Humans could contact aliens within 12 years

[Noir Angel]

Given the sheer size of the universe I find it highly unlikely that we're the only planet with life on it, in fact I personally believe there are almost certainly aliens out there somewhere but until we have any tangible evidence that they exist it's little more than an intriguing theory. Nor am I really sure if any of the "UFO" sightings on Earth were actual aliens or not.

[chconline Veteran]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

... I'm still not convinced about aliens or UFOs though.

[McKay]

Please just prevent Religion from being involved in our First Contact..... :/

[Teebor]

So this Nigerian prince who keeps emailing me could in actual fact be an alien?

[DonnieJim]

First post but here is my belief on the subject.

http://www.universet...-exists-at-all/

[Hum]

Have you seen one? I mean really you seen one not your friends not the guys on TV.

Yes.

I have always found it weird that people don't believe in Aliens.

There's Billions, no mopre than Trillions and Trillions of stars out there, which are suns of other solar systems, and of course many many many would have life.

It's plain stupid to even doubt life on other planets.

Even in our own solar system there's more than likely life on the other planets. Just cuz we couldn't live on them, doesn't mean some other species couldn't.

Are people really that retarded? It doesn't even make sense to think that we're the only ones around.

There's way more proof that aliens exist than God, but it's alright to believe in God, but you're considered crazy if you believe in Aliens, go figure.

This is because the gods of Science have not pronounced other intelligent life as true.

And so few humans are able to think for themselves. ;)

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

Even if we did contact any aliens it would take thousands of years for them to notice and/or visit or even answer

[Sandor]

Given the vastness of the universe it seems almost a statistical certainty that there is life on other planets and likely plenty of it. Given "life" can include anything from microbes to more complex species I question the sanity of anyone who flatly denies even the possibility of that occurring somewhere else besides the Earth. In the same breath, there are likely to be countless beings infinitely more advanced than us too.

Do we have "evidence" yet. Not in plain sight. If you believe in UFOs and Roswell and all that then fine but if it's true it's currently hidden.

I think the issue would be even if "evidence" was forthcoming, "luddites" wouldn't stand for it or would attempt to discredit it. If Mr Spock himself landed in the middle the Super Bowl and proceeded to cut himself open and bleed green blood you'd get people saying "fake".

How many times have we laughed at the guy who calls himself Jesus Christ who hath returned! Even if it was in front of our faces we'd likely be too dumb as a collective to see it.

[TheLegendOfMart]

This is because the gods of Science have not pronounced other intelligent life as true.

And so few humans are able to think for themselves. ;)

Because science deals with observable truths, not wild fantasies.

Just because I don't believe in aliens doesn't mean I'm a mindless drone, get off your high horse.

[Growled Member]

Because science deals with observable truths, not wild fantasies.

Men of science are just as capable of having their own personal biases as anyone else. Every new theory is shot down to hades and back and science has a big row until it's proven beyond belief and they have to except it.

[mudslag]

Men of science are just as capable of having their own personal biases as anyone else. Everything new theory is shot down to hades and back and science has a big row until it's proven beyond belief and they have to except it.

In English please

[thomastmc]

Second, if you have evidence, then by all means post it. I see you suggesting there is but don't bother to post a single shred of it. Third, evidence in the court of law is by far no where the same as scientific evidence for proving X. For example, in a court room a witness can testify to seeing something and have that counted as evidence. In science, first hand eye witness testimony is not considered viable evidence.

Wrong the burden of proof is on those that say there is proof to begin with. Again odds are there is life beyond Earth, I believe this highly but the simple FACT is, we currently do not have proof. As for atoms, electrons and so on, at one point, we had theories of such but we didn't have the proof. Over time proof was gathered, it may have always been there but it wasn't known and wasn't within our reach to gather it. So in a sense if there is proof of alien life, we just don't currently have it. So unless you can provide said evidence, then you're talking out of your ass by saying there is a wealth of it.

In all fairness there is as much proof of alien existence as there is for god, which is none. The odds say we are not alone, given the vast size of space and the amount of stars and planets. We know the materials for life exists elsewhere. We know life "can" exist off planet Earth. We DO NOT how ever have evidence of alien life itself. So while it is astronomically silly to think we are the only planet with life, as of yet, we are the only planet that we know for sure that has it.

No where do I deny the probability or likelihood of the existence of alien life, I deny that proof or evidence for it currently exists.

As for your tree example. You have evidence of a tree, you have evidence that it fell, what remains is the how. The bigger picture is that you still have evidence, even if it's partial. There is no evidence for alien life, period.

I see your challenge of evidence, but please, in return do me the favor of seeing this challenge...

You state that there is the probability, likelihood, odds, that you believe this highly, to the point of otherwise being silly, that alien life exists. Yet you state over and over that there is no evidence and/or proof. How is it not irrational to be so sure of something while at the same time claiming to have no evidence? How is it not unreasonable to advocate an opinion or position while also advocating a lack of evidence for that same position? How can you have an opinion without any information about it's subject? How can you speak to an issue with authority, declaring that there is no evidence, without being well informed on that issue?

Because of some of your other statements, I'd normally give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you just misspoke several times, maybe you got confused about what constitutes evidence and proof in a court of law or in the scientific method. However, because of some of your other comments I'd take you to task for an explanation of this.

Being intellectually honest, reasonable, and rational, you must admit that something you know has led you to a conclusion. It is irrational and unreasonable to draw a conclusion that is based upon no evidence. It is also unreasonable and irrational to claim that although you have somehow convinced yourself of a conclusion in a logical manner, that someone else who has come to the same conclusion cannot have evidence to support that conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)

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

Ok first off, you attempt to use another example that already contains proof of it's existence, the sun and the Earth. The evidence of both is there readily available to all.

The point here was lost completely? The Earth and Sun were known to exist in the 17th century, of course, but the fact of heliocentricity was extremely controversial. If someone asked Galileo for proof of heliocentricity, he would show them celestial observations and mathematical equations. There was no definitive proof like a picture or a video or a trip to space to watch. It was circumstantial evidence.

Evidence as used in a court of law and in the scientific method

You're correct that eye witness testimony is highly fallible and not used in the scientific method as it is in a court of law. Fortunately, I won't need to call anyone to the stand. The most plentiful type of evidence used in science, which is also extremely common in law, is circumstantial evidence.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.^[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

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

Example: The weight of the Earth is calculated using the gravitational constant and the distance to the center of the Earth. No one actually put it on a scale that had been tested for accuracy. It was measured indirectly by circumstantial evidence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-can-the-weight-of-ear

Example: Most of planets found to exist outside of our solar system have been determined to exist by measuring the fluctuations in light of it's host star, or using gravitational lensing. It is most certainly determined by circumstantial evidence.

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

Evidence, wealth

In order for the concept that life is common and abundant in the galaxy to be a valid position, these conditions would logically need to be met.

1: Planets must exist outside of the solar system.

2: There must be a significant amount of Earth-like planets where life can take hold and thrive.

3: The materials that create life should be abundant and wide spread throughout the galaxy.

4: Life must not be fragile, but rather able to survive robustly in harsh environments.

5: If life is not an aberration on Earth, there should be evidence that the processes of the Universe create the possibility for life in the same way those processes create the possibility for galaxies, stars, and planets.

Facts, quotes, links

1-2 Planets must exist outside of our solar system and Earth-like planets should be abundant

One or more bound planets per Milky Way star from microlensing observations

Here we report a statistical analysis of microlensing data (gathered in 2002?07) that reveals the fraction of bound planets 0.5?10?au (Sun?Earth distance) from their stars. We find that of stars host Jupiter-mass planets (0.3?10?MJ, where MJ = 318?Mcircle plus and Mcircle plus is Earth?s mass). Cool Neptunes (10?30?Mcircle plus) and super-Earths (5?10?Mcircle plus) are even more common: their respective abundances per star are and .

Recently, a population of planets that are unbound or very far from their stars was discovered by microlensing. These planets are at least as numerous as the stars in the Milky Way.

We conclude that stars are orbited by planets as a rule, rather than the exception.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/nature10684.html

Many Billions of Rocky Planets in Habitable Zones Around Red Dwarfs in Milky Way

"Our new observations with HARPS mean that about 40% of all red dwarf stars have a super-Earth orbiting in the habitable zone where liquid water can exist on the surface of the planet," says Xavier Bonfils (IPAG, Observatoire des Sciences de l'Univers de Grenoble, France), the leader of the team. "Because red dwarfs are so common -- there are about 160 billion of them in the Milky Way -- this leads us to the astonishing result that there are tens of billions of these planets in our galaxy alone."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120328090937.htm

There are estimated to be 200-400 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy. Some stars probably don't have any planets, and some stars probably have more than the eight planets of our Sun. Most stars have at least one planet.

A conservative compromise of these estimates and the evidence is that there are around one trillion planets in the Milky Way galaxy orbiting stars. This assumes that there are around 300 billion stars in the galaxy and an average of almost 3.5 planets for every star.

This is a trillion planets. Most planets probably don't have the properties that we would consider to be conducive to life. Though, life could just as easily take hold on a moon of a giant planet, like Jupiter. Consider that Jupiter has 63 and that Saturn has 62 known moons.

3-5 The materials that create life should be abundant and wide spread throughout the galaxy. There should be evidence that the processes of the Universe naturally create the possibility for life.

Complex Organic Matter Discovered Created by Stars Throughout the Universe

Physicists Freeman Dyson has said that it appears as though the Universe was anticipating our existence. A recent discovery seems to support his observation: In 2011, astronomers discovered that organic compounds of unexpected complexity exist throughout the Universe, suggesting that complex organic compounds are not the sole domain of life but can be made naturally by stars.

Most interestingly, this organic star dust is similar in structure to complex organic compounds found in meteorites. Since meteorites are remnants of the early Solar System, the findings raise the possibility that stars enriched the early Solar System with organic compounds. The early Earth was subjected to severe bombardments by comets and asteroids, which potentially could have carried organic star dust.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/complex-organic-matter-discovered-to-be-created-by-stars-throughout-the-universe.html

This complex organic matter exists in vast molecular clouds in space, such as nebulae.

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

Found: A Batch of DNA Molecules That Seem To Have Originated in Space

This is big news, of course, because if the ingredients for life were brought here from some external source, there?s always the possibility that the same thing has happened elsewhere in the universe--possibly many times over.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-08/building-blocks-life-can-originate-space

NASA Researchers: DNA Building Blocks Can Be Made in Space

"People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life," said Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

"For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space." Callahan is lead author of a paper on the discovery appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html

Possible Key to Life's Chemistry Revealed in 50 Year Old Experiment

"(Early life) didn't care if that amino acid was formed in space or a lightning strike in Earth's atmosphere or came out of a hydrothermal vent? So in the end, it is possible life got started from acquiring building blocks from a wide variety of sources."

"At some level, the universe seems to be hard-wired to create amino acids, provided you have the right elements present and energy," (Scott Sandford, a research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in California) said.

http://www.livescience.com/13339-primordial-soup-chemistry-reaction-amino-acids-life.html

4 Life should not be fragile, but rather robust and able to thrive in extremely harsh environments

Methanogens are unique among organisms in their ability to survive a wide range of temperatures, from the freezing point of water to 185 degrees Fahrenheit and everything in between.

Some of these hardy organisms also live in oxygen-starved environments, without sunlight or carbon, and scientists believe that studying these microbes could reveal the boundaries of extreme environments that support life here on Earth and on other planets.

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/extremo.shtml

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supported an extremophile sampling expedition to Loihi in 1999. Microbial mats, including a never before seen jelly-like organism surrounding the 160?C vents were collected for incubation and study at the Marine Bioproducts Engineering Center.

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_loihi.html

Odds of Alien Life on Newly Spotted Exoplanet Are "100 Percent" Says Its Discoverer

Steven Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UC Santa Cruz, said he had "almost no doubt" (which seems slightly different than 100 percent sure) that life exists on Gliese 581g, an exoplanet Vogt and colleagues discovered via the Keck Observatory that is orbiting in the "habitable zone" surrounding the red dwarf Gliese 581.

Vogt's statement might make for a bold prediction -- especially given the number of life-bearing planets we've found thus far -- but his statement is more an endorsement for the persistence of life than a declaration that he's found it elsewhere in the galaxy. "Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent," Vogt said to reporters.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/researcher-says-chances-life-newly-discovered-exoplanet-100-percent

A breakdown of this wealth of evidence

1: Complex organic matter is made in space, and drifts in clouds in stellar nurseries.

2: DNA and amino acids are created in comets and asteroids.

3: Amino acids can also be created with the basic chemicals and conditions found on newly formed planets in varied ways.

4: The ingredients that we know are needed for life are abundant and widespread throughout the Universe.

5: The number of Earth-like planets for life to take root on or in is a fittingly astronomical number, on the order of tens of billions.

6: Life is not fragile, and is often found to exist in conditions that were once thought impossible.

7: Life doesn't have many requirements to exist, and those few requirements are met with abundance in the Universe.

8: As some of the scientists quoted have stated, it seems that the conditions and processes of the Universe are configured in a way that naturally creates life in abundance, just as it is configured in a way that naturally creates stars and planets in an abundance.

Our galaxy is thought to be around 13 billion years old. Life evolved on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago. Humans have evolved only within the last 7 million years, (150,000-200,000 years for homo-sapiens). Life in the galaxy has (and has had) time on it's side.

No one piece of this evidence is decisive, and taken as a whole it is not even decisive to the degree needed for a scientific proof. However, given this collection of evidence, it is very difficult to hold a reasonable doubt as to the existence of alien life.

[mudslag]

That all builds up for a nice theory, something Im not in dispute with. I don't disagree that all the ingredients for life is there. I don't disagree that all the proper places or environments for life to survive is there. What I do disagree with is that there is actual evidence of life itself.

If you have a pan filled with all the cake ingredients mixed together and you have the oven set to 350 and it's ready to be thrown in, just because the outcome will be a cake, doesn't make it a cake just yet. It's not a cake til it's done cooking.

What you have listed above is akin to having all the proper ingredients and (what we believe to be) the proper tools and materials needed to make life. One of the key problems is, science still doesn't know how life is made. Some think life started in the primordial ocean vents, others are now saying it started on land and not in the oceans. We don't really know how it starts so we are kind of missing the oven. You can have all your ingredients but you can't make your life cake if you don't have the proper oven.

So pointing out evidence of the stuff that makes up life, is still not evidence of life. There is a wealth of evidence for the "stuff", there is none for actual life.

FYI that last article " Odds of Alien Life on Newly Spotted Exoplanet Are "100 Percent" Says Its Discoverer" is a bit silly. From this line "my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent", to this "Steven Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UC Santa Cruz, said he had "almost no doubt" (which seems slightly different than 100 percent sure) that life exists on Gliese 581g".

[thomastmc]

That all builds up for a nice theory, something Im not in dispute with. I don't disagree that all the ingredients for life is there. I don't disagree that all the proper places or environments for life to survive is there. What I do disagree with is that there is actual evidence of life itself.

If you have a pan filled with all the cake ingredients mixed together and you have the oven set to 350 and it's ready to be thrown in, just because the outcome will be a cake, doesn't make it a cake just yet. It's not a cake til it's done cooking.

What you have listed above is akin to having all the proper ingredients and (what we believe to be) the proper tools and materials needed to make life. One of the key problems is, science still doesn't know how life is made. Some think life started in the primordial ocean vents, others are now saying it started on land and not in the oceans. We don't really know how it starts so we are kind of missing the oven. You can have all your ingredients but you can't make your life cake if you don't have the proper oven.

So pointing out evidence of the stuff that makes up life, is still not evidence of life. There is a wealth of evidence for the "stuff", there is none for actual life.

FYI that last article " Odds of Alien Life on Newly Spotted Exoplanet Are "100 Percent" Says Its Discoverer" is a bit silly. From this line "my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent", to this "Steven Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UC Santa Cruz, said he had "almost no doubt" (which seems slightly different than 100 percent sure) that life exists on Gliese 581g".

Still here, you claim there is no evidence. You criticize only the lowest hanging fruit of the evidence you claimed I didn't have. You were screaming for evidence, yet you offer nothing but uninformed opinions and criticisms while slipping by without any facts or evidence of your own.

It would be quite astonishing to see you research and post evidence contradicting something that you "believe highly", all the while claiming that you still are quite sure that aliens do exist.

I can't have a conversation with you if you cannot assume responsibility and explain your previous gross errors of logic and reason that I quoted in my post. If they are any indication of how you process and analyze information, which now seems likely, it is pointless.

Nothing is more aggravating than someone who talks as if they know what they are talking about, but actually knows as much about the subject as I know about karate, being the expert on the original Karate Kid that I am. Possibly the only thing more intellectually immature is to ignore your mistakes and/or not admit when you were wrong. That's what I define as "talking out of your ass", to use your own verbage.

[mudslag]

Still here, you claim there is no evidence. You criticize only the lowest hanging fruit of the evidence you claimed I didn't have. You were screaming for evidence, yet you offer nothing but uninformed opinions and criticisms while slipping by without any facts or evidence of your own.

It would be quite astonishing to see you research and post evidence contradicting something that you "believe highly", all the while claiming that you still are quite sure that aliens do exist.

I can't have a conversation with you if you cannot assume responsibility and explain your previous gross errors of logic and reason that I quoted in my post. If they are any indication of how you process and analyze information, which now seems likely, it is pointless.

You're the one claiming evidence exists, not me. I don't need to offer counter evidence to your non existent evidence, you need to provide actual evidence of life given it's your claim. You want to use building blocks as evidence for the building itself. You ignore the fact that the building, in this case life, doesn't even have a proper blueprint for how exactly it's put together in the first place to actually start the life. For the record, not a single link you provided claimed to be evidence of life. Evidence of the building blocks but not of life itself.

If there is evidence of life, where are the articles and peer reviewed studies that back up that claim? Where are the scientist that are shouting "look at my work, it proves that we are not alone in the universe"? Where is the scientific data that is agreed upon as showing alien life exists? Oh that's right, that doesn't exist either.

No wonder you can't have a conversation, you are in denial. You want to believe so bad that you take a few puzzle pieces as if it were a completed puzzle.

Nothing is more aggravating than someone who talks as if they know what they are talking about, but actually knows as much about the subject as I know about karate, being the expert on the original Karate Kid that I am. Possibly the only thing more intellectually immature is to ignore your mistakes and/or not admit when you were wrong. That's what I define as "talking out of your ass", to use your own verbage.

Get mirror, look into mirror, repeat lines, wake up.

Again I don't doubt life exists, I doubt that we currently have evidence for said life. When you want to provide evidence and not some "I have some flour and sugar which equates to a cake" bit, then Ill be more then willing to agree. Til then you don't have proper evidence that constitutes as evidence for alien life, period.

[thomastmc]

You're the one claiming evidence exists, not me. I don't need to offer counter evidence to your non existent evidence, you need to provide actual evidence of life given it's your claim. You want to use building blocks as evidence for the building itself. You ignore the fact that the building, in this case life, doesn't even have a proper blueprint for how exactly it's put together in the first place to actually start the life.

If there is evidence of life, where are the articles and peer reviewed studies that back up that claim? Where are the scientist that are shouting "look at my work, it proves that we are not alone in the universe"? Where is the scientific data that is agreed upon as showing alien life exists? Oh that's right, that doesn't exist either.

No wonder you can't have a conversation, you are in denial. You want to believe so bad that you take a few puzzle pieces as if it were a completed puzzle.

Get mirror, look into mirror, repeat lines, wake up.

Again I don't doubt life exists, I doubt that we currently have evidence for said life. When you want to provide evidence and not some "I have some flour and sugar which equates to a cake" bit, then Ill be more then willing to agree. Til then you don't have proper evidence that constitutes as evidence for alien life, period.

I didn't think you'd attempt to explain the logic of advocating an opinion at the same time as denying that any evidence exists to support your opinion. Or, offer any evidence to support your own claim, as you demanded of another.

Pathetic...

[wrack]

If it was going to happen, it would have happened by 21 Dec 2012 :p

[mudslag]

I didn't think you'd attempt to explain the logic of advocating an opinion at the same time as denying that any evidence exists to support your opinion. Or, offer any evidence to support your own claim, as you demanded of another.

Pathetic...

You still can't dispute what I said. Im starting to wonder if you even understand the difference between what the building blocks of life are vs what life actually is. Not a single like you provide makes the claim of evidence of life. At the very most they make claims for evidence of the materials that in part make up life, i.e. building blocks. Again you took on the claim that evidence exists, it's not on me to prove it doesn't, it's on you to prove it does. If you can't understand that basic idea, then you are incapable of having a proper and adult debate on the matter. It's not my opinion that there is no evidence, believe me when I say Id love for there to be some, it's just a simple fact that there isn't.

So either provide said evidence or keep on ranting and raving, either way you still haven't proven yourself. What's honestly pathetic is how personal you are taking this.

[thomastmc]

You still can't dispute what I said. Im starting to wonder if you even understand the difference between what the building blocks of life are vs what life actually is. Not a single like you provide makes the claim of evidence of life. At the very most they make claims for evidence of the materials that in part make up life, i.e. building blocks. Again you took on the claim that evidence exists, it's not on me to prove it doesn't, it's on you to prove it does. If you can't understand that basic idea, then you are incapable of having a proper and adult debate on the matter.

So either provide said evidence or keep on ranting and raving, either way you still haven't proven yourself.

You aren't grasping the concept of circumstantial evidence, it's wide use, and it's significance. People have been put to death on nothing but circumstantial evidence. Most of science is circumstantial evidence.

You are clinging to the notion that since there isn't absolute, definitive, direct evidence, there is no evidence. It's a thin thread that is easily seen through. It's weak.

[thomastmc]

You know, the funny thing about this thread is that I don't even believe in aliens.

That ****s kooky... Bbbwwwwaaaaaa

j/k I just thought that would be funny :D

[mudslag]

You aren't grasping the concept of circumstantial evidence, it's wide use, and it's significance. People have been put to death on nothing but circumstantial evidence. Most of science is circumstantial evidence.

You are clinging to the notion that since there isn't absolute, definitive, direct evidence, there is no evidence. It's a thin thread that is easily seen through. It's weak.

If this was a court of law you might be able to make a case but in the realm of science no one in the scientific community is saying here is evidence of life and we base this off what you have listed above. If it were truly that simple, you would be able to find a scientific article based on peer reviewed journals supporting said claim. You don't find that because a claim like this is to big to make on just circumstantial evidence alone. Science, while not exact does it's best to get damn close. Even still they mess up from time to time and some screw ups can be big. Do I need to remind you of NASA's arsenic based life announcement that turned out to be false. Finding actual evidence beyond our planet would be one of, if not the biggest events in human history. Right now all we have are bit's of pieces that, in part, that make up life, not even a whole piece itself that is part of a great set of pieces. So yet again, we do not have evidence of alien life.

I also dont have a notion that there isn't absolute, definitive evidence, what I believe is that we haven't found it yet. If anything is weak it's your reading comprehension.

[thomastmc]

If this was a court of law you might be able to make a case but in the realm of science no one in the scientific community is saying here is evidence of life and we base this off what you have listed above. If it were truly that simple, you would be able to find a scientific article based on peer reviewed journals supporting said claim. You don't find that because a claim like this is to big to make on just circumstantial evidence alone. Science, while not exact does it's best to get damn close. Even still they mess up from time to time and some screw ups can be big. Do I need to remind you of NASA's arsenic based life announcement that turned out to be false. Finding actual evidence beyond our planet would be one of, if not the biggest events in human history. Right now all we have are bit's n pieces that, in part, make up life, not even the whole pieces itself. So yet again, we do not have evidence of alien life.

I also dont have a notion that there isn't absolute, definitive evidence, what I believe is that we haven't found it yet. If anything is weak it's your reading comprehension.

You didn't even read my whole post... pointless.

[mudslag]

You didn't even read my whole post... pointless.

You said "Im not grasping the concept of circumstantial evidence", to which I debated that point. Instead of countering that point, you resort to another silly dodgy post. You have no interest in actual debating, only stating your beliefs and running in circles ignoring counter posts. You come across a few articles talking about "building blocks of life" and assume it means life. Iv tried to counter every post you have made, you are the one that has yet to even try to counter my counters. Nothing you provided would remotely count as enough circumstantial evidence to qualify as evidence of life. Bits of pieces is not enough. Again you can't provide a single study to make this claim.

[cork1958]

We could today, if we knew what we were looking for.

[ArKeYa]

Because science deals with observable truths, not wild fantasies.

---

Funny you should say that. A lot of important discoveries WERE nearer to "wild fantasies" than observable truths before they were generally accepted.