Do You Believe In Aliens or UFOs?

[gashin]

A scientific model is just that - a MODEL. It isn't evidence and no scientist will claim that it is proof of life outside of earth, nor that it is proof of a planet that can support life. Until that model is supported by hard evidence, it is merely a theory and not proof. I am not upset about the possibility of life - in fact I use to believe in it until I learned how scientific knowledge is developed, through HARD EVIDENCE, not through models nor theories. I am upset that people believe in something without a shred of hard evidence, basing their beliefs on the probability claims of astronomers who base their predictions on theories, not on evidence.

What do you think they based the model on? - Did you read the link? - This data for the model from direct observation - They didn't just pull it outa their ... - Just as I suspected - You demand a "SHRED" of evidence - I give you a BIG STEAMING PILE of it - and you reject it - LOL - Classic closed mind - You keep changing the rules - First it was a "shred of evidence" (for a planet that could even remotely support life as we know it) Now you require PROOF - LOL

Why are you so upset about admitting to the possibility? - How would the existence of life on other planets change the nature of yours?

 

[Cori]

Wow, lots of interesting stories and opinions on all of this. My question is.. are cow mutilations just evidence of alien cow tipping gone bad. I have never seen a UFO and don't believe in aliens, but the topic is fascinating.

 

[Bones]

A scientific model is just that - a MODEL. It isn't evidence and no scientist will claim that it is proof of life outside of earth, nor that it is proof of a planet that can support life. Until that model is supported by hard evidence, it is merely a theory and not proof. I am not upset about the possibility of life - in fact I use to believe in it until I learned how scientific knowledge is developed, through HARD EVIDENCE, not through models nor theories. I am upset that people believe in something without a shred of hard evidence, basing their beliefs on the probability claims of astronomers who base their predictions on theories, not on evidence.

Well that is the nature of the difference between a BELIEF and a FACT - The Question was "Do You Believe In Aliens or UFOs?" NOT - Do you have proof - A belief requires no proof - That is the nature of it -

And your assertion about the Scientific Method is flawed - Models and Theories are used as a starting point for all Scientific study - You start with a concept that you think has a high probability of being true - Then you set out to gain HARD EVIDENCE that supports that initial Hypothesis - Hard Evidence is the RESULT of the Scientific Process - Not the starting point - If you start with hard evidence there is no need for PROOF - Nicolaus Copernicus never had any PROOF that the Earth revolves around the Sun - By your standard he would have had to go sit on the Sun and watch it happen - He published his findings based on assumptions and calculations - Not PROOF as you define it at all -

 

[gashin]

Without evidence there is no scientific knowledge and theories are useless. Copernicus made measurements that were confirmed indepently by millions of people, and ultimately by our exploration of space. He had hard proof through direct observation that was repeatable by all and confirmed by researchers who followed. They collected hard evidence that the earth evolved around the sun - evidence which astronomers who make claims about the existence of life-supporting planets outside of earth lack. The models of distant space are created arbitrarily by scientists based on their interpretations of very small amounts of data. They are not precise measurements and the model of other scientists will be based on their own interpretations of the data. These models are theories and not proof of anything. They must be supported by hard evidence to be considered accurate and until then, these findings are pure speculation and are not evidence for life outside of earth. Again, in the words of the researchers of this planet, "We can only speculate at this stage."

Most Earthlike Planet Yet Found May Have Liquid Oceans

Well that is the nature of the difference between a BELIEF and a FACT - The Question was "Do You Believe In Aliens or UFOs?" NOT - Do you have proof - A belief requires no proof - That is the nature of it -

And your assertion about the Scientific Method is flawed - Models and Theories are used as a starting point for all Scientific study - You start with a concept that you think has a high probability of being true - Then you set out to gain HARD EVIDENCE that supports that initial Hypothesis - Hard Evidence is the RESULT of the Scientific Process - Not the starting point - If you start with hard evidence there is no need for PROOF - Nicolaus Copernicus never had any PROOF that the Earth revolves around the Sun - By your standard he would have had to go sit on the Sun and watch it happen - He published his findings based on assumptions and calculations - Not PROOF as you define it at all -

 

[Houdini]

What if Aliens are humans from the future? It's more probably than them being from another world since the chances of that happening are so slim....

Let's go back a few pages to your statement here.
If aliens are humans from the future means you might believe in time travel but not the possibility of life anywhere else but earth?
"Chances of them being from another world are so slim" means you think there is a chance albeit a slim one?

 

[Bones]

Ahh - Like I say - You keep changing your requirements - You started with wanting a "
shred of evidence" Then you switch to PROOF - It is obvious that you do not understand the difference - Then you change it again with regards to Copernicus - His calculations were evidence - not Poof - True proof did not come until we began to see it from space - Until then it was nothing more than confirming evidence based on observation and calculations - There is no difference between Copernican evidence and the evidence currently being used on this matter - The evidence is gained by direct observation - Using a telescope and calculations to achieve the data needed to conduct the process of seeking proof -

Again - This thread did not ask about PROOF - it asked about BELIEF -

 

[youfillintheblank]

I definitely believe in life elsewhere in the galaxy or universe, but not so much in Alien visitors or UFOs...it's an exciting thought that we have been visited, but it seems unlikely to me.

 

[Surf Monkey]

To be similar to earth, a planet must been in a solar system in which the star is the same size and age as our sun, and that planet must orbit this sun from a similar distance and must experience the same gravitational pull from planets closer and farther than it from the sun. This planet must be of similar diameter and shape as ours, and have a similar elemental composition in both the core and the atmosphere. These are the most basic requirements for the development of life as ALL evidence to date points to. If the only example of life is found on the conditions that exist on our planet, what evidence do we have that life can exist outside of these conditions?

So, even MORE qualifications. In other words, you have no reasonable way of backing up your original claim... because planets HAVE been discovered that are "remotely similar to Earth." Continually re-defining what planets or solar systems pass the bar is not a fair debating tactic. You can't expect anyone to hit a moving target, and it'd disingenuous to ask us to do so.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I definitely believe in life elsewhere in the galaxy or universe, but not so much in Alien visitors or UFOs...it's an exciting thought that we have been visited, but it seems unlikely to me.

Yes. Exactly. The idea of life elsewhere is entirely credible and probably very likely. The idea that individuals from other worlds have visited (and/or continue to visit) the earth is silly.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Without evidence there is no scientific knowledge and theories are useless.

All you're really saying here is "if you disagree with me, you're wrong."

 

[gashin]

Again a model isn't evidence. Copernicus's calculations were proof because they were repeatable by anyone - something which models of distant planets aren't since they are based on interpretations of data rather than hard data. In addition, Copernicus's theories were confirmed by other researchers using different methods - including the navigators who sailed around the world. In order for radio telescopy to be considered evidence by science, we must travel to these planets and obtain hard evidence.

Ahh - Like I say - You keep changing your requirements - You started with wanting a "
shred of evidence" Then you switch to PROOF - It is obvious that you do not understand the difference - Then you change it again with regards to Copernicus - His calculations were evidence - not Poof - True proof did not come until we began to see it from space - Until then it was nothing more than confirming evidence based on observation and calculations - There is no difference between Copernican evidence and the evidence currently being used on this matter - The evidence is gained by direct observation - Using a telescope and calculations to achieve the data needed to conduct the process of seeking proof -

Again - This thread did not ask about PROOF - it asked about BELIEF -

 

[gashin]

How is a planet twice the size of earth, with a climate much more hostile than earth's remotely similar?

So, even MORE qualifications. In other words, you have no reasonable way of backing up your original claim... because planets HAVE been discovered that are "remotely similar to Earth." Continually re-defining what planets or solar systems pass the bar is not a fair debating tactic. You can't expect anyone to hit a moving target, and it'd disingenuous to ask us to do so.

 

[gashin]

It is not credible and not likely because there is no evidence at all of life outside of earth and the probabilities conjured up by astronomers are based on arbitrary assumptions, not evidence. If there is no evidence that life exists outside of earth, how can you make a claim of any probability of life on other planets?

Yes. Exactly. The idea of life elsewhere is entirely credible and probably very likely. The idea that individuals from other worlds have visited (and/or continue to visit) the earth is silly.

 

[Bones]

Again a model isn't evidence. Copernicus's calculations were proof because they were repeatable by anyone - something which models of distant planets aren't since they are based on interpretations of data rather thanm hjard data. In addition, Copernicus's theories were confirmed by other researchers using different methods - including the navigators who sailed around the world.

Data is nothing without interpretation - Just like these posts are nothing if no one reads them - Others have taken this data and reach the same conclusions - Now you are just playing with words - You just want to argue -

 

[Bones]

It is not credible and not likely because there is no evidence at all of life outside of earth and the probabilities conjured up by astronomers are based on arbitrary assumptions, not evidence. If there is no evidence that life exists outside of earth, how can you make a claim of any probability of life on other planets?

There is some pretty good evidence coming out of Mars -
But it's not proved yet - SO - You don't care - None the less - something on Mars seems to be farting -

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html

 

[gashin]

No. I'm just saying that nothing can be considered to be a fact unless it is supported by EVIDENCE. Interpretations of visual observations made from light years away of a planet is not evidence - they can be easily misinterpreted and their accuracy depends on our inherently imperfect equipment. Hard evidence is something everyone can see and touch directly - pictures, direct atmospheric measurements, samples - not speculation based on interpretations of a fuzzy image. It is also a huge leap of faith to claim that a planet can support life based on pure speculatory models....

All you're really saying here is "if you disagree with me, you're wrong."

 

[Surf Monkey]

How is a planet twice the size of earth, with a climate much more hostile than earth's remotely similar?

Way to keep missing the point.

 

[gashin]

It is pure speculation though that cannot be confirmed through different experimental methods and repeated by millions.

Data is nothing without interpretation - Just like these posts are nothing if no one reads them - Others have taken this data and reach the same conclusions - Now you are just playing with words - You just want to argue -

 

[Surf Monkey]

No. I'm just saying that nothing can be considered to be a fact unless it is supported by EVIDENCE. Interpretations of visual observations made from light years away of a planet is not evidence - they can be easily misinterpreted and their accuracy depends on our inherently imperfect equipment. Hard evidence is something everyone can see and touch directly - pictures, direct atmospheric measurements, samples - not speculation based on interpretations of a fuzzy image. It is also a huge leap of faith to claim that a planet can support life based on pure speculatory models....

1) No one is saying that alien life is FACT. We're talking about likelihoods and beliefs here. You're trying to hold us to a standard that we never set. That's not an honest way to have a conversation.

2) Maybe you should read up about the science of probability because you're discounting an entire discipline out of hand for reasons I'd consider more than a little suspect.

 

[gashin]

You're missing my point. Just because a planet is SPECULATED to have some features that can support life (which isn't evidence until proven) that doesn't mean that life can exist on this planet. Evidence of life on other planets is the only proof that will establish extraterrestrial life as fact.

There is some pretty good evidence coming out of Mars -
But it's not proved yet - SO - You don't care - None the less - something on Mars seems to be farting -

NASA - Martian Methane Reveals the Red Planet is not a Dead Planet