Is there life elsewhere in the universe?
- Thread starter donnann
- Start date
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
There is (for me) no such thing as "scriptural proof". Why? Which scripture, which translation. I do not believe Hall Effect transistors (for one example of something that we know we have because there a bunch of little tiny ones in your computer that make it work) are in the Gathas, Tanakh, Bible, Vedas, Dao De Ching or any other scripture. Nevertheless they exist and work.
And, for example the Tanakh defines pi to be three and the Bible has Chr!st senselessly killing swine. I do not believe either of those correct. Nor do I accept the typically accepted long version of Mark.
And, for example the Tanakh defines pi to be three and the Bible has Chr!st senselessly killing swine. I do not believe either of those correct. Nor do I accept the typically accepted long version of Mark.
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no087/pleiades.pdf
Interesting read. I believe pleiades is inhabited. I know a lot about the universe maybe I will do a post on that sometime but its alot of information to talk about.
8 He who made the Pleiades and Orion,
and turns deep darkness into the morning
and darkens the day into night,
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out on the surface of the earth,
the Lord is his name; Amos 5:8
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
If one works out the famous Drake equation,it becomes bloody likely. Especially if recent physics advances that look like they prove an eternal, infinite universe.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
(I know this isn't what you want to discuss donnann, but since you posted under Science I'm giving myself some wiggle room.)
I really don't understand how we would even start to evaluate the possibility of life when we have a known sample of one, and we don't even understand that one sample. I'm fine with people guessing and having a belief, but how can we say it is egocentric to think we are the only ones when we have no idea. It's the agnostic in me I guess, most people are inclined to have an opinion on matters.
And if life did pop up an a regular basis I feel I need to point out how old and wast the universe is. The only known intelligent life we know who ever left earth (to a moon, by the way) hasn't been here more then a blink of an eye and we already feel the end of civilization in natural and unnatural forms.
Is it really more then a dream?
I really don't understand how we would even start to evaluate the possibility of life when we have a known sample of one, and we don't even understand that one sample. I'm fine with people guessing and having a belief, but how can we say it is egocentric to think we are the only ones when we have no idea. It's the agnostic in me I guess, most people are inclined to have an opinion on matters.
And if life did pop up an a regular basis I feel I need to point out how old and wast the universe is. The only known intelligent life we know who ever left earth (to a moon, by the way) hasn't been here more then a blink of an eye and we already feel the end of civilization in natural and unnatural forms.
Is it really more then a dream?
There have been many eyewitness accounts of ufos. I remember one time when we lived at Fort Hood in texas it was on the local news that jets were chasing strange ufos that were zipping around in the sky but they could not maneuver the way they were and they went much faster. To quote the movie Contact. Without life on other planets "Wouldnt that be a big waste of space" The universe is huge with many solar systems and planets and stars. To think that we are the only life would not make sense. I believe that the universe is the whole garden of eden and that earth is center because its in the exact image and likeness of the center abode in the angelic kingdom.
life on other planets.... yes... odds are high... we've seen enough evidence on mars...
scriptural proof? Of anything? no.
ufo's....unidentified flying objects...most of them get identified during a war 10 years later....stealths..blackhawk helicopters...drones....who knows what the militiary is testing now or fighter jets are following to film test flights of...
scriptural proof? Of anything? no.
ufo's....unidentified flying objects...most of them get identified during a war 10 years later....stealths..blackhawk helicopters...drones....who knows what the militiary is testing now or fighter jets are following to film test flights of...
This planet is center. If it were destroyed the whole universe would collapse. This planet was created last in the image and likeness of the first ,which is the Creator(s) abode. Even though it is last created everything from this center out is an extension of it. Life on other planets are older than us because they were created before this planet. I also believe that each planet with life on it has scriptures just like we do. That angelic beings were also sent to them because they are in the same fallen condition.....mortal. It reminds me of the movie The Abbyss. The ets sent a water probe that was imitating the womans facial expressions. At the end of the movie they repeated to the male hero Love you wife. I think in essence they were saying there was a marriage of the mind for life. God works in mysterious ways to include movies. I use them sometimes as an example of a point or concept. There are even accounts of people saying they were abducted. I believe there are many many planets that include life. We do not have the technology to get to them. I believe there are doors that enable a ship to get from one point in the universe to another but also there is one big door located here at Earth. I also believe that you can also travel by worm holes. I call them the veins of the universe.
Sorry for the multiple posts. I will tell you something about me. I have a memory of when I was very little. Maybe 3 or 4 years old. I was brought to a room by a guy with dark hair. Another very tall guy had a holographic type model of the universe. He was teaching me about how it all worked. I saw those same two men years later in 1996. I was 33. They hadn't aged a bit.
I thought we gave up an earth centric universe with galileo...
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Science did, obviously not religion.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
Thank you for sharing this with us. I'm afraid I might offend you now, but eyewitness reports aren't considered very reliable and people claim to have been through all kinds of experiences it doesn't mean that they are all true. I'll stick with what I know for now and if I ever experience anything myself I might change my views. That seems alright?
As for UFOs, it's simply an unidentified object that is flying, there's nothing extraterrestrial in such claims. I'm not saying that it isn't extraterrestrial, simply that it isn't identified as such. If they ever identified those flying object as extraterrestrial, then that would be very interesting.
In science, as we are still in the Science section, the Sol system is not considered the centre of the universe. It might be in your faith and I'm not saying you are wrong, but scientifically it isn't.
I want to end with something that might offend you again but please don't take it as an attack on you as a person. You aren't really using the the word 'science' right. It isn't the same as logically and it isn't intuitive. To understand what science is all about we need some formal education. I hope you take some time and acquire some levels of it because it will allow you to understand and describe some extraordinary things!
Well, according to New Scientist, the more we underastand the origins of human life here on planet earth, the more unlikely the chances of finding life elsewhere in the universe.
No-one is saying it's not possible, but science does seem to indicate that there are more than a few 'lucky' or 'fluke' factors that seem to underpin life on earth, that would have to be replicated elsewhere.
Then there's time. The odds against the emergence of two species, similar enough to recognise each other, within the same timeframe, even allowing for one to be significantly further advanced than the other, is somewhat unlikely ...
Then there's distance. Tied up with time, and the necessity for at least one of the parties to be in possession of FTL technologies with all the paradoxes that would invoke.
I always thought the odds on life elsewhere were pretty good, considering the potential number of elsewheres there are ... but New Scientist does give one reason to pause. We have no way of knowing, nor any need to assume, that the same or similar series of sometimes totally 'off-the-wall' events happened anywhere else at all, with any meaningful reference to us.
No-one is saying it's not possible, but science does seem to indicate that there are more than a few 'lucky' or 'fluke' factors that seem to underpin life on earth, that would have to be replicated elsewhere.
Then there's time. The odds against the emergence of two species, similar enough to recognise each other, within the same timeframe, even allowing for one to be significantly further advanced than the other, is somewhat unlikely ...
Then there's distance. Tied up with time, and the necessity for at least one of the parties to be in possession of FTL technologies with all the paradoxes that would invoke.
I always thought the odds on life elsewhere were pretty good, considering the potential number of elsewheres there are ... but New Scientist does give one reason to pause. We have no way of knowing, nor any need to assume, that the same or similar series of sometimes totally 'off-the-wall' events happened anywhere else at all, with any meaningful reference to us.
nice post thomas...
since we discovered the first extra solar planet...we've had a watershed of them, yet still very few that meet 'our' life creating criteria....carbon, size, temperature etc. Although we are now believing that carbon based may not be the only thing and that methane based could stand a lot more heat than we... and not knowing if there is anything there we could communicate with...
Life out there....I'd say high odds on that. Us finding it? reduced dramatically... Us being able to communicate with?....reduced exponentially....
Although.....with our current state of evolution and scientific advancement if there is intelligent life out there....odds are they are more advanced than us...and odds are while still infintismally small....they'd find us before we'd find them.
since we discovered the first extra solar planet...we've had a watershed of them, yet still very few that meet 'our' life creating criteria....carbon, size, temperature etc. Although we are now believing that carbon based may not be the only thing and that methane based could stand a lot more heat than we... and not knowing if there is anything there we could communicate with...
Life out there....I'd say high odds on that. Us finding it? reduced dramatically... Us being able to communicate with?....reduced exponentially....
Although.....with our current state of evolution and scientific advancement if there is intelligent life out there....odds are they are more advanced than us...and odds are while still infintismally small....they'd find us before we'd find them.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
I think that new scientist and scientific american publish lots of articles about all kinds of potential explanations. If you look at both, the number of articles about "proof of et life" dynamically outnumber those looking at the odds of the Drake equation.
As in science in general it could mean both are possible (along with a nearly infonate number of alternatives). However, at this moment in time (judging by these numbers and those I got in a couple of quick google scholar searches) the astrological community strongly supports the former.
Scientists have made errors in the past. Furthermore, the logic behind the rewriting of the Drake equation is pretty air-tight from a probability theory point-of-view. At least we can safely say that (unless they are hiding themselves, and why would they do that, kinda like a person hiding from an ant-farm) any et lifeform is not likely to be billions or even millions of years more advanced.
I'd say wil and thomas are on solid ground.
As in science in general it could mean both are possible (along with a nearly infonate number of alternatives). However, at this moment in time (judging by these numbers and those I got in a couple of quick google scholar searches) the astrological community strongly supports the former.
Scientists have made errors in the past. Furthermore, the logic behind the rewriting of the Drake equation is pretty air-tight from a probability theory point-of-view. At least we can safely say that (unless they are hiding themselves, and why would they do that, kinda like a person hiding from an ant-farm) any et lifeform is not likely to be billions or even millions of years more advanced.
I'd say wil and thomas are on solid ground.
I feel that eyewitness accounts of ufos is proof they exist. There have been way too many sightings for it to be fantasy. Did you know that even former President Carter reported seeing a ufo when he was flying his plane? The odds of earth being the only planet with life on it in this vast universe is 0.
They saw a UFO...an unidentified flying object...
there is no evidence they saw an alien spacecraft
There is a distinct difference between seeing an Alien Space craft...something you can identify, vs seeing something you can't identify...
The air balloon in Roswell..the eyewitness accounts of the material were of a metal that would bend, but then return to a flat shape without wrinkles (unlike tinfoil) a plastic shiny metal.... think of mylar and what it would be viewed as for folks who had never seen it before.....
We've 'identified' away 90% of the sitings..both with atmospheric conditions and findings of war machine testings.....odds are we'll identify away the other 10% eventuallly....
there is no evidence they saw an alien spacecraft
There is a distinct difference between seeing an Alien Space craft...something you can identify, vs seeing something you can't identify...
The air balloon in Roswell..the eyewitness accounts of the material were of a metal that would bend, but then return to a flat shape without wrinkles (unlike tinfoil) a plastic shiny metal.... think of mylar and what it would be viewed as for folks who had never seen it before.....
We've 'identified' away 90% of the sitings..both with atmospheric conditions and findings of war machine testings.....odds are we'll identify away the other 10% eventuallly....
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Perhaps. But that is not science calls proof. I have tried to describe it. It must be empirical (available via experimentation or observation). It must support or counter some hypothesis or theory (yes, reports of observations of ufos do support a theory of possible extra-terrestrial life). But there are other possible explanations from stars to swamp-gas to mistakes to just old-fashioned attention getting.
Possible proof, yes. Likely proof? I doubt it. Then there is the final subject of falisification. How does one falsify "eye witness accounts"? One cannot... therfore they are, at best anecdotal evidence. One must be able to observe objectively, I do not really believe all of them, but there are a lot that are not really explainable. Does it mean there are ets? Not directly. Still a matter of opinion not proof (in terms of scientific evidence).
Possible proof, yes. Likely proof? I doubt it. Then there is the final subject of falisification. How does one falsify "eye witness accounts"? One cannot... therfore they are, at best anecdotal evidence. One must be able to observe objectively, I do not really believe all of them, but there are a lot that are not really explainable. Does it mean there are ets? Not directly. Still a matter of opinion not proof (in terms of scientific evidence).