We Are Alone in the Universe!

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah right. Theist always argue the argue since we have no evidence that such a thing exist therefore we must not believe that such thing exist. I think not. ng from their point of you, dude. PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT INTELLIGENT ALIENS EXIST!

And right now you are trying to make an argument from ignorance. No one has positively stated that intelligent aliens exist. That does not mean that they do not exist. You need to work on your logic skills a bit. You seem to have trouble with negating an idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

THE ****ing MATH:
The Timing of Evolutionary Transitions Suggests Intelligent Life Is Rare | Astrobiology (liebertpub.com)

So you didn't do the math. You linked an article that you did not understand that does not even say that there is no intelligent life elsewhere.

 

[metis]

So we must assume that we are alone in the universe and must be the only intelligent life that exist in it.

Couple that with the fact that God does not exist, I feel somewhat sad and more convince that life is indeed absurd.

Those are two assumptions, and assumptions are the enemy of science and good scholarship in any objective field of study.

 

[ChristineM]

Only evidence I have is statistical and I know it isn't absolute proof but it is evidence and it is better than having absolutely no evidence because it is at least somewhat objective rather than being speculative. I trust the evidence that we have. Sorry.

So why ask others for what you do not have?

Yes, the Drake equation is also statistical and only utilises objective parameters. And i trust the evidence that we have. None. We have supposition based on guesswork. With the number of possible planets being so ginormously and the fact we have a sample of 1 with a 100% hit rate statistics suggest every habitable planet had life. And a 100% hit rate that the one we know evolved intelligence there is no reason to suppose others also haven't evolved intelligence

 

[Ratt Blastard]

Those are two assumptions, and assumptions are the enemy of science and good scholarship in any objective field of study.

An assumption based on objective evidence is not false

 

[Ratt Blastard]

So you didn't do the math. You linked an article that you did not understand that does not even say that there is no intelligent life elsewhere.

Tell me what it says

 

[Left Coast]

Have we seen any evidence that intelligent life exist anywhere else but here? Where are they? We should be getting reruns of alien versions of I Love Lucy by now if they progress to a technological level to invent radio or television. We keep listening and sending but so far nothing.

Why would you assume that intelligent life is as technologically advanced as us? We've only had radio for what, 100 or so years?

You're assuming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

 

[metis]

An assumption based on objective evidence is not false

An "assumption" by definition cannot ever be considered true without verification, but then it wouldn't any longer be an "assumption".

As a scientist, now retired, we abhor assumptions.

 

[Ratt Blastard]

So why ask others for what you do not have?

Yes, the Drake equation is also statistical and only utilises objective parameters. And i trust the evidence that we have. None. We have supposition based on guesswork. With the number of possible planets being so ginormously and the fact we have a sample of 1 with a 100% hit rate statistics suggest every habitable planet had life. And a 100% hit rate that the one we know evolved intelligence there is no reason to suppose others also haven't evolved intelligence

But you have to admit that the evidence based on statistics is always going to have more weight on anecdotal or speculative evidence. And the weight of the evidence pushes me to acknowledge that we are the only kids on the block. It is what we have. And it is pretty objective.

 

[Ratt Blastard]

Why would you assume that intelligent life is as technologically advanced as us? We've only had radio for what, 100 or so years?

You're assuming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Are we the most intelligent forms of life in the universe?

 

[Left Coast]

Are we the most intelligent forms of life in the universe?

I have no idea. Are we?

 

[Ratt Blastard]

An "assumption" by definition cannot ever be considered true without verification, but then it wouldn't any longer be an "assumption".

As a scientist, now retired, we abhor assumptions.

Assumptions are kinda neat if you want to speculate

 

[Ratt Blastard]

I have no idea. Are we?

Present evidence we are

 

[exchemist]

There is absolutely no evidence that intelligent and/or complex life exists elsewhere in the universe. So we must assume that we are alone in the universe and must be the only intelligent life that exist in it. Couple that with the fact that God does not exist, I feel somewhat sad and more convince that life is indeed absurd.

You are right that at present we are alone. Nobody is in contact with us, so that is actually a truism.

However that is not at all the same as saying there is no other intelligent life anywhere else. There could easily be. Remember that, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, in space the numbers are awful.

 

[Polymath257]

There was evidence and people didn't see it yet. This isn't just about that lack of evidence that intelligent alien life but the ample evidence that intelligent alien life does not exist.

Would you care to delineate that evidence?

At this point, we have explored one planet in *our* solar system in detail: the Earth. We have explored another planets using mobile probes: Mars. We have sent a probes going past some other planets.

In *our* solar system, it is possible life existed on Mars at one point and even possible it is there now. It is possible life exists on the moons Titan and Europa. The conditions seem to be within the realm of possibility, but we have not explored enough to know one way or the other.

Once we get outside of our own solar system, we just became aware of other planets within the last couple of decades and just recently achieved the technology to find Earth-sized planets orbiting other stars. We already know of planets in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for other stars.

So, it looks like the conditions for life on other planets are pretty common in the universe. Whether that means life is similarly common, we don't know, but ti isn't unreasonable to think it might be. We simply don't have the necessary data as yet and we *know* we don't have that data.

Now, what we *do* know is that we have not detected any *signals* from other life. Whether that is because other intelligent life is rare, or only exists briefly, we don't know. But there may well be a lot of life that is pre-technical or that uses signals that we do not yet know how to detect (or are simply not directed at us).

So, precisely what is your evidence that we are alone?

 

[Left Coast]

Present evidence we are

Why would I present evidence for a position I don't hold? We have no clue how intelligent life may or may not be elsewhere in the universe. You made assumptions that intelligent life would be a) at least as intelligent as us and b) at least as technologically advanced as us. Present evidence for either.

 

[Ratt Blastard]

You are right that at present we are alone. Nobody is in contact with us, so that is actually a truism.

However that is not at all the same as saying there is no other intelligent life anywhere else. There could easily be. Remember that, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, in space the numbers are awful.

No easily. Not easily. And you know numbers in space can be awful on both sides of the equation. It took a whole bunch of random to create us. Think about it.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no evidence for either, both are statistically improbable.

Why do you consider life on other planets to be statistically improbable?

Given the fact that the conditions for life seem to be common and the fact that life got started on Earth very quickly, it seems probable that bacterial life, at least, is common.

But, even if that is the case, we wouldn't know because we simply don't have the technology to detect bacterial life outside of our solar system. For that matter, we don't have the technology to detect any non-technological life, even if it is common.

 

[Polymath257]

But look what it took for life on earth to evolve, all the phenomena that it took to just to get a few amino acid going. What are the chances of that being replicated over and over again throughout the whole universe?

Amino acids are *known* to be common in the universe. We detect them in interstellar gas clouds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An assumption based on objective evidence is not false

It could be. So you are wrong there. If I saw a goose flying and assumed that only gooses can fly that would be false.

 

[ChristineM]

But you have to admit that the evidence based on statistics is always going to have more weight on anecdotal or speculative evidence. And the weight of the evidence pushes me to acknowledge that we are the only kids on the block. It is what we have. And it is pretty objective.

There is no evidence either way so we can only work statistically and the weight of statistics along with even the current inadequate observations indicate that many planets are suitable for life

As i stated, the drake equation only uses objective, scientific data