Poll: Do you believe in Alien life?

For all we know, there could be life on Venus and we'd never know since it's covered with a sulfuric acid cloud and it rains sulfuric acid.

True enough, but it would be nothing like "life" as we understand it, which begs the question as to whether or not our definition of "life" is so limited that we wouldn't recognize it even if we saw it.

True enough, but it would be nothing like "life" as we understand it, which begs the question as to whether or not our definition of "life" is so limited that we wouldn't recognize it even if we saw it.

Agreed. Either way, I can't wait to have an answer hopefully within my lifetime though I doubt it.

Life can't exist in a place like Venus. It is too hostile to life. Life as defined is made of carbon and requires very specific conditions to exist including the presence of water. No water means no life.

Polka14

Life can't exist in a place like Venus. It is too hostile to life. Life as defined is made of carbon and requires very specific conditions to exist including the presence of water. No water means no life.

Well, this is the definition of terrestrial life, which is all that we currently know. And it has actually been suggested that there are ways that life could exist in the upper atmosphere of Venus, which is considerably more hospitable than its surface.

Life can't exist in a place like Venus. It is too hostile to life. Life as defined is made of carbon and requires very specific conditions to exist including the presence of water. No water means no life.

Key words there Polka14.

As defined.

The only point of reference we have for how life came to be, comes from Earth. That does not mean it is the only point of reference for other planets since you have never been to those millions of them out there but are stuck here just like the rest of us.

Life as defined is made of carbon and requires very specific conditions to exist including the presence of water.

Polka14, the above quote from your comment #2.3 may be correct. But Earth is a tiny part of the vast universe. And there could be vastly different forms of life elsewhere that need neither carbon nor water.

Even here on Earth we have only limited explorations of the oceans and the depths of the Earth.

Thanks to Uthaclena and Andrew331978 for posting similar thoughts as I was writing this comment!

Thanks to Uthaclena and Andrew331978 for posting similar thoughts as I was writing this comment!

Great minds think alike :)

Life can't exist in a place like Venus.

Life resembling ours cannot exist in a place like Venus.

It is too hostile to life.

It is too hostile to life resembling ours

Life as defined is made of carbon and requires very specific conditions to exist including the presence of water.

Life resembling ours is made of carbon and requires very specific condition to exist including the presence of water.

No water means no life.

No water means no life resembling ours

And it has actually been suggested that there are ways that life could exist in the upper atmosphere of Venus, which is considerably more hospitable than its surface.

I think the concept of life existing in an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid is very unlikely.

And there could be vastly different forms of life elsewhere that need neither carbon nor water.

That would be interesting but probably even more unlikely.

No water means no life resembling ours

"Life resembling ours"? It is the only type of life known to exist in the Universe. It can not be claimed that other forms of life can not theoretically exist but it is the unknown concept and at this point, all known forms of life can not exist without water.

Polka14

I think the concept of life existing in an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid is very unlikely.

The fact that Ferroplasma acidiphilum, a single-celled organism lacking a protective cell wall, is capable of living in sulfuric acid is already extraordinary.... "Ferroplasma acidiphilum is a so-called archaebacterium, a microbe that exists in unusual, mostly highly extreme environments," explains Dr. Olga Golyshina from the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research in Braunschweig

Or maybe we just hold terrestrial prejudices...

It would just be a mistake to take the first and only example we have of something and say that any others that might exist would be the same.

I think the concept of life existing in an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid is very unlikely.

You think it unlikely, but the reality is that we simply have no basis to say in any way how likely it might be.

That would be interesting but probably even more unlikely.

Why? There are other substances perfectly capable of undergoing chemical reactions similar to those that are responsible for our lives.

"Life resembling ours"? It is the only type of life known to exist in the Universe. It can not be claimed that other forms of life can not theoretically exist but it is the unknown concept and at this point, all known forms of life can not exist without water.

You were just trying to take as a given something that we have no reason to believe is true.

Poll: Do you believe in Alien life?

Nope but me do belive in blobs.

It would be a mistake to focus too many resources on searching for life in places which are very inhospitable to life as we know it. Mainly this is because we may not even recognize it when we see it, nor do we have a point of reference on which to base any sort of search.

But to write off the possibility entirley is also a mistake.

I voted yes, simply because I would hate to think that we are the smartest that God created or the smartest that evolved into what we are.

Maybe we have something to learn, if we can get over our Pride and fear and not start shooting at our neighbors wherever they may be.

Andrew331978

Just a thought, Mathematical is it possible that an entity developed self-awareness, before any other life form appeared?

If yes, could that life then have developed ahead of the rest and became able to " Genetically modify life " as many scientist today do?

If yes, then could that entity have achieved the goal that humanity is now striving for " Terra-forming "? if yes.

Would that entity use those abilities to " genetically modify and create life to suit the terraformed astral bodies " ?

If yes, what would the " Creation " call that entity?

If yes, what would the " Creation " call that entity?

You have a point. And in fact Ancient Alien theory does cover that possibility. However, your entire premise goes with the idea that this entity operates within the laws of this universe. The God or Gods described in human myths is a magical, all-knowing, all powerful being who operates outside

" However, your entire premise goes with the idea that this entity operates within the laws of this universe "

What is good for the goose is good for the gender.

I will believe it when I see it. No speculating here. I'll wait and see.

A genuine doubting thomas in the house :)

our grump, and whatcha gonna do if You do see an alien? Being as how you live in alien territory anyway you probably have just didn't recognize one.

I don't doubt. I don't not doubt. I only wait.

Even for the most technological advanced, getting from here to there, or there to here is a problem that may defy physics.

Scotty: The engines can't take it anymore.

It doesn't defy physics. We can get from here to there, the question is, who wants to waste their life in space, only to have the next generation arrive at a planet that may or may not support life, or even be there?

I believe there are more advanced civilizations that may have discovered a faster mode of transportation. Since we have only been able to reach space for the last 60 years, I would say it's safe to assume we have not reached a peak in transport technology.

We have proof! I saw it on TV.

I noticed the religious comments above and even the Catholic Church has changed their stance on us being 'it' in the Universe, presumably to protect their interests should it ever happen.

I don't think it's presumably. I am absolutely sure of it.

Who needs TV? My avatar is a REAL life picture of what happens when you piss them off.

My avatar is a REAL life picture of what happens when you piss them off.

Two words...

ANAL PROBE!! LMAO!!!

*snap*

If you mean little green men in flying saucers, sure, but you are wrong that all evidence points to life existing only on earth. The current science suggests life maybe fairly common in the universe.

There is no proof that aliens exist. All the evidence points to us being alone in the universe.

There is no proof that beans exist. All the evidence points to us being beanless.

Ah, unsubstantiated declarations are awesome.

All the evidence points to us being alone in the universe.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

At least 2 billion planets in our galaxy.

500 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

So low ball estimate is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. We have taken a close look at 1 planet so far. Ours. It has life.

Lets look at the nearest one to us: Mars is currently seasonally "burping" methane.

And we have found naturally occurring amino acids on asteroids. The building blocks of RNA. If we can even find the raw material for life on cold rocks with no air, that points to unconfirmed but very very probable.

The angels are aliens

Pope's astronomer insists alien life 'would be part of God's creation'

From 2008,
"The Vatican's official newspaper has endorsed the possibility that the universe could contain intelligent life beyond Earth, while insisting that aliens would be "our brothers" and "children of God" as much as human beings are."

But still going to hell if they don't follow the church

Thats and interesting opinion Vis, as the "Catholic Church" isn't considered "The Church"...

As for,

insisting that aliens would be "our brothers" and "children of God" as much as human beings are

Is nowhere stated in the Bible, and God's word puts the kibosh on the Pope and all of the erroneous interpretations/ideas/materialism of that papal system.

It is by them.

aliens would be "our brothers" and "children of God" as much as human beings are."

Cool! So we can burn them for being witches also?

Oh please. Don't get taken in by that crap on the so called "History" Channel. It's a bunch of BS. The Discovery Network of channels long ago gave up being about science at all and now just tries to appeal bigfoot, ghost and ancient alien idiots.

Take it from someone who was extremely enamored by all that stuff during his teen years and ate up Daniken and Stichen and Strange Science and OOParts (which is all these shows regurgitate) then learned the actual science behind these claims (and the fact that these people utterly lie and misrepresent to sell books). It's all crap. There isn't one single iota of evidence, at all, that we were ever visited by an extraterrestrial race. Not one.

The stories of Jesus and God are verified in many different ways. One is by the writing of Josephus the Greek historian. Other sources are by the babylonian tablets that have been found which speak of events that are written in the Jewish Torah(Pentatuech). There are many writings confirming the Jewish historical records in the land of Jerusalem, Egypt, Canaan etc. To say that Jesus wasn't a man would not only be inaccurate historically, but also heretical. The fact that people accept him as Savior is evidence that there is something not immediately apparent about the words his spoke, a deeper understanding/intelligence and power are revealed through his earthly ministry which accomplished an act of love to redeem man from his totally depraved and sinful state. Whether or not people accept the grace he gives it their decision, but saying there is no proof only shows total ignorance to the historical evidence.

Actually, JohnDR, there is very little historical or archaeological proof that Jesus existed though most historians think it is likely he did. Josephus mentions Jesus twice in the Testimonium and both are considered by biblical scholars to be passages that were not authentic in whole or part. Not to mention Jesus, existing or not, has absolutely no bearing on the existence of a deity. Nor does any historical record be it Christian, Jewish, Roman or whatever.

We also know factually that the bible itself is utterly wrong when it comes to science. Though it does reflect the knowledge and myths of the time its various parts were composed.

As for a deity of any kind, EJ was quite right in that regard. There is zero evidence for one.

The biblical account proves he was here, Josephus confirms it, and scholars will state their opinion of both. Fact is, there were many people who had that name at around the time of the Lord Jesus was on earth.

Not to mention Jesus, existing or not, has absolutely no bearing on the existence of a deity.

It absolutely has a bearing on the existence of deity, since God decided to become a man, sending his Son to earth to die for mans sin. That's why he was both God and man.

We also know factually that the bible itself is utterly wrong when it comes to science.

This statement was disproved by Galileo when he fought against the erroneous interpretation of a Catholic church which said that earth was the center of our solar system. The Bible is 100% accurate when it comes to science. What isn't accurate is the secular worlds interpretation of the Bible when it comes to science.

It absolutely has a bearing on the existence of deity, since God decided to become a man, sending his Son to earth to die for mans sin. That's why he was both God and man.

That is your belief. You have no evidence whatsoever of it.

The Bible is 100% accurate when it comes to science.

LMAO!!!!!! Are you serious? The first chapter of Genesis contradicts hundreds of scientific principles alone. Need I remind you about a seven day creation when the universe is about 14 million yrs? It literally slaps you in the face. Zealot blindness is just insane.

Oh please. Don't get taken in by that crap on the so called "History" Channel. It's a bunch of BS. The Discovery Network of channels long ago gave up being about science at all and now just tries to appeal bigfoot, ghost and ancient alien idiots.

Yes.

JohnDR, Andrew, Vis: Please this is meant to be fun.

Andrew, you're wrong again...about the scientific data (13.75 + or - .11 Billion years old) for the age of the universe according to the 7 yr WMAP study. Also about the Biblical scriptures. Here's an interesting quote from someone who actually read the bible, unlike yourself,

Whether the seven days were days of 24 hours, or long, successive periods, we do not know. The word "day" has variable meanings. In Gen. 1:5 it is used as a term for light. In Gen. 1:8 and 1:13 it seems to mean a day of 24 hours. In 1:14 and 1:16 it seems to refer to a 12-hour day. In Gen 2:4 it seems to cover the whole period of creation. Halley's Bible Handbook (2007) pg. 85.

So I'll just reiterate the problem once again, the problem is really with the secular worlds interpretation of what the Bible says, because what they say about God's word isn't true because of their ignorance. As Jesus quoted before, "Ye do err not knowing the scriptures" (Matt 22:29). So my advice and admonishment to you Andrew is to REPENT!

JohnDR - I am sorry if I missed it, but do you believe in Alien life?

Andrew, you're wrong again...about the scientific data (13.75 + or - .11 Billion years old) for the age of the universe according to the 7 yr WMAP study. Also about the Biblical scriptures.

That was a typo and for that I apologize to everyone. It should have said 14 billion yrs not 14 million. Sowyy!!

Here's an interesting quote from someone who actually read the bible, unlike yourself,

LMAO!!!! I have read the Bible upside down and sideways and there is nothing in it even remotely scientific. I'll indulge you though since you wanna play.

Let's take Genesis...

Genesis begins with the so called creation of the universe and right off the idiocy begins.

The first day God creates night and day but ooops, wait a minute, where is the sun? Did an all powerful, all seeing God forget? I think it's forgivable to forget your keys and wallet but to forget to create a sun which is what marks night and day? I don't think so. He doesn't get around to creating the sun till the fourth day.

How about this? With no sun, Earth would have been a frozen planet, not to mention that with no star to orbit around, Earth would have been just tumbling around like a pinball with no gravity to tether anything on it, yet he created plants even before the sun was created.

This leads me to the next doozy.... Even a fifth grader knows that plants need sun for heat and photosynthesis. Guess what? Idiot God creates the plants before the sun which means by time he gets around to it on the fourth day, the plants are dead.

You call that scientifically accurate? Try again.

As Jesus quoted before, "Ye do err not knowing the scriptures" (Matt 22:29). So my advice and admonishment to you Andrew is to REPENT!

Sorry, I consider it a personal policy never to kneel or repent in front of filthy pieces of shi* Gods who murder innocent children. I'm one of the decent human beings.

The Bible is 100% accurate when it comes to science. What isn't accurate is the secular worlds interpretation of the Bible when it comes to science.

LOL!!! That pretty much cinches this debate. You're right the earth formed before the sun, insects have four legs, mustard seeds are the smallest seeds, the moon produces its own light, there's a dome of firmament over the earth, Jesus was born from a virgin, man came from mud and women from his rib, Adam named billions of animals (who were all vegetarians), there was a giant flood... okay enough, I could do this all day.

Point is, your assertion is ridiculous. The bible shows nothing but the expected knowledge level of the men who wrote it.

I'll no further derail Leafy's post.

I have read the Bible upside down and sideways

Ya here's the problem, your supposed to read it right side up, left to right (unless your reading the Jewish OT Torah in which case you read right to left). Your clearly to arrogant to even take the time to think about what the bible actually says. Saying the universe is about 14 Billion years old is still 250 million years off, and I don't accept that amount of verisimilitude in my beliefs. I'd suggest getting a hold of a few different Bible commentaries on Genesis to help you better understand the creation account in the first few chapters. You might be surprised that the Jr. High level questions you have about the creation of the universe have been asked before and already answered.

Big Cat - but do you believe in Alien life?

I believe there are beings other than humans, but I would classify them as fallen angels. There is the belief that the sons of God who procreated with the daughters of men, were fallen angels. Whether or not that means they were aliens is another question.

Saying the universe is about 14 Billion years old is still 250 million years off, and I don't accept that amount of verisimilitude in my beliefs.

And there's your flaw, thinking you're so important that the universe cares what you believe. The universe was here before you and will be here long after you're nothing but dirt in the ground. Your God teaches about pride and it being a mortal sin. You might wanna check on that.

250 million years is nothing on a cosmic scale. The stars you see in the sky are probably already dead and gone. The only reason you see them is because their light just got to Earth after millions of years. It's called relativity. Look it up.

I believe there are beings other than humans, but I would classify them as fallen angels. There is the belief that the sons of God who procreated with the daughters of men, were fallen angels. Whether or not that means they were aliens is another question.

LMAO!!!!! I have read about these type of peeps before.

They believe that these fallen angels bred with women and made demons/aliens. Supposedly that is why Sodom and Gomorrah were burnt to the ground.

What they don't realize is that they're just rehashing from an old, old myth involving Lilith, Adam's first wife. She was known in ancient Judaic lore as the mother of all demons.

dirt in the ground

Fantastic Tom Waits song that is.

250 million years is nothing on a cosmic scale.

What you meant to say, is that 250 million years is nothing NOW on a cosmic scale. But when looked at during the creation of the universe, the first stars that formed lived realitively short lives, unlike our 3rd generation sun which will probably be 10 Billion years old before it turns into a dwarf star.

Clearly it's your choice Andrew to make a conscious decision to follow myths or what is true. Lilith is no where mentioned in any Biblical Judaic account, so by saying that it is true, you are only confirming what the New Testament teaches "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Rom 3:4). Which is the old nature of man mentioned in scripture.

Dirt in the ground

Well when that happens I'll be absent from the body and present with the Lord...with a new body.

Clearly it's your choice Andrew to make a conscious decision to follow myths or what is true. Lilith is no where mentioned in any Biblical Judaic account, so by saying that it is true, you are only confirming what the New Testament teaches "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Rom 3:4). Which is the old nature of man mentioned in scripture.

LMAO!!! Calling me a liar are we? Someone needs some reading comprehension.

First of all, I never said the Bible mentioned Lilith, I said ancient Judaic lore did. The OT is not the be all and end all of Judaic texts. They also have the Zohar and the Kabbalah as well as many others like the Genesis Rabbah.

In fact references to Lilith can be found all over. Babylonian Jews in Nippur used bowls buried under the house and inscribed with spells to ward off Lilith and her kids (demons) from entering a home.

The Zohar and the Treatise on the Left (evil) Emanation speaks of her union with Samael the Judaic angel of death.

But the main text that speaks of Lilith being Adam's first wife is found in the Alphabet of Ben Sira and it comes from the idea that there are two stories of creation in Genesis.

In Genesis Chapter 2, God speaks about Eve being formed from Adam's rib BUT much earlier in Genesis Chapter 1, verse 27 woman had already been created which makes for a bit of a contradiction don't it?

According to the Alphabet, Lilith was first than Eve and she was created from the same dirt than Adam which in her eyes made her his equal. She would not "lie under him" which in other words means he was getting no nookie so she left him which is when God decided that strong women were too much trouble and created Eve from his rib so as to say that man owned woman.

Later she returns to mate with Cain and Adam, who she forces herself onto and out of that union she gives birth to the first demons or so the myth goes.

In other words, Jews wanted to express the message that an independent, kick-ass, strong woman was pure evil.

Andrew, it's amazing how much paganism influenced the beliefs of Judaic lore. However, it still isn't Biblical and therefore not true. By the way, Genesis 1:27 makes no reference to Lilith. Mythology has no place as a religion, which of course the Corinthians struggled with living in the Greek society. From your citations it appears that even the Jewish people came up with all kinds of fanciful ideas about the creation account after Moses wrote the Torah. The Jewish people at the time suffered from idolatry as a result of worldly influences. They were taken captive to Babylon, a picture of the world. When they returned to Jerusalem, they had the Roman culture to contend with. The Jews (most of them) didn't even accept Jesus as the Messiah when he came to earth. The main point I'm trying to convey is that it doesn't matter what Judaic myths taught before Christ came and accomplished the work of salvation. It only matters what Jesus taught which the gospels indicate, was counter to what the Pharisees and Sadducees believed. Why you have chosen to focus on what was counter to the teachings of Christ to disprove what Christ taught isn't a valid argument because Christ has already refuted their teachings.

Why you have chosen to focus on what was counter to the teachings of Christ to disprove what Christ taught isn't a valid argument because Christ has already refuted their teachings.

I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was having a fun time describing where your beliefs about fallen angels breeding with women and creating demons/aliens come from.

You might have heard of it somewhere or read it about it somewhere and it stuck but you didn't get the full story, you just got the gist of it.

I was giving you the original references to why you may have come to believe that way.

Don't you get the similarity? Lilith, the first human woman mates or bonds in some way with the angel of death and becomes some sort of supernaturally powerful woman.

Then she forces herself on Adam and mates with Cain who had killed his brother and somehow out of that combination she gives birth to the first demons who corrupt the Earth.

This in turn leads God to burn cities like Sodom and Gomorrah and eventually he just says "oh hell with it, let's flood the world and start over."

By the way, Genesis 1:27 makes no reference to Lilith

Did I say it did? Read carefully.

There are two stories of creation. In the first one, in Genesis 1:27, it says that God created male and female.

Then in Genesis 2, he says that Adam should not be alone so he creates Eve out of his rib.

They contradict each other in the sense that if God had already created a female in Chapter 1 then why create Eve in chapter 2.

It's why Lilith was introduced in other Judaic texts. To address that discrepancy. It is said that she was that first female who was created equal to Adam out of the same dirt but because she didn't submit to him God had to try again this time with Adam's rib as Eve to imply woman belonged to man.

Andrew what kind of a weirdo believes that something that gets introduced after the fact into the text is actually real. There isn't a discrepancy in the Genesis 1:27 account because God was referring to EVE as the woman. Genesis chapter two, is the account of how man and women were created, there is no other way that women were created other than from the rib of Adam. How is it that EVE is described as the mother of all living, if Lilith also gave birth to others (fallen angels, demons, people or whatever you've described them as) ??? Your view contradicts scripture and the misinterpretation wasn't added to the Biblical text because it isn't an inspired account by Ben whoever.

Andrew what kind of a weirdo believes that something that gets introduced after the fact into the text is actually real. There isn't a discrepancy in the Genesis 1:27 account because God was referring to EVE as the woman. Genesis chapter two, is the account of how man and women were created, there is no other way that women were created other than from the rib of Adam. How is it that EVE is described as the mother of all living, if Lilith also gave birth to others (fallen angels, demons, people or whatever you've described them as) ??? Your view contradicts scripture and the misinterpretation wasn't added to the Biblical text because it isn't an inspired account by Ben whoever.

Dude, don't be getting pissy with me. I never said I believed it. I said it's part of Judaic lore and it explains some of your views on the whole demon/aliens thing.

You ever play the game of telephone? You start with one story and by time whatever the story is, is passed down through a few people, the story has changed.

Sometimes it may have gotten blown out of proportion or sometimes it may have gotten smaller and more basic but retains most of the basics.

It's the same thing. Your belief is a rehash of an older belief but with less detail.

There isn't a discrepancy in the Genesis 1:27 account because God was referring to EVE as the woman.

You could make the case that this is wrong if you just examine the wording. Genesis 1:27 says....

²⁷ So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Forget about Genesis 2 for a minute and just pretend you didn't know about Eve. The verse sounds to me like saying that God created man and woman at same time.

Now let's go to Genesis 2. In Genesis 2, God it says God created man first and it wasn't until after giving the warning about the tree that God realized, wait a minute, man shouldn't be alone. let's give him a woman and poofed one out of Adam's rib.

All I'm saying is there is a discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2. In 1 Adam and a woman may have been created at same time and in 2 she came after him.

Maybe two peeps wrote the same story and their wires got crossed kind of like in comic books when there is a continuity mistake.

Or maybe there was a first woman and it wasn't Eve.

Andrew, your taking Gensis 1:27 out of it's context. You need to read it with the account of the rest of what God created on the sixth day. When you understand that God created Adam and Eve on the sixth day, you then realize that Chapter two is the story of how he did this on the sixth day. According to your beliefs though, God made a woman who didn't want to be with Adam, then rested (7th day), and then decided to make another woman (Eve) out of Adams rib. This makes no sense Theologically because God didn't rest and then go back to work. He rested from his entire work of creation which means Eve was created on the sixth day.

I think the two fables need to be separated out. There's a bit of truth in the older myths but not if they've been changed along the way.

The 'garden of eden' myth was a copy of an older Sumerian tale with the Anannaki being in that region mining gold for their atmosphere. Now if these were our future relative timetravelers, symbolic of some chemical interaction, or some outside source is up for grabs ; ) It had nothing to do with the origins of Earth.

After reading a news story last year of their being two moons at one point, I suspect the Cain and Abel story is about that. A lot of this old mythology is truly talking about how the moon was formed. I've longed suspected the 'crucified savior born of a virgin" mythologies are about the moon. Without it, we wouldn't be here at all. It 'saved' earth from being bounced out of orbit of the sun, which as a result enabled 'endless life' here.

According to your beliefs though, God made a woman who didn't want to be with Adam, then rested (7th day), and then decided to make another woman (Eve) out of Adams rib.

It's not my belief. I am Agnostic not Christian, not Jew. I am pointing out where your belief MIGHT have come from. You don't wanna believe it, it's your choice.

Well Andrew, what your pointing out is CLEARLY NOT WHERE MY BELIEFS MAY HAVE COME FROM.