earth in its very early and very hostile stages and has been here ever since. We know bacteria will thrive deep in rocks in the Antarctic and in Death Valley. We know it will survive in super-heated water around oceanic geothermal vents. But what about complex or intelligent life?

That's a very different proposition. It may well be that the correct environments for such life are a freak occurence - literaly billions to one against them happening.

Well, there is a possibility that civilizations (if others exist besides our own) snuff themselves out of existance after a certain point. Furthermore, a lot of people assume that another civilization could be thousands of years more advanced than we are. But what if that's not true? What if we're, like, technology pioneers of the universe? The thought is kinda scary.

I would be very disappointed if we turned out to have the only intelligent life in the universe.

I don't even know what I'm trying to say. I'm just kinda throwing random, mismatched ideas out there right now.

Well, there is a possibility that civilizations (if others exist besides our own) snuff themselves out of existance after a certain point. Furthermore, a lot of people assume that another civilization could be thousands of years more advanced than we are. But what if that's not true? What if we're, like, technology pioneers of the universe? The thought is kinda scary.

I would be very disappointed if we turned out to have the only intelligent life in the universe.

I don't even know what I'm trying to say. I'm just kinda throwing random, mismatched ideas out there right now.I just thought I would pop back into this controvertial topic and point you to "The Uplift Wars" by David Brin.

He has some very interesting ideas about the formation of intelligent life. I think that, extrapolated from the science-fiction of his work, you might enjoy the idea that the next intelligent species humans might encounter might be one that already exists: dolphins.

I dont know? Its possible Dolphins are THAT intelligent but lack the dexterity to use their minds physically. From all respects though, Dolphins are just highly intelligent and social animals, nothing extremely special?

Its not just from the way they do things but from the way they react to us, its just not intelligetn enough? It is possible though that it comes across that way because of difference in the way that each race views the world?

At any rate, back to the initial topic.

It is possible and probable for life to exist elsewhere in our universe and even in our own galaxy. I don't know if any of you have read about nanobacteria. A while back, a Martian rock was found, and upon studying it, scientists found what appeared to be fossilized evidence of tiny bacteria. The problem was, they were too small to possibly live. Later on, a geologist found similar samples here on earth. So far, research has found them to be self-replicating. But the debate goes on about whether or not they are alive. If it does turn out that these nanobacteria are living, and that they (at least at one time) lived on Mars, the implications would be huge. Life on another planet, and so close to home! However, it could turn out to be nothing.

What sort of implications would this have?

I respect your beliefs, but often wonder why creationists challenge evolution when arguing for a biblical creation. Why not accept evolution and that maybe the entire universe itself was created? Surely the big bang could be seen as a creationist event.

Yes, the big bang can be seen as a creationalist event, as can evolution. However, there really isn't enough evidence for certainty.

As said, miroevolution is accepted.

I think there's a certain level of arrogance with the way in which intelligence is understood by us primarily on our level as a species all of our own that we simply expect to be true to other life forms in comparison.

You can compare the levels of intelligence between two humans because we are all common to each other. But we can't simply just "throw" the same way of conscious thinking on other species, such as a common household pet (dog or cat), as they must have a different type of consciousness, or their own laws of logic that are similar but not exact to ours. It might be similar but we can only begin to understand anything about any other species on our human conscious level otherwise it simply becomes confusing to us.

We can train any animal to mimic our thought and behavioural patterns, but sooner or later the animal concerned will simply delve back into its own conscious wake.

Same goes with all of us having the ability to act physically like other animals or mimicking their sounds, but when we enter back into our "normal" selves the acting ceases to exist as we enter our normal behavioural patterns.

Of course there is intelligent life out there, but we have to start thinking that it is intelligent in its own right.

We all assume that if an extra-terrestrial isn't "super-duper" intelligent based on our "Hollywood-ised" viewpoint of what intelligence is then we automatically assume that they can't be very intelligent at all.

Hell, if we discover a species on another planet that is exactly like a cow on this planet then it's fair to say that we have inadvertantly discovered other intelligent life form. It may not be able to solve complex mathematical algorithms, or [insert HUMANdefinition of intelligence here] but it's still intelligent nonetheless.

Never forget the possibility that we are looking for signs of life that may have already discovered us a LONG time ago and simply thought of us as so primitive compared to them that they simply thought to pass us on and go somewhere else in the vast universe instead, the same way we would with something like an ant-like colony. It's humiliating, but it's just another possibility.

We can't always use ourselves as a comparison example. If we walked into an "alien" species right now exactly how can we begin to even comprehend the species with which is right in front of us? It's also fair to say that an alien might conform to a whole different biological, mathematical, psychological, etc laws that we couldn't even begin to fathom out based on our own laws of thinking and logic that we know of and are familiar with today.

I think it would be best to further evolve a few million years before we begin to even desire to make contact with a species that we have no prior knowledge of. If we gave out signals that we have been doing for the last thirty years, which we have been doing through SETI, and any malevolent species out there (who may have missed us) figure out how primitive we are compared to them, it's quite obvious that a full-scale planetary invasion could occur knowing that there would be no way in hell that we could even have the military might and resources necessary to survive an attack.

Of course, I'm not trying to rehash any cheesy Sci-fi film plot or idea that we have seen in the past fifty years. It's just thinking in terms of logic the possible dangers of interaction in what could be percieved that we may be as yet vulnerable in our current evolved state as a species (after all, we as a species can't seem to interact without starting wars against each other. What makes anyone think that any other species out there wouldn't do the same to us no matter how vastly intelligent they are?)

Awesome thread by the way! :cool:

Does anyone else think that there is other life out there.
Or am I the only one of this opinion.

I refuse to believe that we are the only lifeforms in the universe. There has to be others out there.
They could even be humanoid like us.
What are your thoughts on this.








~Raven.

Humanoid like us? Nah...

But life -- yes.

The universe is said to be eternal in size it's also said that it's exanding..... I don't understand that part because if it's eternal... how could it still be expanding... oh well.

Anyways -- it's BIG!

It's so big that Earth, this massive globe we stand on, is so small that a speck would be too big of a comparison for it.

We are in such a minute splotch in space... so tiny and so miniscule and meaningless that if you look at the eternal scope of just how BIG everything is -- it's inevitable that there's life SOMEWHERE. And if there's life then there's something that's either sentient or will in later years BECOME sentient.

There has to be. The universe is far to vast for us to be the only lifeforms in it.

like E.T. for example...and so girls i go out with are just plain wierd...they might be aliens

This is a duplicate of an earlier thread, so I'm going to merge the two.