Classy! =D> (as it was written prior to your edit)

Kind of reminds me of the end of a debate I had with a Southern Baptist minister about his literal interpretation of The Bible.

The world is comic to those who think and tragic to those who feel.

I really don't know what you are angry about.

You should read the rules for using this BBS.

Since kids browse these forums, I am pretty sure Dr. Plat is going to ban you(rs) if you swear.

I'm of the opinion that we still do not know.
Within the last year we've seen articles such as this highlighting the possibility that Life may yet be found on Venus.
And then, of course, there's The New Hunt For Life On Mars with some tantalizing evidences.

So, in my mind, to state matter-of-factly a negative in either case is erroneous.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

You should read those sites.
In addition to all this, Schulze-Makuch's ideas don't mesh very well with the findings from the Magellian mission. I need to get the details of this and post it here soon.

As for the posting about Mars. I was under the impression that all this is about past life on Mars, not current life on Mars. It is strange how these links about life on Mars slowly and slowly leave this out over time when they continue to report on this subject.

The link you gave me about Mars also points to this interesting tidbit of information:

Life? Microcystis aeruginosa is a type of cyanobacteria found on Earth. It is an algae known to cloud the Chesapeake Bay when it blooms and forms thick mats. Life on other planets might never have evolved beyond such simplicity.
This supports what I have been saying, for all practical purposes.

I am jumping into this a discussion a bit late, but I’ll put in my two cents.

If we are lucky and we do not blow ourselves up and if we are smart enough to face the challenges of nature, then we most likely will encounter other sentient beings.

As our sun dies, we will need to find new places to live.

Other sentient beings in our galaxy will also face the same challenge.

The densest region of a galaxy is in the core, which is the most likely place for new stars to be formed from the remains of older stars.

Thus, all sentient beings will eventually migrate to the cores of galaxies.
Snowflake.

ROFLMAO

__________________
"We need to get back into that Saturn V world mentality."
Gene Cernan -- Commander Apollo 17

Why is it so impossible to think that there is no other intelligent life out there comparable to ours in our galaxy. Even if the conditions that created life here only exist in 0.01% in the rest of the galaxy isn't that number still fairly high? Just a thought.

Did you mean to say "Why is it so impossible to think that there is other intelligent life out there comparable to ours in our galaxy"?

If so, I'd just like say that I am sure that it is not impossible, from my personal experience. I think it often.

Yeah that's what I meant, thanks for catching that... =D>

Hey, all,

Mainstream science presents all sorts of reasons why the odds are not in our favor for finding ETI.

But this belief in ETI seems to be almost like a religion to some people

I have got some private emails form people who have visited this forum and yet they have put a block on their email account so that I cannot reply. So, they ignore me.

There is a word for someone who ignores information. Can you tell me what that word is? How would you call someone who ignores?

from

__________________
Home of the Illumi-Llama:
The Illuminati-R-Us Forums

Content deleted on the suggestion of a friend.

And my apologies for posting the content of private email.

__________________
Home of the Illumi-Llama:
The Illuminati-R-Us Forums

I really do!

This posting supports my belief.

You know, I did not mention Lance by name.

Legit question.!

I don't think he answered.

Taking things out of context is a juvenile tactic.

This is in response to a poll Lance started that is the logic equivalant of "does it matter if we ever see faries as long is we believe that they are really there".

This was in response to him accusing me of believing everything I see on TV. It is a joke. I am talking about Gilligans Island, of course.

You know, posting emails is a violation of this web site. But since, I doubt you would mind, I will do so.

Lance thinks PBS and The Discovery Channel and Fox are in the same boat as far as credibility is concerned.

I will post that email exchange here soon.

An honest question.

He did not answer.

But once again, he takes things out of context.

I responded to his email about a newspaper article about some interview that someone made with an Apollo Astronaut. This astronaut believes that the government is hiding alien bodies.

When Lance asked if I believe it, the only answer I gave was, "sure, I believe that maybe an astronaut might believe that the government is hiding alien bodies."

But Lance thought that I was agreeing with the astronaut.

So, naturally I would have to ask Lance about his reading comprehension skills.

It is only logical and natural that I would wonder about that.

I gotta tell you that both of you are walking on thin ice here. You're both being rude, and overly emotional about this topic. Why can't you just agree to disagree? Why take it to the level of harassment?

I can tell you that the BA won't side with either of you if you both continue to violate board policy just because "he started it."

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

The fact that the people who disagree with me have digressed to being little crying children do not add any credibility to their views.

No one said it did. It doesn't add any credibility to your views either.

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

Maybe you are right.

OK OK

Still, I am leaving my response to his attack intact.

I'm just trying to "save" both of you from getting kicked out of the BABB. I hate to see good posters lose it. 8)

I recommend you take a step back. I've gotten really upset before, and it almost resulted in getting banned myself, so I know what I'm talking about.

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

I disagree with you Bill. I will leave it to others to judge my credibility. And I will repeat my case here, since I have been misquoted on occasion.

I have been asked about my .sig, and how that weighs against my feelings on the subject of ETI when looked at from a "legal" point of view. Basically, how do I justify "If there is no evidence of something happening or existing, legally it does not exist or it did not happen."

I would state my position this way:

Our mere existence at all is indisputable proof that intelligent life can exist in the universe, the galaxy, and in the vicinity of the Planet Earth.

Fact: "The Universe is capable of producing intelligent life."

Potential Verdict 1: "This has happened just one time."

Potential Verdict 2: "This has happened only a few times and is uncommon."

Potential Verdict 3: "This has happened many times and is common."

The Evidence:
We have no actual evidence to support the claim that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.

We have no actual evidence to support the claim that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

Conclusion:
We have no actual evidence at this time to support any of the potential verdicts in this case so none of the verdicts can be reached.

Summary:
The jury isn't still out on this because no case has yet been presented. We are still in the opening argument phase where theories, hypotheses and speculation are presented. Until some hard evidence can be presented to support any conclusion no judgment can be made.

So Bill;

If it is your position that either "This has happened just one time." or "This has happened only a few times and is uncommon.", then your case will be dismissed for lack of evidence.

And the case that "This has happened many times and is common." will suffer the same fate.

My position, personally, is that I do not have enough information to decide and therefore choose not to try and make a case at all.

But if you really need me to take some position, then I guess I would have to say this:

The occurrence of an event is proof that the event can occur, and evidence that it can occur more than once. I would judge "Potential Verdict 1" (above) to be the least likely probability.

__________________
Home of the Illumi-Llama:
The Illuminati-R-Us Forums

That's pretty much my take on things. Of course, the universe is a huge place, and there could be tons of life out there, and we could still never discover it. Rather daunting.

Of course, by never, I mean in my lifetime. Otherwise, who cares? :wink:

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

My points are not links in a chain where you can show one link is weak and break the chain. The points are multiples to an equation -- The Drake Equation. All the multiples need to be discredited to increase the liklihood of ETI.

If fact Sagan unknowingly supported the unliklihood. In his book Cosmos he printed a series of planetary star systems that are considered to be legit and probable. Carl Sagan made a huge effort gloating over the very few that had a planet in the habital life region.

But you have to look at ALL the facts.

The web sites that posters have put links to on this forum which support the liklihood of ETI all say that the biggest problem with life getting a foothold on this planet has been the rein of asteroids.

And science tells us that the rein of asteroids on earth is limited thanks to the gasious giant planets.

In Sagan's book none of the star systems with habital regions had the same blessing of planetary giants as our solar system does.

I think I've lost your point, Bill. Are you saying you're convinced there is no life in the universe but us, and you want agreement?

If not, what are you saying?

Thanks.

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

Rain? Jupiter is four times farther away from us than the Sun, and the Sun is a thousand times as massive as Jupiter. There are still plenty of asteroids, meteoroids, and comets out there, but our little area is fairly cleaned up--the bombardment essentially stopped billions of years ago, but before that, there were a lot of hits--as evidenced by our moon.
Those were fabrications, right?

[quote="milli360"]
It is rein. Not rain. This time, I did not misspell.

You are disagreeing with the experts. Jupiter still sucked up all the rogue asteroids that would have caused more frequent mass instinctions on earth.

Fortuantely I managed to check out the BBC special and I can tell you who said what and their credentials now. It is a DVD and I think I can snag some stills off of it if I run it on my PC.

No.

But as far as Segan's book, I have not seen it around lately. I would think it was still at Barns and Nobel.

But, I have to just sing now:

• HI HO - HI HO
  IT IS OFF TO THE LIBRARY I GO
  
  I HAVE POSTED A COMENT
  YOU DISAGREE WITH
  HI HO - HI HO
  HI HO - HI HO

For most of my life I thought we would eventually hear radio signals with the SETI project. But now I doubt it after looking into the astronomy and the biology and the cosmology of this subject.

It is all about probability and dispersion. Sure it can happen. But how likely is it that it happens a lot? Since the universe is so huge, it can be imagined that ETI is so far away that it is just as if they are not there at all.

You ask what I am looking for? I am looking for disagreement. Like sharpening a blade, I get a better and better position, argument and detailed notion with disagreement. Why would I want to "sing to the choir"?

I think it should be: "The free rein of asteroids was reined in by the gas giants." If you don't want to use "free" with "rein", then "rain" would be correct.

__________________
Home of the Illumi-Llama:
The Illuminati-R-Us Forums

This is of course the main sticking point on this issue. To someone who believes the Earth was created by God, that isn't evidence that it can occur at all. Well thats a different position entirely: there could be billions of life-bearing planets in the universe and probabiliy suggests we'd still never find one. Arguing that there are billions is a lot more than arguing that we're the only one. In order for us to find one though, there needs to be trillions of them.

From what we know about earth and our solar system and our galaxy, I give us pretty high odds of finding life off of earth in my lifetime (possibly even in our solar system) and 50/50 odds of finding intelligent life

You are incorrect, sir. Think of the common expression, "rein of terror"

And another thing, the free rein of asteroids was prevented from rein(ing) in by the gas giants

Amen, my brother!

I could not have said it better myself!

That's "reiGn of terror", which is an entirely different word.

__________________
Home of the Illumi-Llama:
The Illuminati-R-Us Forums