Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We seem to consider things from other planets as aliens but yet in a way we our selves are aliens aren't we? I know we may not have the giant heads and so on but still to other life forms in space (if they do exist) we could look just as weird to them and be considered aliens

Originally posted by steverules_2
We seem to consider things from other planets as aliens but yet in a way we our selves are aliens aren't we? I know we may not have the giant heads and so on but still to other life forms in space (if they do exist) we could look just as weird to them and be considered aliens

Aliens in this sense means life forms not from earth, since we are from earth, no, no we could not.

We are proof that aliens CAN exist, not that they do. Your reasoning pre-supposes the existence of aliens (to be able to see us as aliens) and hence is logically flawed.

Originally posted by steverules_2
We seem to consider things from other planets as aliens but yet in a way we our selves are aliens aren't we? I know we may not have the giant heads and so on but still to other life forms in space (if they do exist) we could look just as weird to them and be considered aliens



We don't have giant heads by whose standards?

Originally posted by steverules_2
I know we may not have the giant heads and so on but still to other life forms in space (if they do exist) we could look just as weird to them and be considered aliens I wonder what Europans would make of your avatar:
"They communicate by synchronizing modified sweat gland tremors."

One of my favorite alien short stories:
http://home.earthlink.net/~paulrack/id82.html

i believe that there is life on other planets but somewhere else out there in the universe. as big as the universe is this cant be the only planet that has a life form. in our solar system i dont believe there is life on other planets or else we would have made contact by now

Well, in our own planet we humans are aliens to other species so yeah...we just need to discover each other....


Ah Hell! I will just let Professor Michio Kaku explain.

Watch and learn you Earthlings!


Kw8dcb8iKSM

This man is impressive.

Why, Thank you! for such a compliment. I've been told I'm very impressive in many ways.

Your logic only applies if aliens do exist (in which case we are aliens to them)...but in that case, if aliens do exist then...well, aliens do exist!

If they don't, then your point doesn't apply.

Originally posted by you get thorns
We don't have giant heads by whose standards?

Joseph C. Merrick.

Look at Bada, that guy is proof alone that Aliens do exist. Hes damn right just odd.

oh i see that thanks for all of you

Until living things are found on some other object in space, there are not Aliens. Even if they were found would it be such a big deal when you consider that the know stuff flying around in space has similar compositions as mater on the earth. Therefore theres no reason that for example there might be some water based life forms on Europa a moon of Jupiter which is covered in ice with a massive ocean under it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Joseph C. Merrick.

I just spat my food all over my laptop after reading that...Thanks...

Originally posted by jaden101
I just spat my food all over my laptop after reading that...Thanks...

You're welcome, friend.

Assuming aliens exists it may be possible that we were brought from another planet. Possibly as an experiment from a more advanced civilization. Sure, it may not seem probable; but it certainly is possible.

Originally posted by steverules_2
We seem to consider things from other planets as aliens but yet in a way we our selves are aliens aren't we? I know we may not have the giant heads and so on but still to other life forms in space (if they do exist) we could look just as weird to them and be considered aliens What are you, 13?

Originally posted by lord xyz
What are you, 13?

It may not seem probable but it certainly is possible.

Has Any of you heard of Zecharia Sitchin "Earth Chronicles" or Grahm Hancock "Fingerprints of the Gods" (To many more to list) but I think these men and,many others, have proved Aliens exist but again its like proving Jesus; you either believe or you dont no mater what proof there is.

We can consider ourselves proof that our particular variety of carbon based life is theoretically capable of developing, evolving, and thriving within the habitable zones on certain kinds of planet or moon in certain kinds of solar or orbital system within a galaxy's habitable zone.

I believe that in the vast multitude of the multiple universes and dimensions life must exist somewhere. We barely have a percent of the scientific picture of the universe.

Exactly. There are supposedly more stars then there are grains of sand on every beach combined. It'd be kind of a waste of space if we were the only life forms in the universe.

Originally posted by Sith Master X
Exactly. There are supposedly more stars then there are grains of sand on every beach combined.

Wow. That's a lot! That's like...OVER 9000!

Originally posted by One Free Man
I believe that in the vast multitude of the multiple universes and dimensions life must exist somewhere. We barely have a percent of the scientific picture of the universe.

Multiple universes is barely theoretical, currently one of the most spurious interpretations of QM, and multi-dimensions, in the way you are using it, is science fiction

Originally posted by Sith Master X
Exactly. There are supposedly more stars then there are grains of sand on every beach combined. It'd be kind of a waste of space if we were the only life forms in the universe.

yes, but the origins of life possibly require very specific conditions. While there are more stars than one could count, that says nothing about the conditions on the bodies orbiting that star.

The argument that there is so much space is actually not an argument for anything. It is an appeal to ignorance (we don't know, so there must be), which is a logical fallacy.

edit

Luckily I subscribe to the theory of incomplete measures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_incomplete_measurements

Originally posted by inimalist

yes, but the origins of life possibly require very specific conditions. While there are more stars than one could count, that says nothing about the conditions on the bodies orbiting that star.

The argument that there is so much space is actually not an argument for anything. It is an appeal to ignorance (we don't know, so there must be), which is a logical fallacy. We don't have the origin of life in any way shape or form. the big bang theory and/or abiogenesis is as unbelieveable as ID or Scientology. Thus: we don't know how life began, thus we can't say that the origins require specific conditions. There might even be life that is dependent on other factors than oxygen and our temperature and food and water. If evolution is to be assumed valid, it would be very narrow-minded to assume that all evolution would be similar to ours. Either way we both are assuming logical fallacies: Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.

Originally posted by inimalist
Luckily I subscribe to the theory of incomplete measures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_incomplete_measurements Interesting theory. Here's my incomplete understanding: we ought to re-examine the mathematical language of our measurements. This will give us perspective on this language and how it affects our perceptions and beliefs. In other words, Relativity and QM, eg, are currently irreconcilable because we're looking at them the "wrong" way.

Originally posted by One Free Man
We don't have the origin of life in any way shape or form. the big bang theory and/or abiogenesis is as unbelieveable as ID or Scientology. Thus: we don't know how life began, thus we can't say that the origins require specific conditions. There might even be life that is dependent on other factors than oxygen and our temperature and food and water. If evolution is to be assumed valid, it would be very narrow-minded to assume that all evolution would be similar to ours. Either way we both are assuming logical fallacies: Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.

I'm making no such claims

my argument is very simple. We have no idea how common life is in the universe because, as you pointed out, we don't know the absolute requirements for life.

Rather, you should take what I'm saying as "the fact that there is a lot a space is irrelevant to the discussion".

Originally posted by Mindship
Interesting theory. Here's my incomplete understanding: we ought to re-examine the mathematical language of our measurements. This will give us perspective on this language and how it affects our perceptions and beliefs. In other words, Relativity and QM, eg, are currently irreconcilable because we're looking at them the "wrong" way.

I barely understand QM myself, so my opinion is really not worth much, but yes, my feelings are that as we uncover better ways to measure events the "strangeness" of QM will evaporate.

However, I would add a cultural level to the theory, as we live in a world where real science is not nearly as salient to the common person as fake science (this thread being a prime example), and the public has come to expect the most bizarre things from QM. Researchers are then almost being encouraged to describe QM in the most "OMFG" terms and to uncover things that appear to make no sense at all. The goal appears, to me at least, to make QM seem more fantastical rather than to explain any of the weirdness in more banal terms.

Originally posted by One Free Man
... the big bang theory and/or abiogenesis is as unbelieveable as ID or Scientology. ...

What? You have to be kidding.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? You have to be kidding.

the "if evolution is to be considered valid" remark gave me goosebumps as well.

Well, I'm still waiting for the man from the future to come visit us.....

Originally posted by inimalist
However, I would add a cultural level to the theory, as we live in a world where real science is not nearly as salient to the common person as fake science (this thread being a prime example), and the public has come to expect the most bizarre things from QM. Researchers are then almost being encouraged to describe QM in the most "OMFG" terms and to uncover things that appear to make no sense at all. The goal appears, to me at least, to make QM seem more fantastical rather than to explain any of the weirdness in more banal terms.
Perhaps the celebrity mindset of pop culture has seeped into the physics community (Hawking Syndrome?). Fantastical sells.

You should appreciate my open-mindedness to put my ideas into your terms. I'm not debating creationism here.

Originally posted by One Free Man
You should appreciate my open-mindedness to put my ideas into your terms. I'm not debating creationism here.

Also, your amazing ego. jk

Originally posted by One Free Man
You should appreciate my open-mindedness to put my ideas into your terms. I'm not debating creationism here.

i couldn't care less about how open your mind is

its still irrational to say that the vastness of the universe implies there is other life.

Originally posted by inimalist
i couldn't care less about how open your mind is

its still irrational to say that the vastness of the universe implies there is other life. irrational you say?

Originally posted by inimalist
i couldn't care less about how open your mind is

its still irrational to say that the vastness of the universe implies there is other life. If the universe is infinitive and there is a precedent of conditions being met, it is impossible for the conditions of life to have not been met somewhere.

Originally posted by One Free Man
If the universe is infinitive and there is a precedent of conditions being met, it is impossible for the conditions of life to have not been met somewhere. Not impossible. Improbably maybe.

Originally posted by One Free Man
If the universe is infinitive and there is a precedent of conditions being met, it is impossible for the conditions of life to have not been met somewhere.

If the universe were infinite (and there's no evidence it is) there would be an infinite number of species with a infinite number of members each. But again there's no reason to think the universe is infinite and thus no reason to think that there "must" be aliens.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If the universe were infinite (and there's no evidence it is) there would be an infinite number of species with a infinite number of members each. But again there's no reason to think the universe is infinite and thus no reason to think that there "must" be aliens. How would one go about proving the universe is infinite? Even if it was Infinite how can we assume that "there will be an infinite number of species with a infinite number of members each"?

Originally posted by One Free Man
If the universe is infinitive and there is a precedent of conditions being met, it is impossible for the conditions of life to have not been met somewhere.
Mathematically speaking, this is complete nonsense.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Mathematically speaking, this is complete nonsense. explain.

Infinity divided by infinity is of meaningless value. If the odds of life forming are infinitesimal, trying to apply it to the infinite size of the universe produces mathematical garbage.

At any rate, there's no reason to believe the universe is infinite anyway.

Originally posted by One Free Man
explain.

it is possible to roll a die an infinite number of times and never roll a 6.

same concept.

That something has a probability not equal to 0 doesn't mean it has to happen eventually.

Originally posted by kgkg
irrational you say?

indeed. The fact that there is space does not mean there is life in that space. The argument that there has to be life because there is space is a fallacy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If the universe were infinite (and there's no evidence it is) there would be an infinite number of species with a infinite number of members each. But again there's no reason to think the universe is infinite and thus no reason to think that there "must" be aliens.

but just saying the universe is infinite is not enough

it is possible for a universe to be infinite, yet contain only one planet. Infinite is a measure of space, not a description of what is within that space.