how small we really are

[Damocles]

Well...

Gonzalez and Richards.

Science journel...

''
a solar system with a single massive Sun than can serve as a long-lived, stable source of energy
a terrestrial planet (non-gaseous)
the planet must be the right distance from the sun in order to preserve liquid water at the surface – if it’s too close, the water is burnt off in a runaway greenhouse effect, if it’s too far, the water is permanently frozen in a runaway glaciation
the solar system must be placed at the right place in the galaxy – not too near dangerous radiation, but close enough to other stars to be able to absorb heavy elements after neighboring stars die
a moon of sufficient mass to stabilize the tilt of the planet’s rotation
plate tectonics
an oxygen-rich atmosphere
a sweeper planet to deflect comets, etc.
planetary neighbors must have non-eccentric orbits
Note that these requirements are connected. If you mess with one, some of the others will be thrown out of tune. And there are far more habitability requirements required ''

So .. whilst i believe there is perhaps microbes out there in the ocean of space, the chances of intelligent life form could well be slim.

None of the red quoted stuff is a requirement for life and I have no idea why those people suggested it is.

EDIT: Looked them up and they're both Creationists which is a byword for totally insane

 

[Matty]

When you consider just how insignificant we are in terms of whats out there, and the sheer volume of stars, planets etc it's inconcievable that Earth is the only inhabited planet. Don't get me wrong, I don't think little green men are playing with American's anuses, but I'm convinced there's life out there, and not just some green slime on a rock, intelligent, sentient life.

 

[Damocles]

Well...

Gonzalez and Richards.

Science journel...

''
a solar system with a single massive Sun than can serve as a long-lived, stable source of energy
a terrestrial planet (non-gaseous)
the planet must be the right distance from the sun in order to preserve liquid water at the surface – if it’s too close, the water is burnt off in a runaway greenhouse effect, if it’s too far, the water is permanently frozen in a runaway glaciation
the solar system must be placed at the right place in the galaxy – not too near dangerous radiation, but close enough to other stars to be able to absorb heavy elements after neighboring stars die
a moon of sufficient mass to stabilize the tilt of the planet’s rotation
plate tectonics
an oxygen-rich atmosphere
a sweeper planet to deflect comets, etc.
planetary neighbors must have non-eccentric orbits
Note that these requirements are connected. If you mess with one, some of the others will be thrown out of tune. And there are far more habitability requirements required ''

So .. whilst i believe there is perhaps microbes out there in the ocean of space, the chances of intelligent life form could well be slim.

None of the red quoted stuff is a requirement for life and I have no idea why those people suggested it is.

EDIT: Looked them up and they're both Creationists which is a byword for totally insane

I also cannot find any papers they have published that have appeared in Science.

Think you've bought some typical religious nutter bullshit there mate

 

[tonea2003]

When you consider just how insignificant we are in terms of whats out there, and the sheer volume of stars, planets etc it's inconcievable that Earth is the only inhabited planet. Don't get me wrong, I don't think little green men are playing with American's anuses, but I'm convinced there's life out there, and not just some green slime on a rock, intelligent, sentient life.

if there was just one per galaxy( which i assume is not inconceivable ) then we are talking at least a hundred billion inhabited planets out there

 

[BlueHammer85]

Well...

Gonzalez and Richards.

Science journel...

''
a solar system with a single massive Sun than can serve as a long-lived, stable source of energy
a terrestrial planet (non-gaseous)
the planet must be the right distance from the sun in order to preserve liquid water at the surface – if it’s too close, the water is burnt off in a runaway greenhouse effect, if it’s too far, the water is permanently frozen in a runaway glaciation
the solar system must be placed at the right place in the galaxy – not too near dangerous radiation, but close enough to other stars to be able to absorb heavy elements after neighboring stars die
a moon of sufficient mass to stabilize the tilt of the planet’s rotation
plate tectonics
an oxygen-rich atmosphere
a sweeper planet to deflect comets, etc.
planetary neighbors must have non-eccentric orbits
Note that these requirements are connected. If you mess with one, some of the others will be thrown out of tune. And there are far more habitability requirements required ''

So .. whilst i believe there is perhaps microbes out there in the ocean of space, the chances of intelligent life form could well be slim.

None of the red quoted stuff is a requirement for life and I have no idea why those people suggested it is.

EDIT: Looked them up and they're both Creationists which is a byword for totally insane

Well i'll use Professor Cox instead to the point i was making

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809183/We-universe-Professor-Brian-Cox-says-alien-life-impossible-humanity-unique.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... nique.html</a>

 

[aguero93:20]

And there's only us in all that universe..

I don't trust you, alien.

 

[Damocles]

Well i'll use Professor Cox instead to the point i was making

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809183/We-universe-Professor-Brian-Cox-says-alien-life-impossible-humanity-unique.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... nique.html</a>

You've got to stop doing this. GeorgeHannah is equally religious and does the same thing and neither of you understand why it is wrong.

I DON'T CARE WHAT OFF HAND COMMENTS SOME SCIENTIST MAKES.

Nobody cares what Einstein says, what Brian Cox says, what Isaac Newton says or what anybody else says.

Scientists aren't given authority like thta. Their authority comes from published articles showing the evidence. When you link me to one that Brian Cox has written then we can have a chat about the things he said and whether they hold merit. Just because he says something it doesn't make it any more or less true than your opinion

 

[tonea2003]

Well i'll use Professor Cox instead to the point i was making

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809183/We-universe-Professor-Brian-Cox-says-alien-life-impossible-humanity-unique.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... nique.html</a>

You've got to stop doing this. GeorgeHannah is equally religious and does the same thing and neither of you understand why it is wrong.

I DON'T CARE WHAT OFF HAND COMMENTS SOME SCIENTIST MAKES.

Nobody cares what Einstein says, what Brian Cox says, what Isaac Newton says or what anybody else says.

Scientists aren't given authority like thta. Their authority comes from published articles showing the evidence. When you link me to one that Brian Cox has written then we can have a chat about the things he said and whether they hold merit. Just because he says something it doesn't make it any more or less true than your opinion

this is from the seti instituite, whether you give it more credence i don't know

Over the last half-century, scientists have developed a theory of cosmic evolution that predicts that life is a natural phenomenon likely to develop on planets with suitable environmental conditions. Scientific evidence shows that life arose on Earth relatively quickly (only 100 million years after life was even possible), suggesting that life will occur on any planets that have the requisite characteristics, such as liquid oceans (either on the surface or underground). With the recent discovery that the majority of stars have planets – the number of potential habitats for life has been greatly expanded.

In addition, exploration of our own solar system and analysis of the composition of other systems suggest that the chemical building blocks of life – such as amino acids – are naturally produced and very widespread.

There are several hundred billion other stars in our Galaxy, and more than 100 billion other galaxies in the part of the universe we can see. It would be extraordinary if we were the only thinking beings in all these vast realms.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Well i'll use Professor Cox instead to the point i was making

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809183/We-universe-Professor-Brian-Cox-says-alien-life-impossible-humanity-unique.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... nique.html</a>

You've got to stop doing this. GeorgeHannah is equally religious and does the same thing and neither of you understand why it is wrong.

I DON'T CARE WHAT OFF HAND COMMENTS SOME SCIENTIST MAKES.

Nobody cares what Einstein says, what Brian Cox says, what Isaac Newton says or what anybody else says.

Scientists aren't given authority like thta. Their authority comes from published articles showing the evidence. When you link me to one that Brian Cox has written then we can have a chat about the things he said and whether they hold merit. Just because he says something it doesn't make it any more or less true than your opinion

i agree hence, life on other planets is down to opinions, however the DATA we DO HAVE shows.........No Life across Billions of Planets and our own being very unique, that is fact....outside of that is just conjecture

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

the earth is the only bit of the universe we've got, we'd better make the most of it

Well said George.