Will 2020 Be the Year We Find Intelligent Alien Life?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Jan 7, 2020
105
36
110
Not the Annunaki because they could have found larger deposits of gold on other planets. Mining gold is one of background stories of the Annunaki. Supposedly they came to Earth during human cave man days, educated humanity and then enslaved humanity to work the gold mines. A space faring race such as the Annunaki wouldn't simply have left Earth, they would taken all of the gold that they were able to extract. Even going to the lengths of building large refineries underground to harvest the gold from the liquid magma that flows to the surface and creates volcanoes. Those refineries would also have been able to produce mass quantities of other minerals and ores needed by a space faring civilization. Something else happened to drew the Annunaki away from Earth along with most of their advanced technology. Maybe they found a much larger and easier to mine planet of gold.
The filthy aliens tried to invade, but we dealt with them and destroyed their satellite back in the early 60's. That was all back during the 1st space war, we did not even have a proper space force at the time, but we still showed those aliens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion

Joking aside, I wonder if anyone would want to contact us after seeing that. I was unaware of the amount of insanity we had allowed to occur. This is the same reason the Bikini Atoll is still uninhabitable. Although aliens would know it would be a waste time coming here for resources, so we do not have to worry about that. Asteroids can be mined much more efficiently than on a planet, if you intend on transporting materials through space to another location.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwight Huth
Jan 10, 2020
60
22
35
The answer is simple "we don't know". We are missing an important part of the drake equation, the statistical likelihood of abiogenisis occurring. It may be billions of times less than planets in the observable universe, we don't know. I suspect the likelihood of subterranean microbes on Mars is high. This is simply due to the following facts. Mars was more suitable to life a few billion years ago. Microbes can survive for a period of time inside meteors (which means events like the meteor that caused dinosaur extinction could easily transfer earth rock to Mars). There is liquid subterranean water on Mars (as the environment became inhospitable, anaerobic microbes may have simply gone underground). Subterranean methane releases have been detected on Mars. Mars life will, more than likely, simply be extended Earth life, same DNA and amino acids. I believe panspermia to and from other star systems is less likely. If we are totally alone, SETI will always seem a failure and we will always live in hope.
 
Jan 13, 2020
54
29
60
After reading this report and others like it- there seems to be a critical assumption at the foundation. The well attested scientific law of abiogenesis is at work throughout the universe so we will likely find E.T. phoning home, some day :) A good theory needs to be testable - and falsifiable too.
You are confusing yourself. Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. The theory of abiogenesis describes the process itself, just as the theory of Star formation describes the process of formation of a star. Saying "a star formed" is not a scientific theory that must meet the "falsifiable" standard; it is an axiom. So your error is to point at the statement "life formed" and try to undermine it by calling it a bad theory that cannot be falsified.

You would be offbase in the same way to point at the idea "a star formed" and saying it is a theory that cannot be falsified. It's not a theory, it is an axiom, in a deterministic universe governed by laws. Abiogenesis is an axiom, in the same way.

Similarly, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution describes how evolution acted on life on earth to produce the diversity of species we observe today. Don't confuse the two principles.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Jan 13, 2020
54
29
60
The counter-argument to "Rare Earth" is that, yes you need all those unlikely things to create Earth-like life. But other kinds of life will arise in other environments.
EXACTLY, thank you. This "rare earth" argument applies only to finding life exactly as we have it on Earth. And it is a specious argument anyway, as it involves arbitrary assignment of arbitrary probabilities to arbitrarily chosen events. It's the Hoyle fallacy, thinly veiled, by which the probability of any event can be reduced to virtually zero. It's a useless bit of specious rhetoric, in my opinion.
 
Feb 12, 2020
1
0
10
After reading this report and others like it- there seems to be a critical assumption at the foundation. The well attested scientific law of abiogenesis is at work throughout the universe so we will likely find E.T. phoning home, some day :) A good theory needs to be testable - and falsifiable too.
Stothers 2007 NASA


Stothers, R., 2007: Unidentified flying objects in classical antiquity. Classical J., 103, 79-92.
A combined historical and scientific approach is applied to ancient reports of what might today be called unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Many conventionally explicable phenomena can be weeded out, leaving a small residue of puzzling reports. These fall neatly into the same categories as modern UFO reports, suggesting that the UFO phenomenon, whatever it may be due to, has not changed much over two millennia.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/st02710y.html
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts