Is there life out there?

[Airhog]

Do you think there is life in the universe?


I do believe there is life out there. If evolution is correct, then there is a good chance there is highly complex life out there. I am not yet convinced there there is life out there that is not carbon based/ or uses something other than H20 as a mechanism of life

[illinifan999]

I think that there is something out in that infinite space that is living.

[st.cronin]

I guess it depends on how you define "life."

[cartman]

Just based on the sheer numbers of stars, there has to be other places that have at least one-celled organisms, if not more complex forms of life out there.

[Crim]

Millions of Trekkies can't be wrong!!!

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

I think that there is something out in that infinite space that is living.

How do you know it's infinite? Because you were told it was infinite? I bet you believe there's a god too.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

To believe that this one average star is the only one capable of having a planet that can sustain some form of life is amazingly self-centered and the sort of thing humans do very well.

[molson]

I can't comprehend the universe being finite. I mean, how can there be a place that the edge of the universe that is literally "nothing", I mean, not even space, but only "nothing". Makes my head hurt. In an infinite universe, yes, of course there's life, and probably life more complicated than that on earth.

[Edward64]

No doubt there is other life out there currently.

I would like to think there is other life (with greater technology than us) but not convinced.

[Bad-example]

The factor mostly ignored in discussions like these is time. Life has existed here on Earth for a very brief time. Do I think that life has evolved in other planetary systems? Almost certainly yes. Do I think that life currently exists in another planetary system right now? It is possible but much less likely.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

The factor mostly ignored in discussions like these is time. Life has existed here on Earth for a very brief time. Do I think that life has evolved in other planetary systems? Almost certainly yes. Do I think that life currently exists in another planetary system right now? It is possible but much less likely.

Even ignoring the evolution slant, how can you justify this statement. Your arguement is that because you feel life on earth has not existed for a long enough period of time so therefore it could not have developed this far anywhere else? Somehow you are arogant enough to feel that life here has for some reason developed faster than it can anywhere else in the universe? Here's a thought, maybe we are far behind the other places where life has developed and that is why life has only existed here for that short period of time.

One more question: How can you feel almost certain that life has evolved but then say that it is not likely to exist. If you feel almost certain it has evolved wouldn't that also make you almost certain that it exists? Since to exist does not mean to evolve but to evolve does mean to exist.

[Bad-example]

Sorry if I was unclear. My main idea is that any life that comes into existence, including here on Earth, probably has a limited time before it dies off. Just because life comes into being does not mean it will continue to exist. Life must find a way to spread itself to another star or it is eventually doomed, as stars and their planets are not permanent. Of course, there are many other reasons why life could come into being and then die off well before then.

So then, if any instance of life that does not develop interstellar space travel is limited to a window of existence, then the odds that their window coincides with our own are fairly low IMHO.

Does that sound less arrogant?

[Vegas Vic]

Not in our galaxy.

On a related note, everything necessary to sustain life in the universe is balanced on a razor's edge.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Not in our galaxy.

On a related note, everything necessary to sustain life in the universe is balanced on a razor's edge.

i don't believe or agree with either of those 2 clips. the laws of physics that are mentioned as being necessary to sustain life assume those laws would apply to some far off planet in a universe extremely far away. who's to say you absolutely need oxygen in order to sustain life. on Earth, yes, that is a requirement. on Ugon B9 in the Morgo quadrant of the Beta Mu solar system, i wouldn't make that claim. we can only make absolute statements with regards to earth. we can not claim to know we have found the magic formula of what is needed to create and sustain life throughout the entire universe. that is foolish to assume. we don't know how life may have developed to adapt to the circumstances found in their part of the universe. on Earth we've found that life has the ability to grow in the most extreme environments, and that's just on this planet. in the Milky Way - our universe - i will go as far as to say we are unique and there is no life in other planets in our system. i won't make that claim across the board.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

the laws of physics that are mentioned as being necessary to sustain life assume those laws would apply to some far off planet in a universe extremely far away.

The universe is not static, and it had a point of origin. It seems that the laws of physics would apply throughout the entire universe.

[cthomer5000]

This is an incredibly tiny patch of space. I have zero doubt there is life out there, and something of at least moderate complexity.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The universe is not static, and it had a point of origin. It seems that the laws of physics would apply throughout the entire universe.

and at one point in time we thought the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and the heart was the center of thinking.

we can't even explain all of the phenomenae on our own planet. we're just beginning to study how marine life can exist in the deepest depths of the ocean under all that pressure and in complete darkness. i hardly think we're qualified to say with certainty how the physics of our part of the galaxy are applicable to the physics of extremely far off planets.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Sorry if I was unclear. My main idea is that any life that comes into existence, including here on Earth, probably has a limited time before it dies off. Just because life comes into being does not mean it will continue to exist. Life must find a way to spread itself to another star or it is eventually doomed, as stars and their planets are not permanent. Of course, there are many other reasons why life could come into being and then die off well before then.

So then, if any instance of life that does not develop interstellar space travel is limited to a window of existence, then the odds that their window coincides with our own are fairly low IMHO.

Does that sound less arrogant?

Okay, that sounds better. Sorry if I sounded like a jackass earlier, must have taken my jackass pills before posting. Rereading it sounds a lot worse to me than when I wrote it.

[Icy]

Sure, why not? why should we be the only and chosen ones? I guess this belief is also related to you being religious or not.

I'm pretty sure that there has been, there is or will be life in other planets. Of course probably won't be what we call life, depending from oxygen, water, carbon etc but another way of life adapted to it's medium.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The universe is not static, and it had a point of origin. It seems that the laws of physics would apply throughout the entire universe.

Even in that clip, the commentators refer to the starting point of only the "known" universe. We can't begin to speculate on the existence or absence of any other universe.

[Edward64]

I do not have deep knowledge of physics but I do know that when Newtonian physics could not explain the sub-atomic(?) world, the study of Quantum phyics was developed.

My point is the physics that we know today may not be the end all. I think we all know our knowledge of physics is incomplete and our understanding of the 'current/incomplete' laws of physics does not necessarily preclude intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe.

[CraigSca]

All this talk, and the only mention of a god is done in jest.

How ironic is that?

[Marathoner]

Almost certainly, look at the Drake equation. Even with conservative estimates the chances are overwhelmingly high that an advanced civilization exists.

[QuikSand]

What is missing from any calculation or assessment of this sort of thing is the nature of the "start" of life itself. That's not a theory of evolution, it's a theory of origin. And even in the Drake equation or variants intended to estimate an answer to this calculation, that is a quietly dominating "variable." Basically, if the trigger that caused "life" here was unique... then there's no remaining calculation that matters.

I'm aware of the efforts from greater minds than mine on this sort of thing, and while I find a good deal of that argument fairly persuasive... it does sort of skip past that pivotal step. Sure, you can calculate the likelihood of planetary orbits, temperate ranges, presence of water or carbon... but I simply don't follow how, even given the appropriate setup, how one judges the likelihood of "life" beginning. There's an epistemological impasse there, it just seems to me.

[Airhog]

Actually, from what I have seen/read, oxygen isnt the big deal. H20 is. All life on our planet requires H20. Some scientists think that it would be possible to have organisms that use something other than h20. but the can only theorize, since all life on earth is carbon/h20 based

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do not have deep knowledge of physics but I do know that when Newtonian physics could not explain the sub-atomic(?) world, the study of Quantum phyics was developed.

My point is the physics that we know today may not be the end all. I think we all know our knowledge of physics is incomplete and our understanding of the 'current/incomplete' laws of physics does not necessarily preclude intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe.

Very True, even the laws of Quantum mechanics are incomplete, and cannot explain everything

[Dutch]

Just based on how similar our galaxy is to others, I would say that it's almost a certainty that other life can exist.

[Marathoner]

I guess I look at life as an inevitable result of primordial conditions. As the earth cooled and various elements combined, through the chemical properties of carbon, eventually formed amino acids. Then, these combined to form proteins and on into various other structures needed for life as we know it - DNA, RNA, etc. At some point, through their chemical properties, these started to replicate themselves. Then it was a slow, but inexonerable march towards what we consider life. I think with the right conditions, the existence of needed elements (which, I would guess is constant across the universe), 'life' in some sort is almost inevitable. I think the Drake equation makes this assumption.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Marathoner

I guess I look at life as an inevitable result of primordial conditions. As the earth cooled and various elements combined, through the chemical properties of carbon, eventually formed amino acids. Then, these combined to form proteins and on into various other structures needed for life as we know it - DNA, RNA, etc. At some point, through their chemical properties, these started to replicate themselves. Then it was a slow, but inexonerable march towards what we consider life. I think with the right conditions, the existence of needed elements (which, I would guess is constant across the universe), 'life' in some sort is almost inevitable. I think the Drake equation makes this assumption.

I agree that is an underlying assumption of any such calculation, and but I would dispute it as being fairly catgeorized as a given. To me, Drake's equation works fine, but only from that point. Again - if the advent of life "just happening" is actually zero, then the rest of the equation is meaningless.

[KWhit]

I believe that there is absolutely life out there somewhere. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we find that life once existed on Mars - and I think it's quite possible we'll find the evidence within my lifetime.

[Marathoner]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I agree that is an underlying assumption of any such calculation, and but I would dispute it as being fairly catgeorized as a given. To me, Drake's equation works fine, but only from that point. Again - if the advent of life "just happening" is actually zero, then the rest of the equation is meaningless.

My point is that the advent of the required building blocks, given enough time and the right conditions, is a given. That is assuming the laws of physics and chemistry that we understand are constant throughout the universe.

I am sure theologians and some philosophers would disagree with me.

[JeffNights]

Seems like awfully big waste of space if not.

[Noop]

There is other life out there. Thats just common sense...

[Lorena]

With billions of stars out there, how can there NOT be some sort of life, whether complex or not? I wouldn't be surprised if there was life in our solar system.

Yeah, like cronin said, I guess it depends what you call "life". Our life in this solar system will eventually dissappear, even stars have a life cycle.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Not in our galaxy.

On a related note, everything necessary to sustain life in the universe is balanced on a razor's edge.

To take the 'razor's edge' analogy out further:

The average blade is 39mm wide, and the blade edge is on average 0.15mm wide. This leaves a ratio of 0.3%. Based on the estimate of the Milky Way galaxy having 200 million to 400 million stars, that leaves a range of 750,000 to 1.5 million that are "on the razor's edge" just in the Milky Way. Extrapolate that out to the estimated 2 billion plus other galaxies, and puts the number "on the razor's edge" anywhere from the mid-hundreds of millions to several billion.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Marathoner

My point is that the advent of the required building blocks, given enough time and the right conditions, is a given. That is assuming the laws of physics and chemistry that we understand are constant throughout the universe.

I am sure theologians and some philosophers would disagree with me.

One: it isn't a given. Science has unsuccessfully been trying to reproduce abiogenesis for over half a century now in highly controlled laboratory environments that are supposed to represent the "primordial soup" where life supposedly developed here. Apparently the recipe for creating life is very complex. The idea of life abundantly originating and surviving in the convulsions of uncontrolled planet-wide environments is starting to look like an extreme long-shot.

Another case in point -- Mars and Venus. Both had the potential to have very Earth-like environments. However, one is a block of ice, the other is the hot house from hell. The balance for a world to develop a climate to support life (at least carbon-based life as we know it) seems precarious indeed.

Two: A theory gaining popularity is that life here was extraterrestrial in origin. That it was brought here via meteorites and such. All fine and good, but it skirts the issue of how THAT life originated.

Third: I find it interesting that without any evidence (although SETI has been trying very hard for the past thirty of so years) most people automatically assume that there is life out there somewhere and that some of it has to be at least as smart as we are. Ditto for those who support the idea of other universes out there because some arcane/exotic physics equations indicate such a possibility could be. Yet let some religious person bring up the notion of god -- holy crap, watch out for the firestorm...superstitious, no evidence, a crutch for the weak minded, et. al.

dola -- and for the poster who stated it seems like such a waste of space if we are all there is...all I can say is -- only if the universe was planned.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Third: I find it interesting that without any evidence (although SETI has been trying very hard for the past thirty of so years) most people automatically assume that there is life out there somewhere and that some of it has to be at least as smart as we are. Ditto for those who support the idea of other universes out there because some arcane/exotic physics equations indicate such a possibility could be. Yet let some religious person bring up the notion of god -- holy crap, watch out for the firestorm...superstitious, no evidence, a crutch for the weak minded, et. al.

I'm not sure why people want to frame this as an either/or argument. There is nothing in the Bible or other religious texts that explicitly states that we are alone in the universe. And if life is found on other planets, that doesn't negate the existence of God.

As for SETI, I think it is currently our best chance of finding out if there is intelligent life elsewhere. But it is making the assumption that some beings out there are communicating over a medium that we ourselves have only discovered and been utilizing for a little over 100 years.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

One: it isn't a given. Science has unsuccessfully been trying to reproduce abiogenesis for over half a century now in highly controlled laboratory environments that are supposed to represent the "primordial soup" where life supposedly developed here. Apparently the recipe for creating life is very complex. The idea of life abundantly originating and surviving in the convulsions of uncontrolled planet-wide environments is starting to look like an extreme long-shot.

I don’t believe in the likelihood that we evolved from a primordial pool of goo, considering the mind-boggling complexity of multi-cell life.

I also find it interesting that so many are willing to accept evolution as fact, where there is no conclusive evidence of the common origin of all life. There are several plausible refutations, including the fossil record and the Cambrian Explosion.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Yet let some religious person bring up the notion of god -- holy crap, watch out for the firestorm...superstitious, no evidence, a crutch for the weak minded, et. al.

It's only notions of a specific god, with specific plans, specific purposes, with specific rules that would bring that response. Science does not aim to disprove existence of some other, broader idea of an intelligent force that they don't comprehended - it's simply not their field. There's so much in the universe that we simply can't know - many people believe god is simply part of that. Few people are true atheists.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by molson

It's only notions of a specific god, with specific plans, specific purposes, with specific rules that would bring that response. Science does not aim to disprove existence of some other, broader idea of an intelligent force that they don't comprehended - it's simply not their field. There's so much in the universe that we simply can't know - many people believe god is simply part of that. Few people are true atheists.

I agree with that.

The biblical view of creation is not in conflict with science. It is in conllict with any worldview that starts without a creator. So the ultimate debate is not the process of creation, but the origin of creation, and whether you believe that the Earth is is product of blind chance and probability or whether you belive that it was created by God.

Students of religion and science should avoid polarizations and black/white thinking. Students of religion must be careful not to make the Bible say what it doesn't say, and students of science must not make science say what it doesn't say.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The biblical view of creation is not in conflict with science.

The fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the 'biblical view of creation' is in conflict with science.

It is the literal interpretation of the Bible that pits Fundamentalists with Science.

[Coffee Warlord]

There's always the idea that, unlike all the sci-fi movies, *we* are actually the uber-advanced species, and in a few thousand years, we get to lord over all the other races as the enigmatic technological powerhouses of the universe.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

There's always the idea that, unlike all the sci-fi movies, *we* are actually the uber-advanced species, and in a few thousand years, we get to lord over all the other races as the enigmatic technological powerhouses of the universe.

That would kick ass. I could use some alien slaves to help with some work around the house.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Not in our galaxy.

I think you need to rewatch the clip, because the "experts" in the clip never say that. In fact, he says that life as we know it on Earth is "rare," not one of a kind. I wouldn't disagree that life as we know it on Earth is rare, otherwise we would likely have definitive evidence of life elsewhere.

They also make a whole range of inappropriate assumptions, from odd math to the egocentric position that life as it exists on Earth is the only type of life that could exist. At one point, the clip seems to suggest that you have to have mountains for life to exist on Earth, and I'm not sure that's a reasonable claim. That assign a 1/10 probability of a star system having gas giants, when evidence thus far suggest that gas giants are probably the most prevalent type of planet that there are and exist at a much greater ratio than 1 in 10 star systems. We have evidence of gas giants around other stars that are almost "protostars" that would act almost as a sun for their moons, increasing the number of planetary bodies capable of supporting life. We don't know how prevalent planets like Earth are yet -- it could be that they are much more fruitful than 1 in 10 as well.

As for an "Earth" type planet capable of sustaining life, sure the chances are remote. It's been a long time since I've read it, but I believe Carl Sagan estimated at one point that given the constant of time, the parameters involved and the estimated number of stars in the universe, there would likely be about 12 planets sustaining life at the same time life is sustained on Earth. Given that was 25 years ago, I would guess that our better understanding of the vastness of the universe might increase that estimate.

I wouldn't impose my religious beliefs on anyone else, but I don't see religion and life on other planets as being mutually exclusive.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the 'biblical view of creation' is in conflict with science.

It is the literal interpretation of the Bible that pits Fundamentalists with Science.

The confrontations still exist, but they were much more prevalent in the early and mid 20th century. Recently, there has been an explosion of collaboration between the two disciplines.

One fascinating example is the Star of Bethlehem presentation. Whether or not one believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God, the evidence is overwhelming (from secular and theological) historians that he was an actual person who was born around 2 to 3 BC on our modern calendar.

With the aid of modern astronomical software, it can be proven that there was a spectacular conjunction of eight celestial bodies during that period (including Regulus, Jupiter, Mars and Venus), resulting in brightness only surpassed by that of a full moon. The biblical account of the Star of Bethlehem mentions a group of Magi who followed a “wandering star” from Persia (Iran) to Bethlehem. Modern astronomy confirms that Jupiter would have fit that description, and could have been used for navigation (west to east to the final conjunction).

The presentation has gotten a lot of support from some very distinguished representatives:

"About 99.9% of the Star of Bethlehem stuff is nutty, but this isn't that. It's well-researched and reasonable."
—Ronald A. Schorn, Ph.D.—
Schorn founded and served as Chief of the Planetary Astronomy department at NASA and was Technical Editor of Sky & Telescope magazine. He is the author of Planetary Astronomy.

"The integration of astronomical data and ancient inscriptional evidence models the scientific method at its best."
—Eugene H. Merrill, Ph.D.—
Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies
Dallas Theological Seminary
Merrill regularly contributes to leading journals, periodicals, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and commentaries. He is the author of numerous books and a scholar of Biblical chronology.

"Your wide-ranging and insightful scholarship in the Scriptures and in the parallel historical record from Josephus, Tacitus and the rest! Your command of Kepler's clock!!... My hat is off to you."
—Gerard Piel, Ph.D.—
Former Publisher and Editor, Scientific American magazine
Piel (1915-2004) was the holder of over twenty honorary doctorates. He published and edited Scientific American for nearly four decades, and served as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A prolific writer, his last book is The Age of Science: What Scientists Learned in the Twentieth Century.

[SFL Cat]

Some would say there is ample evidence to prove there is life out there, unfortunately various government cabals are keeping it secret from us.

Based on all the accounts, one would think our planet is like a rest stop on some interstellar super highway.

[Dutch]

For all we know, the universe is quite happy without us, like the human body is quite happy without a fast growing cancer. Cancer can appear anywhere in the living body given the right enviroment and elements. Does it ever appear simultaneously with other cancers in the same body? Usually not. By the time one cancer develops and spreads, it's far too late for a second occurance. But certainly it's possible and has happened, especially if the first occurance is destroyed soon enough. I'm not saying that "life" is a cancer, just an attempt to draw a parallel with something I could better grasp.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The confrontations still exist, but they were much more prevalent in the early and mid 20th century. Recently, there has been an explosion of collaboration between the two disciplines.

One fascinating example is the Star of Bethlehem presentation. Whether or not one believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God, the evidence is overwhelming (from secular and theological) historians that he was an actual person who was born around 2 to 3 BC on our modern calendar.

I do not dispute the existence of Jesus Christ. I can accept there was a Bethlehemstar etc.

In my many discussions with fundamentalist Christians (albeit, all from the Southern Bible belt), there are 2 items that put them in conflict with Science.

(1) Belief in a literal 6/7 days of creation.
(2) Calculation of age of Earth with the Old Testament chronology (< 10K years).

Most that I speak with concede that micro-evolution occurs but dispute the macro-evolution theory (ex. from the primordial soup to modern humans). I tend to have issues with macro-evolution as well (ex. hard for me to grasp, much easier to believe in a creator that put events into motion).

Some fundamentalists will concede the OT is not necessarily accurate and focus on the NT. But there are others (which my comment was to) that do believe in (1) and (2) above.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Edward64

(1) Belief in a literal 6/7 days of creation.
(2) Calculation of age of Earth with the Old Testament chronology (< 10K years).

There are many Christian theologists who make the point that "day" is never given an actual definition in the Bible. Instead of a literal 24 hour period (as per the modern definition), each day represents an indefinite period of time (even millions of years). The Bible does not say how long these time periods were. It does state that the Earth was created in an orderly fashion (light was created before plants, etc.)

I have seen a good deal of compelling evidence that science and religion can both be correct in explaining our existence.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

There are many Christian theologists who make the point that "day" is never given an actual definition in the Bible. Instead of a literal 24 hour period (as per the modern definition), each day represents an indefinite period of time (even millions of years). The Bible does not say how long these time periods were. It does state that the Earth was created in an orderly fashion (light was created before plants, etc.)

I have seen a good deal of compelling evidence that science and religion can both be correct in explaining our existence.

I do agree with you. I see no problems with big bang, evolution etc. coinciding with my religious beliefs.

However, many fundamentalists that I have discussed this issue with believe a day is a day, believe the world was covered with water etc. They take the OT/NT Bible 'literally'.

In your response, sure they can easily interpret a day as being millions of years. I believe most fundamentalist would then be concerned "if you can interpret that, what else can you interpret in the OT/NT".

Unfortunately, the fundamentalists that I speak with don't quite realize the King James protestant bible has been (1) translated itself and (2) differs from the Catholic Bible of which it is based on since the Martin Luther reformation (ex. which Bible is literally true? the earlier Catholic or the current King James, minus the book of Maccabees (sp?)).