What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
143 Comments
- badqat, on 02/25/2009, -1/+72It's a big, big universe out there. We haven't even scratched the surface of knowing our own planet and solar system, let alone the vast expanse of our galaxy.
Hard to think we're simply alone in this cosmos. - mreade, on 02/25/2009, -2/+45The truth is out there...
- CoreyTamas, on 02/26/2009, -0/+37I think, given the size of the universe, to suggest this planet is the only one capable of sustaining life would not only be unscientific, but also kind of weird.
- chrissku, on 02/26/2009, -0/+26I wish the human life span wasn't so short. I want to be alive the day we make contact. Who knows.....maybe it will happen in my lifetime? I guess all one can do is hope.
- Phaedryn, on 02/26/2009, -3/+15Actually, not really...the opposite is most likely true.
As a quick explanation of why, ask this; how many different species have evolved here (our only example)? Now, how many are humanoid?
The truth is that humanoid life forms are rare, even here. To expect a similar life form to evolve, independantly and under different circumstances entirely, is not logical and in fact quite unlikely.
There have been, literally, billions of species on earth, and even including primates in the definition of "humanoid", the odds are still very much against it.
Additionally, one might argue that had it not been for any one of the known mass extinction events that have occured on earth we might very well have never evolved to this point to begin with. Consider what this planet may have ended up looking like had the dinosaurs had not gone exinct (just one example). - UNDERSTAR, on 02/26/2009, -1/+12Penis
- Goph09, on 02/26/2009, -1/+12My astronomy prof actually told us today that he strongly believes there's other life forms in the universe, however most likely, different life forms from other solar systems will never come in contact with each other. he also explained how it's possible other life forms could be silicon based instead of carbon based, but that was over my head...
- FearlessFreep, on 02/26/2009, -1/+11The question speculated in the article is whether that day has already occurred
- Zervaman, on 02/26/2009, -2/+10I think the better question is: which astronomers DON'T believe in aliens?
Consider that our milky way galaxy (of 200 - 400 billion stars) is just one of hundreds of billions of other galaxies that we can see in the observable universe. - inactive, on 02/26/2009, -1/+9I know that this is going to be a little redundant, but redundancy is key when on this subject :)
First, more creatures on earth don't follow that pattern than those that do. Just think about it, obviously you had humans/everyday mammals on the mind when you wrote that but it's just not true. More creatures don't follow that pattern than those that do. This isn't science class so you can list animals on your own time, but most creatures from the smallest ant to a giant squid, worms, heck you could even argue that a monkey's tail is an extra limb automatically disqualifying our closest ancestor from your list.
The truth is, scientifically, we don't know. We don't know what's out there or what it looks like. We can only use our natural tools, like logic and reason to think stuff like this through. Scientists look at what we know best, Earth, to make assumptions about possible alien life. In the trillions of stars out there, it makes sense to speculate that the same conditions and elements for life to form on Earth occur are duplicated somewhere out there. We don't know if anything but carbon based life can form out there, but we have a successful blueprint for life right now. It would be stupid to think that in similar conditions for life, (The need to intake energy in some form, interact with the environment etc.) that things like limbs for grasping, a "food hole", some form of ability to sense the environment would not be present. It is very possible that under similar conditions, life could evolve into a humanoid form or into at least similar creatures as we may see on Earth.
Heck, if grey aliens and UFOs like those that are displayed in the popular media do exist, no wonder they are visiting Earth as they probably are from a similar carbon based world and would narrow their search for life to similar planets LIKE WE ARE TODAY.
However, I do not believe in grey aliens that are visiting Earth haha, simply making a point. Again, we don't know what's out there and if there is life, it probably will be very different than what we are used to and may not be carbon based, but if we are making a jump that there is at least one more intelligent being somewhere in the universe then we would have to acknowledge the potential for infinite beings, and with infinity comes the fact that a similar carbon based world to the Earth is out there and life on it can and probably will evolve to be at least recognizable to our scientists if not downright familiar. We do live in a physical universe though that we can reach out and touch, and any aliens that might be out there would have to have some sort of physical manifestation, so whatever it is I'm sure it is interesting. - dvsbastard, on 02/26/2009, -1/+9I want to believe...
- gfxlonghorn, on 02/26/2009, -1/+8"Were" is your proof that our planet is the only one capable sustaining life?
There are billions of planets, and we already know of one in our solar system that has an ocean of(albeit of a different liquid). There have to be at least 10000 that have water, and a few of those likely have a sufficient range of temperatures that would at least sustain some kind of life. And this is assuming water is the only way life can form, which is a huge assumption since it could feasibly form from pretty much anything like sulfur or ammonia which opens a ton of other possibilities. - spambutcher, on 02/26/2009, -0/+7if there is intelligent life out there - I don't think it's that crazy that they've visited us.
imagine humanity 1 million years from now (assuming we don't kill ourselves). in the history of our planet - this would be a tiny amount of time.
how hard would it be to:
- locate 100,000 stars with planets which might have life (lets says within 2000 light years - about 10% of the diameter of the galaxy)
- send probes to all of them traveling at 1% of light speed
- get the results over the next 200,000 years
Once we located planets with complex animal life (or even actual intelligent life) - we could send additional probes over time to see how it evolves.
Now actually visiting in person might be a whole other prospect. It still doesn't seem unthinkable.
If we were really messed up - we could even create probes that upon finding life - would spawn off actual humans from stored DNA.
once the DNA-baby's turn 21 or so - they could travel down to the planet and terrorize the locals (if not for science - maybe just for fun).
imagine the youtube videos!
Sounds crazy - just thinkin outside the box... (I'm sure I'm not the first one to come up with this scenario) - inactive, on 02/26/2009, -2/+9Well, what about Xenu? Huh? Huh? I thought so.
- Opiebreath, on 02/26/2009, -1/+8I saw something on the science channel about silicon based life, but of course it was dumbed down and given shiny graphics so it wasn't all that scientific.
- FearlessFreep, on 02/26/2009, -4/+10The point (of the article) is not whether it's out there, but whether it's been here
- Gorebus, on 02/26/2009, -2/+8I would say that 99% of anyone you ask would agree that there is alien life, but it either hasn't found us yet or isn't very complex. I'm going to join the controversial side of the topic and say that yes, we are being visited. Due to the age of the universe it is entirely conceivable that many species have risen, civilizations have been formed, and it only takes one of those civilizations to develop space travel and they will flourish across their solar system. Due to the importance that space travel would then have among these people it would not be long before faster then light speed travel is discovered (If it's possible - which is likely).
Earth no doubt is a very valuable planet for any race due to it's amazing biological capability, planets like these are galactic gold mines! The chances that we have been at least scouted and mapped are very likely, and in this situation there is a good chance outposts have been set up elsewhere in our solar system if not on the planet itself. We are being visited, we are being watched. I'm not going to cite any UFO sightings or supposed alien encounters - but in the end it takes only one legitimate report out of thousands to change everything. - Murdats, on 02/26/2009, -1/+6good point, astronomers need to understand numbers and statistics, crazy numbers and statistics so every astronomer should realise there is a decent probability that life exists.
however its not a case of they believe life exists, most when asked will say that they believe there probably is life out there but don't know - Fruit45, on 02/26/2009, -2/+7Man, a lot of people think alien life exists out there, give it a rest. It's out there. Let there be serious discussion about some unexplained (not faked) UFO reports here on earth over the past 100 years.
- Murdats, on 02/26/2009, -2/+7phill plait actually spent a significant period of time working in astronomy, that makes him an astronomer.
- insanebrain, on 02/26/2009, -0/+5I don't trust you. ..
- johnnyzero, on 02/26/2009, -4/+9Believing in aliens and thinking that they are anywhere within the realm of our ability to contact or communicate with are two different things. Also, believing in the possibility for biological life and aliens are also two different things.
I am an astrophysicist and I do not believe there is any intelligent life in our solar system (except maybe humans and dolphins) and beyond that we have no evidence there is even biological life, so until we find it or have experimental evidence that it exists, assume it doesn't but hope that it does. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/26/2009, -2/+7Given that life has formed and proven to be as resilient and resourceful as it has on Earth and the sheer, incomprehensible massiveness of the universe, how, exactly, is Earth being the ONLY life sustaining planet a safe, scientific assumption?
It seems to me that the opposite is true, and believing we are alone is fairly vain. Other life in our solar system may be highly unlikely, but in the entire universe? I tell you that there almost definitely is other life in the universe. In fact, there is likely other life even in our own galaxy. I don't understand what more scientific proof you need than our own planet. After all, can you name one scientific phenomenon that occurs only once in the entire universe? I think even suggesting that we may be the only life, or even the only "intelligent" life, in the universe is incredibly unscientific. It simply doesn't stand to reason that Earth would hold some unique place in the universe. There is so much going in all the galaxies all the time, and it all plays by the same rules.
Consider the astronomical events we capture with our presumably primitive telescopes and technology which we calculate to be so unbelievably rare. Yet, even in the immeasurably small window of time and space through which we observe our universe we catch them. How is that? Are we just so lucky? I don't believe so. It's simply that, in a place as big and complex as the universe, even the most unlikely of things are bound to occur hundreds of thousands if not millions or billions of times, and there is little, if any, evidence to support the idea that life is some divine exception. - Claverhouse, on 02/26/2009, -0/+5Seek help.
- inactive, on 02/26/2009, -1/+6Scully is hot..
- systmc, on 02/26/2009, -0/+4What about former presidents, air force generals, retired pilots, and astronauts that don't believe aliens have visited earth?
Rather than putting so much faith in a belief, how about we accept real, tangible evidence? Problem is, none exists. - m3arvk, on 02/26/2009, -0/+4Are you really making the claim that no amateur astronomers have ever seen UFOs and/or USOs?
Doesn't that strike you as unlikely? - ostracize, on 02/26/2009, -4/+8Many creatures on earth follow the same pattern:
2 eyes
2 ears
1 nose
1 mouth
4 limbs
We carry this trait because we all evolved from the same creature with the same features. Any alien from another planet would have evolved from single cell life on a completely different evolutionary path as defined by their home planet and almost certainly would not have the same "humanoid" look. There's not such thing as greys or little green men. Anyone who claims to have seen one is subject to some other paranormal phenomena (if you believe in that), or their brain is just playing tricks on them. - CoreyTamas, on 02/26/2009, -1/+5Don't get me wrong... I'm not suggesting that I've been talking with aliens on my short wave radio. What I *am* saying is that it's unscientific to assume there's no life on any planet but this one without properly researching what's happening on other planets, which we haven't yet. And I think it's weird to say "We haven't been to any other planets, but I can say conclusively that there is no life out there in the universe besides ours."
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/26/2009, -0/+4Being on the side of maintaining what science will never achieve has rarely, if ever, been an enviable or profitable position.
- hammr, on 02/26/2009, -0/+4"Aliens exist, but NASA covers them up says astronaut"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2453700/Aliens-exi ... - ryrocker, on 02/26/2009, -1/+4
there are billions upon billions of planets out there...
i still think it is very likley that at least one of those life sustaining planets has civilized people... (at least with the potential for civility) - Fabbyfubz, on 02/26/2009, -3/+6They're already here, but we cannot see them since they only exist in the 4th dimension. They call themselves "Tralfamadorians"
- wracker92, on 02/26/2009, -2/+5The aliens that are here don't believe in you either, you elitist astronomers and your fancy $50 dollar words for "space" and "big".
- agentinfinite, on 02/25/2009, -3/+6Do you believe in aliens?
- inactive, on 02/26/2009, -0/+3I think given the shear size of the universe, even our own little galaxy, youd have to be ***** me to say you dont think there isnt at least 1 other planet like ours. Though, we may never meet them, at least not anytime soon.
But who knows, we went from "flight is fantasy" to the Moon in 60 short years, maybe we will develop something like warp drive in the next 60...by someone named Cochrane - ouijimon, on 02/26/2009, -0/+3Dulce, N.M.... Google it
- inactive, on 02/26/2009, -6/+9I believe in Aliens but not like the ones in the movies. There has to be some single-cell microscopic organism living out there.
- Wake101, on 02/26/2009, -2/+5Still, the man's right. (If you're a woman, don't hit me)
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/26/2009, -0/+3@Phaedryn: "We have no evidence of the existence of life outside of the earth.
We have no evidence of any planetary bodies capable, by our current understanding, of supporting life.
We have a lot of "yeah but what if..." scenarios, but no evidence to support any of them other than we WANT them to be true, that is NOT science."
I categorically disagree. I believe that life on our planet is more than enough evidence to support the idea that there is more life than just our own in the universe. We know life CAN happen, and thus far we have yet to discover any other phenomenon in the universe that occurs but once in it.
Therefore, even without direct observation of such, the position that there is other life in the universe is indeed scientific. It has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with understanding that the processes of one corner of the universe are never observed to be exclusive to that corner. This is already an observable truth. In fact, it is the very basis of science that the universe is predictable in this way. The probability that we are the only instance of life in the universe is slim to the point that holding we are alone is fairly unreasonable. It's like the anti-evolutionist viewpoint that you can't "prove" evolution. You're ignoring that the evidence is all around us. It's clinging to an unlikely fringe of possibility to suggest otherwise. As a subscriber of Occam's Razor, I'm merely telling you that probability is not in your favor, and a lot of science is based on such probability.
Fearless, this goes for you as well. - CoreyTamas, on 02/26/2009, -1/+4Reading can aid in fostering scientific thought. This is why I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote so that you will hopefully see that I haven't said anything about belief without evidence and, therefore, might take a different tack in your replies.
To put it more simply: Stop trying to make it seem like I'm saying something I'm not. We're not having a competition here. - Uarefat, on 02/26/2009, -0/+3i dont see how you can not.
- Donmega1234, on 02/26/2009, -1/+4Zoltan
- DanBoodro, on 02/26/2009, -0/+3Yes.
- inactive, on 02/26/2009, -0/+3"Mars is too hot for life. Jupiter is too cold for life."
Those are the idiotic statements I used to hear as a kid. Even then I knew those statements were moronic. Common sense says, there's alien life, lots of them. Whether we'll ever get to see them or not is another thing. - Phaedryn, on 02/26/2009, -0/+3Haha...nice analogy. (seriously, I enjoyed reading it)
I really think we are arguing semantics here to be honest. I am not stating that anyone is “certain” of anything, actually quite the opposite. Without direct evidence of something, we have to operate under the assumption it doesn't exist. That is very much different from stating in absolute terms that we are “certain it doesn't exist”.
From a purely scientific standpoint, we have to base the assumptions we operate under on the facts we can observe. This doesn't mean we are flatly discounting a possibility beyond what we can observe, as that too would be unscientific.
Essentially, in light of what we can show to be true, making ANY statement (for or against the existence) as if it was fact, would be unscientific. There is no certainty involved, which is the problem, but we have to force ourselves to remain as objective as possible. That means only basing our assumptions on what we can observe and show to be true right now.
This is why I disagreed with the statement that not “believing” in live outside of our planet is unscientific. That view is not very objective, which is unscientific by definition.
Don't worry, you are in very good company. I have similar arguments about objectivity with colleagues, though not on this particular topic, quite often. Think of me as the devil's advocate. - m3arvk, on 02/26/2009, -0/+3rabble rabble
- MalenfantX, on 02/26/2009, -1/+3Of course you're joking, since otherwise that post would be insane.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/26/2009, -0/+2@FearlessFreep: The fact is that holding the opinion that Earth is unique among the entire universe (or even just our galaxy) is far less scientific than saying there is other life. I don't understand what you mean when you say there is "no evidence" that biological life elsewhere in the universe. We are ourselves biological life and living on planet crawly with other lifeforms. We also know that the rest of the universe is both incomprehensibly massive and made of the exact same matter working under the exact same physics as that which we bore life here, so what's unscientific about saying life elsewhere is a veritable certainty?
It's simply a matter of statistics, really. If roll the dice enough times you'll turn up the same number more than once eventually, and all the universe does is perpetually roll billions of dice simultaneously.
While we may not be able to point to a specific place in the sky and say "There's life there," just yet, that there is other life SOMEWHERE is essentially a statistical, if not scientific, certainty. - CoreyTamas, on 02/26/2009, -0/+2Let me rephrase to make my original point a little easier to understand:
Stand outside of a closed door which leads to a room you've never been in. Then declare "I am certain there are no cats in the room behind this door." I find that unscientific and weird.
Here's what I'm not saying:
- There's proof of cats behind the door
- You will discover cats behind the door if you open it
- I am a member of a religion which teaches that all doors have cats behind them
- Cats are going to enslave us for centuries before we organize a rebellion
I can't speak to points like these. I didn't say anything like that.
The part about cat slavery may be true, btw. -
Show 51 - 100 of 148 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is