Why do so many atheist scientists believe in aliens when there's no proof for them either?

[frigidweirdo]

Evidence life exists = we're on a planet, we're alive, there's abundant life on the Earth. We are aliens to all other planets.

Evidence God exists = nothing.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

"There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens."

no, there isn't.

if you want to say that there is EQUALLY NO PROOF for either I wouldn't bother to argue with you.

But there is NO PROOF of god at all!

none
nada
zip
zero

as for those scientists who "believe in" or "assume the existence of" aliens.....MOSTLY it has little to do with physical evidence and more to do with logic and reason; in a universe as big and as old as ours the probability of aliens elsewhere in the universe is a rational concept.

Then, of course, we have all the POLICE, MILITARY, PILOTS and ASTRONAUTS who claim to have "seen things"...

are you saying they are all liars?

are you calling policemen who make these reports "liars"?

Why not? Cops have been shown to lie about a wide range of things.

 

[james bond]

when the believers have shown much evidence of no aliens

Charlatans like you think that ignoring what is said to you then demanding it be said again is somehow a tactic that supports your own, hilariously ridculous lies.

bond in a nut shell ...


Why do so many atheist scientists believe in aliens when there's no proof for them either?

- when there's no proof for them either ...

in physiological terms all life on Earth is alien as no such existence was native to the planet in its primordial beginning and will only exist under certain conditions as its criteria proven by its evolution and would exist throughout the universe under those conditions.

physiology is a metaphysical substance that disappears when the spiritual life is removed from its presence. metaphysical life is its engine and the origin for our physical existence.

It's called faith. Believers have faith in God and have creation science or real science. Non-believers have faith in abiogenesis, aliens and atheist science aka fake science. It's two different worldviews.

How about there is science, and then there are those who make claims outside the bounds of the scientific method?

I am confident that there are those who believe in god yet also believe in aliens. I am also confident that there are those who believe in god yet do not accept "creation science."

How about the modern scientific method was created by a scientist who believed in God, Sir Francis Bacon? He wanted to honor how great God's work was.

We are discussing aliens and the creation scientists do not believe they exist and have presented several arguments already mentioned. The most damning are the fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists. Time is running out for discovering aliens. I would think the NASA chief proclaiming aliens would be discovered by 2025 has sealed her own ridicule and possible expulsion. She is going against the evidence provided by all the probes humans have sent. Her claims are based on the advanced technology and self-proclaimed, "We know where to look and we know hot to look." The truth is we've explored outer space more than we have explored what is under our oceans..

Why is there a time limit on discovering alien life?

If a NASA chief believes that aliens will be discovered by 2025, that is her opinion. So what? It neither confirms nor refutes the existence of alien life. It's one person's opinion.

What evidence discovered by human probes discounts the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe?

Why are you so fixated on grouping scientists into either atheist scientists or creation scientists?

You clearly don't get it and thus have no credibility. This is sad for one because there are many weak-minded people like you who believe in fake science and fairy tales. It is sad and pathetic and at the same time laughable due to lack of perspicacity.

There is a time limit because aliens have been long overdue and NASA head honcho has claimed it.

For one, you do not understand the fine tuning facts. Even the atheist scientists understand it and have moved on to multiverses as the explanation. The trouble is there is no observational data or experiment to base their beliefs on.

There is no evidence of aliens whatsoever from the probes. The groups and people who do have credibility in this field -- Enrico Fermi, Frank Drake, SETI, Elon Musk and more have said intelligent aliens would have contacted us already. Also, we would have found a microbe or some basic type of life elsewhere. There have been more than enough probes sent out as I have stated. Thus, you do not understand the Drake equation and Fermi paradox and what it means. This has been explained to you in the past and yet you continue to ask and repeat the same boring questions.

Even after this, the intelligent people like myself and the creation scientists are subjected to ramblings by the leftist head of NASA that due to their superior technology aliens will be found. The technology is paid for by out tax dollars, that they will find a microbe and more. It's based on false hope such as water on Mars and false science. Thus, it's better to spend our money on something better like better space stations and to see if we can set up a supply station for them on the moon. Maybe we can set up a defense system there to prevent large asteroids from hitting our planet.

Finally, to answer your last question, it's the creation scientists who are left out. These are the people with the real observational science that there are no aliens. Why not believe them and spend our tax dollars on real science projects.

 

[james bond]

Evidence life exists = we're on a planet, we're alive, there's abundant life on the Earth. We are aliens to all other planets.

Evidence God exists = nothing.

Ha ha. You just provided evidence for God. Life is rare and we're the only life here because God made it that way. And it 2017, the chicken came before the egg became a fact. That's more evidence of God.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Evidence life exists = we're on a planet, we're alive, there's abundant life on the Earth. We are aliens to all other planets.

Evidence God exists = nothing.

Ha ha. You just provided evidence for God. Life is rare and we're the only life here because God made it that way. And it 2017, the chicken came before the egg became a fact. That's more evidence of God.

The egg clearly came before the chicken, as dinosaurs had eggs.

I'm not sure if what you said was sarcastic.

You can't prove God by stating things that you believe and can't possibly know.

 

[Montrovant]

bond in a nut shell ...


Why do so many atheist scientists believe in aliens when there's no proof for them either?

- when there's no proof for them either ...

in physiological terms all life on Earth is alien as no such existence was native to the planet in its primordial beginning and will only exist under certain conditions as its criteria proven by its evolution and would exist throughout the universe under those conditions.

physiology is a metaphysical substance that disappears when the spiritual life is removed from its presence. metaphysical life is its engine and the origin for our physical existence.

It's called faith. Believers have faith in God and have creation science or real science. Non-believers have faith in abiogenesis, aliens and atheist science aka fake science. It's two different worldviews.

How about there is science, and then there are those who make claims outside the bounds of the scientific method?

I am confident that there are those who believe in god yet also believe in aliens. I am also confident that there are those who believe in god yet do not accept "creation science."

How about the modern scientific method was created by a scientist who believed in God, Sir Francis Bacon? He wanted to honor how great God's work was.

We are discussing aliens and the creation scientists do not believe they exist and have presented several arguments already mentioned. The most damning are the fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists. Time is running out for discovering aliens. I would think the NASA chief proclaiming aliens would be discovered by 2025 has sealed her own ridicule and possible expulsion. She is going against the evidence provided by all the probes humans have sent. Her claims are based on the advanced technology and self-proclaimed, "We know where to look and we know hot to look." The truth is we've explored outer space more than we have explored what is under our oceans..

Why is there a time limit on discovering alien life?

If a NASA chief believes that aliens will be discovered by 2025, that is her opinion. So what? It neither confirms nor refutes the existence of alien life. It's one person's opinion.

What evidence discovered by human probes discounts the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe?

Why are you so fixated on grouping scientists into either atheist scientists or creation scientists?

You clearly don't get it and thus have no credibility. This is sad for one because there are many weak-minded people like you who believe in fake science and fairy tales. It is sad and pathetic and at the same time laughable due to lack of perspicacity.

There is a time limit because aliens have been long overdue and NASA head honcho has claimed it.

For one, you do not understand the fine tuning facts. Even the atheist scientists understand it and have moved on to multiverses as the explanation. The trouble is there is no observational data or experiment to base their beliefs on.

There is no evidence of aliens whatsoever from the probes. The groups and people who do have credibility in this field -- Enrico Fermi, Frank Drake, SETI, Elon Musk and more have said intelligent aliens would have contacted us already. Also, we would have found a microbe or some basic type of life elsewhere. There have been more than enough probes sent out as I have stated. Thus, you do not understand the Drake equation and Fermi paradox and what it means. This has been explained to you in the past and yet you continue to ask and repeat the same boring questions.

Even after this, the intelligent people like myself and the creation scientists are subjected to ramblings by the leftist head of NASA that due to their superior technology aliens will be found. The technology is paid for by out tax dollars, that they will find a microbe and more. It's based on false hope such as water on Mars and false science. Thus, it's better to spend our money on something better like better space stations and to see if we can set up a supply station for them on the moon. Maybe we can set up a defense system there to prevent large asteroids from hitting our planet.

Finally, to answer your last question, it's the creation scientists who are left out. These are the people with the real observational science that there are no aliens. Why not believe them and spend our tax dollars on real science projects.

Back to this?

Neither the Drake Equation nor the Fermi Paradox are any sort of definitive formula proving the non-existence of intelligent alien life.

How far into the universe do you think humanity has sent probes? If you didn't realize it, we've barely gotten anything outside of the solar system, and that is an almost infinitesimally small portion of the universe as far as we can tell.

I didn't ask you anything about people being left out of something. I asked why you group scientists as either atheist or creation scientists.

You seem to have an over-inflated idea of just how much humanity has gotten direct, close-up observational data about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's called faith. Believers have faith in God and have creation science or real science. Non-believers have faith in abiogenesis, aliens and atheist science aka fake science. It's two different worldviews.

How about there is science, and then there are those who make claims outside the bounds of the scientific method?

I am confident that there are those who believe in god yet also believe in aliens. I am also confident that there are those who believe in god yet do not accept "creation science."

How about the modern scientific method was created by a scientist who believed in God, Sir Francis Bacon? He wanted to honor how great God's work was.

We are discussing aliens and the creation scientists do not believe they exist and have presented several arguments already mentioned. The most damning are the fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists. Time is running out for discovering aliens. I would think the NASA chief proclaiming aliens would be discovered by 2025 has sealed her own ridicule and possible expulsion. She is going against the evidence provided by all the probes humans have sent. Her claims are based on the advanced technology and self-proclaimed, "We know where to look and we know hot to look." The truth is we've explored outer space more than we have explored what is under our oceans..

Why is there a time limit on discovering alien life?

If a NASA chief believes that aliens will be discovered by 2025, that is her opinion. So what? It neither confirms nor refutes the existence of alien life. It's one person's opinion.

What evidence discovered by human probes discounts the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe?

Why are you so fixated on grouping scientists into either atheist scientists or creation scientists?

You clearly don't get it and thus have no credibility. This is sad for one because there are many weak-minded people like you who believe in fake science and fairy tales. It is sad and pathetic and at the same time laughable due to lack of perspicacity.

There is a time limit because aliens have been long overdue and NASA head honcho has claimed it.

For one, you do not understand the fine tuning facts. Even the atheist scientists understand it and have moved on to multiverses as the explanation. The trouble is there is no observational data or experiment to base their beliefs on.

There is no evidence of aliens whatsoever from the probes. The groups and people who do have credibility in this field -- Enrico Fermi, Frank Drake, SETI, Elon Musk and more have said intelligent aliens would have contacted us already. Also, we would have found a microbe or some basic type of life elsewhere. There have been more than enough probes sent out as I have stated. Thus, you do not understand the Drake equation and Fermi paradox and what it means. This has been explained to you in the past and yet you continue to ask and repeat the same boring questions.

Even after this, the intelligent people like myself and the creation scientists are subjected to ramblings by the leftist head of NASA that due to their superior technology aliens will be found. The technology is paid for by out tax dollars, that they will find a microbe and more. It's based on false hope such as water on Mars and false science. Thus, it's better to spend our money on something better like better space stations and to see if we can set up a supply station for them on the moon. Maybe we can set up a defense system there to prevent large asteroids from hitting our planet.

Finally, to answer your last question, it's the creation scientists who are left out. These are the people with the real observational science that there are no aliens. Why not believe them and spend our tax dollars on real science projects.

Back to this?

Neither the Drake Equation nor the Fermi Paradox are any sort of definitive formula proving the non-existence of intelligent alien life.

How far into the universe do you think humanity has sent probes? If you didn't realize it, we've barely gotten anything outside of the solar system, and that is an almost infinitesimally small portion of the universe as far as we can tell.

I didn't ask you anything about people being left out of something. I asked why you group scientists as either atheist or creation scientists.

You seem to have an over-inflated idea of just how much humanity has gotten direct, close-up observational data about.

Bond, being a charlatan with little to know actual knowledge of this material, likes to take pages to make his points, framing them more as "they must be true, because what you said is false, according to the opinion of this blogger i just plagiarized"....as if what you or anyone else had for breakfast has any bearing on the truth of his desperate nonsense. If you want any actual insight into his overwrought talking points, simply visit creation.com and cut out the niddle man charlatan.

 

[james bond]

Evidence life exists = we're on a planet, we're alive, there's abundant life on the Earth. We are aliens to all other planets.

Evidence God exists = nothing.

Ha ha. You just provided evidence for God. Life is rare and we're the only life here because God made it that way. And it 2017, the chicken came before the egg became a fact. That's more evidence of God.

The egg clearly came before the chicken, as dinosaurs had eggs.

I'm not sure if what you said was sarcastic.

You can't prove God by stating things that you believe and can't possibly know.

Wrong. Scientists found protein outside on the chicken's egg used to by the shell to help protect its contents. This type of protein is only found inside chickens.

You provided evidence for God in that an abundance of life exists on Earth and no where else. The scientific belief today is life is rare. This is because God only created life here.

I'm not proving God. There is no proof, but there is mountains of evidence if one has faith.

 

[BULLDOG]

Evidence life exists = we're on a planet, we're alive, there's abundant life on the Earth. We are aliens to all other planets.

Evidence God exists = nothing.

Ha ha. You just provided evidence for God. Life is rare and we're the only life here because God made it that way. And it 2017, the chicken came before the egg became a fact. That's more evidence of God.

The egg clearly came before the chicken, as dinosaurs had eggs.

I'm not sure if what you said was sarcastic.

You can't prove God by stating things that you believe and can't possibly know.

Wrong. Scientists found protein outside on the chicken's egg used to by the shell to help protect its contents. This type of protein is only found inside chickens.

You provided evidence for God in that an abundance of life exists on Earth and no where else. The scientific belief today is life is rare. This is because God only created life here.

I'm not proving God. There is no proof, but there is mountains of evidence if one has faith.

Not sure what you think the composition of an egg shell proves, but that shell was once inside a chicken.

 

[james bond]

It's called faith. Believers have faith in God and have creation science or real science. Non-believers have faith in abiogenesis, aliens and atheist science aka fake science. It's two different worldviews.

How about there is science, and then there are those who make claims outside the bounds of the scientific method?

I am confident that there are those who believe in god yet also believe in aliens. I am also confident that there are those who believe in god yet do not accept "creation science."

How about the modern scientific method was created by a scientist who believed in God, Sir Francis Bacon? He wanted to honor how great God's work was.

We are discussing aliens and the creation scientists do not believe they exist and have presented several arguments already mentioned. The most damning are the fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists. Time is running out for discovering aliens. I would think the NASA chief proclaiming aliens would be discovered by 2025 has sealed her own ridicule and possible expulsion. She is going against the evidence provided by all the probes humans have sent. Her claims are based on the advanced technology and self-proclaimed, "We know where to look and we know hot to look." The truth is we've explored outer space more than we have explored what is under our oceans..

Why is there a time limit on discovering alien life?

If a NASA chief believes that aliens will be discovered by 2025, that is her opinion. So what? It neither confirms nor refutes the existence of alien life. It's one person's opinion.

What evidence discovered by human probes discounts the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe?

Why are you so fixated on grouping scientists into either atheist scientists or creation scientists?

You clearly don't get it and thus have no credibility. This is sad for one because there are many weak-minded people like you who believe in fake science and fairy tales. It is sad and pathetic and at the same time laughable due to lack of perspicacity.

There is a time limit because aliens have been long overdue and NASA head honcho has claimed it.

For one, you do not understand the fine tuning facts. Even the atheist scientists understand it and have moved on to multiverses as the explanation. The trouble is there is no observational data or experiment to base their beliefs on.

There is no evidence of aliens whatsoever from the probes. The groups and people who do have credibility in this field -- Enrico Fermi, Frank Drake, SETI, Elon Musk and more have said intelligent aliens would have contacted us already. Also, we would have found a microbe or some basic type of life elsewhere. There have been more than enough probes sent out as I have stated. Thus, you do not understand the Drake equation and Fermi paradox and what it means. This has been explained to you in the past and yet you continue to ask and repeat the same boring questions.

Even after this, the intelligent people like myself and the creation scientists are subjected to ramblings by the leftist head of NASA that due to their superior technology aliens will be found. The technology is paid for by out tax dollars, that they will find a microbe and more. It's based on false hope such as water on Mars and false science. Thus, it's better to spend our money on something better like better space stations and to see if we can set up a supply station for them on the moon. Maybe we can set up a defense system there to prevent large asteroids from hitting our planet.

Finally, to answer your last question, it's the creation scientists who are left out. These are the people with the real observational science that there are no aliens. Why not believe them and spend our tax dollars on real science projects.

Back to this?

Neither the Drake Equation nor the Fermi Paradox are any sort of definitive formula proving the non-existence of intelligent alien life.

How far into the universe do you think humanity has sent probes? If you didn't realize it, we've barely gotten anything outside of the solar system, and that is an almost infinitesimally small portion of the universe as far as we can tell.

I didn't ask you anything about people being left out of something. I asked why you group scientists as either atheist or creation scientists.

You seem to have an over-inflated idea of just how much humanity has gotten direct, close-up observational data about.

I didn't think you were one to be able to connect the dots and figure it our for yourself. Drake and Fermi provided solid scientific method for estimating intelligent alien life. However, we find through Fermi's calculations that where is everybody? Thus, the thinking today from the time of Carl Sagan (who also believed in aliens and wasted taxpayer dollars sending a time capsule up into space) is that life is indeed rare in the universe. This is evolutionary thinking.

>>How far into the universe do you think humanity has sent probes? If you didn't realize it, we've barely gotten anything outside of the solar system, and that is an almost infinitesimally small portion of the universe as far as we can tell.<<

This is a perfect example of you not being to use fine tuning facts and Drake and Fermi's work to come up with valid scientific theory. There has been more than enough probes sent to discover life in outer space. We haven't found one microbe. Even NASA head honcho thinks we'll find evidence of alien life by 2025. She can't put the evidence together either, but is basing it on her own biases and faith in very expensive technology and telescopes. Instead, we should be spending the money elsewhere.

To the contrary, I understand scientific probability and calculations just fine. Unlike you, I am not influence by emotional reactions to solid scientific evidence that go counter to my worldview.

 

[james bond]

How about there is science, and then there are those who make claims outside the bounds of the scientific method?

I am confident that there are those who believe in god yet also believe in aliens. I am also confident that there are those who believe in god yet do not accept "creation science."

How about the modern scientific method was created by a scientist who believed in God, Sir Francis Bacon? He wanted to honor how great God's work was.

We are discussing aliens and the creation scientists do not believe they exist and have presented several arguments already mentioned. The most damning are the fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists. Time is running out for discovering aliens. I would think the NASA chief proclaiming aliens would be discovered by 2025 has sealed her own ridicule and possible expulsion. She is going against the evidence provided by all the probes humans have sent. Her claims are based on the advanced technology and self-proclaimed, "We know where to look and we know hot to look." The truth is we've explored outer space more than we have explored what is under our oceans..

Why is there a time limit on discovering alien life?

If a NASA chief believes that aliens will be discovered by 2025, that is her opinion. So what? It neither confirms nor refutes the existence of alien life. It's one person's opinion.

What evidence discovered by human probes discounts the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe?

Why are you so fixated on grouping scientists into either atheist scientists or creation scientists?

You clearly don't get it and thus have no credibility. This is sad for one because there are many weak-minded people like you who believe in fake science and fairy tales. It is sad and pathetic and at the same time laughable due to lack of perspicacity.

There is a time limit because aliens have been long overdue and NASA head honcho has claimed it.

For one, you do not understand the fine tuning facts. Even the atheist scientists understand it and have moved on to multiverses as the explanation. The trouble is there is no observational data or experiment to base their beliefs on.

There is no evidence of aliens whatsoever from the probes. The groups and people who do have credibility in this field -- Enrico Fermi, Frank Drake, SETI, Elon Musk and more have said intelligent aliens would have contacted us already. Also, we would have found a microbe or some basic type of life elsewhere. There have been more than enough probes sent out as I have stated. Thus, you do not understand the Drake equation and Fermi paradox and what it means. This has been explained to you in the past and yet you continue to ask and repeat the same boring questions.

Even after this, the intelligent people like myself and the creation scientists are subjected to ramblings by the leftist head of NASA that due to their superior technology aliens will be found. The technology is paid for by out tax dollars, that they will find a microbe and more. It's based on false hope such as water on Mars and false science. Thus, it's better to spend our money on something better like better space stations and to see if we can set up a supply station for them on the moon. Maybe we can set up a defense system there to prevent large asteroids from hitting our planet.

Finally, to answer your last question, it's the creation scientists who are left out. These are the people with the real observational science that there are no aliens. Why not believe them and spend our tax dollars on real science projects.

Back to this?

Neither the Drake Equation nor the Fermi Paradox are any sort of definitive formula proving the non-existence of intelligent alien life.

How far into the universe do you think humanity has sent probes? If you didn't realize it, we've barely gotten anything outside of the solar system, and that is an almost infinitesimally small portion of the universe as far as we can tell.

I didn't ask you anything about people being left out of something. I asked why you group scientists as either atheist or creation scientists.

You seem to have an over-inflated idea of just how much humanity has gotten direct, close-up observational data about.

Bond, being a charlatan with little to know actual knowledge of this material, likes to take pages to make his points, framing them more as "they must be true, because what you said is false, according to the opinion of this blogger i just plagiarized"....as if what you or anyone else had for breakfast has any bearing on the truth of his desperate nonsense. If you want any actual insight into his overwrought talking points, simply visit creation.com and cut out the niddle man charlatan.

Wrong again Fort Fun Indiana. It's not creation.com. They are the last of the creation science resources I would use. I've used NASA and wikipedia as my most recent in this thread. It was you who linked creation.com. Actually, you should have read what they said since they do use actual science.

 

[james bond]

Evidence life exists = we're on a planet, we're alive, there's abundant life on the Earth. We are aliens to all other planets.

Evidence God exists = nothing.

Ha ha. You just provided evidence for God. Life is rare and we're the only life here because God made it that way. And it 2017, the chicken came before the egg became a fact. That's more evidence of God.

The egg clearly came before the chicken, as dinosaurs had eggs.

I'm not sure if what you said was sarcastic.

You can't prove God by stating things that you believe and can't possibly know.

Wrong. Scientists found protein outside on the chicken's egg used to by the shell to help protect its contents. This type of protein is only found inside chickens.

You provided evidence for God in that an abundance of life exists on Earth and no where else. The scientific belief today is life is rare. This is because God only created life here.

I'm not proving God. There is no proof, but there is mountains of evidence if one has faith.

Not sure what you think the composition of an egg shell proves, but that shell was once inside a chicken.

Meaning the chicken came first. You just admitted it.

 

[james bond]

bond in a nut shell ...


Why do so many atheist scientists believe in aliens when there's no proof for them either?

- when there's no proof for them either ...

in physiological terms all life on Earth is alien as no such existence was native to the planet in its primordial beginning and will only exist under certain conditions as its criteria proven by its evolution and would exist throughout the universe under those conditions.

physiology is a metaphysical substance that disappears when the spiritual life is removed from its presence. metaphysical life is its engine and the origin for our physical existence.

>>in physiological terms all life on Earth is alien as no such existence was native to the planet in its primordial beginning and will only exist under certain conditions as its criteria proven by its evolution and would exist throughout the universe under those conditions.<<

smh. You missed the Cambrian explosion. No evolution involved ha ha.

It is the best evidence of God's creation and that ToE is wrong.

 

[Montrovant]

How about there is science, and then there are those who make claims outside the bounds of the scientific method?

I am confident that there are those who believe in god yet also believe in aliens. I am also confident that there are those who believe in god yet do not accept "creation science."

How about the modern scientific method was created by a scientist who believed in God, Sir Francis Bacon? He wanted to honor how great God's work was.

We are discussing aliens and the creation scientists do not believe they exist and have presented several arguments already mentioned. The most damning are the fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists. Time is running out for discovering aliens. I would think the NASA chief proclaiming aliens would be discovered by 2025 has sealed her own ridicule and possible expulsion. She is going against the evidence provided by all the probes humans have sent. Her claims are based on the advanced technology and self-proclaimed, "We know where to look and we know hot to look." The truth is we've explored outer space more than we have explored what is under our oceans..

Why is there a time limit on discovering alien life?

If a NASA chief believes that aliens will be discovered by 2025, that is her opinion. So what? It neither confirms nor refutes the existence of alien life. It's one person's opinion.

What evidence discovered by human probes discounts the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe?

Why are you so fixated on grouping scientists into either atheist scientists or creation scientists?

You clearly don't get it and thus have no credibility. This is sad for one because there are many weak-minded people like you who believe in fake science and fairy tales. It is sad and pathetic and at the same time laughable due to lack of perspicacity.

There is a time limit because aliens have been long overdue and NASA head honcho has claimed it.

For one, you do not understand the fine tuning facts. Even the atheist scientists understand it and have moved on to multiverses as the explanation. The trouble is there is no observational data or experiment to base their beliefs on.

There is no evidence of aliens whatsoever from the probes. The groups and people who do have credibility in this field -- Enrico Fermi, Frank Drake, SETI, Elon Musk and more have said intelligent aliens would have contacted us already. Also, we would have found a microbe or some basic type of life elsewhere. There have been more than enough probes sent out as I have stated. Thus, you do not understand the Drake equation and Fermi paradox and what it means. This has been explained to you in the past and yet you continue to ask and repeat the same boring questions.

Even after this, the intelligent people like myself and the creation scientists are subjected to ramblings by the leftist head of NASA that due to their superior technology aliens will be found. The technology is paid for by out tax dollars, that they will find a microbe and more. It's based on false hope such as water on Mars and false science. Thus, it's better to spend our money on something better like better space stations and to see if we can set up a supply station for them on the moon. Maybe we can set up a defense system there to prevent large asteroids from hitting our planet.

Finally, to answer your last question, it's the creation scientists who are left out. These are the people with the real observational science that there are no aliens. Why not believe them and spend our tax dollars on real science projects.

Back to this?

Neither the Drake Equation nor the Fermi Paradox are any sort of definitive formula proving the non-existence of intelligent alien life.

How far into the universe do you think humanity has sent probes? If you didn't realize it, we've barely gotten anything outside of the solar system, and that is an almost infinitesimally small portion of the universe as far as we can tell.

I didn't ask you anything about people being left out of something. I asked why you group scientists as either atheist or creation scientists.

You seem to have an over-inflated idea of just how much humanity has gotten direct, close-up observational data about.

I didn't think you were one to be able to connect the dots and figure it our for yourself. Drake and Fermi provided solid scientific method for estimating intelligent alien life. However, we find through Fermi's calculations that where is everybody? Thus, the thinking today from the time of Carl Sagan (who also believed in aliens and wasted taxpayer dollars sending a time capsule up into space) is that life is indeed rare in the universe. This is evolutionary thinking.

>>How far into the universe do you think humanity has sent probes? If you didn't realize it, we've barely gotten anything outside of the solar system, and that is an almost infinitesimally small portion of the universe as far as we can tell.<<

This is a perfect example of you not being to use fine tuning facts and Drake and Fermi's work to come up with valid scientific theory. There has been more than enough probes sent to discover life in outer space. We haven't found one microbe. Even NASA head honcho thinks we'll find evidence of alien life by 2025. She can't put the evidence together either, but is basing it on her own biases and faith in very expensive technology and telescopes. Instead, we should be spending the money elsewhere.

To the contrary, I understand scientific probability and calculations just fine. Unlike you, I am not influence by emotional reactions to solid scientific evidence that go counter to my worldview.

You clearly have no idea how vast the universe is if you think "there has been more than enough probes sent to discover life in outer space." That statement might be true if you assume life should be found in a very few places in our solar system, but otherwise it is ridiculous. The universe could be teeming with life without humanity knowing it, because we have not been able to directly observe 99.9999999% of the universe. You might want to get an idea of the scale of the universe before you declare that the probes sent by humanity should have discovered life.

I am familiar with the Drake Equation and Fermi's Paradox. Neither is a scientific theory. Neither is testable. They are at best hypotheses without the ability to test. You may have decided they are gospel truth, but that's your opinion.

 

[BULLDOG]

Evidence life exists = we're on a planet, we're alive, there's abundant life on the Earth. We are aliens to all other planets.

Evidence God exists = nothing.

Ha ha. You just provided evidence for God. Life is rare and we're the only life here because God made it that way. And it 2017, the chicken came before the egg became a fact. That's more evidence of God.

The egg clearly came before the chicken, as dinosaurs had eggs.

I'm not sure if what you said was sarcastic.

You can't prove God by stating things that you believe and can't possibly know.

Wrong. Scientists found protein outside on the chicken's egg used to by the shell to help protect its contents. This type of protein is only found inside chickens.

You provided evidence for God in that an abundance of life exists on Earth and no where else. The scientific belief today is life is rare. This is because God only created life here.

I'm not proving God. There is no proof, but there is mountains of evidence if one has faith.

Not sure what you think the composition of an egg shell proves, but that shell was once inside a chicken.

Meaning the chicken came first. You just admitted it.

It's an absurd discussion, and I have no idea what it has to do with anything, but that doesn't prove what you want it to. Evolution is a long slow process, and there is no reason to believe the protein you mention was even present in the first iterations of the egg producing process, or whether it was first introduced specifically in the egg shell or in some other part of the chicken. I understand that people who like to compare creationism to real science like to make quick evaluated judgments about such things, but the question of which came first is still nothing more than a silly unanswerable question

 

[james bond]

How about the modern scientific method was created by a scientist who believed in God, Sir Francis Bacon? He wanted to honor how great God's work was.

We are discussing aliens and the creation scientists do not believe they exist and have presented several arguments already mentioned. The most damning are the fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists. Time is running out for discovering aliens. I would think the NASA chief proclaiming aliens would be discovered by 2025 has sealed her own ridicule and possible expulsion. She is going against the evidence provided by all the probes humans have sent. Her claims are based on the advanced technology and self-proclaimed, "We know where to look and we know hot to look." The truth is we've explored outer space more than we have explored what is under our oceans..

Why is there a time limit on discovering alien life?

If a NASA chief believes that aliens will be discovered by 2025, that is her opinion. So what? It neither confirms nor refutes the existence of alien life. It's one person's opinion.

What evidence discovered by human probes discounts the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe?

Why are you so fixated on grouping scientists into either atheist scientists or creation scientists?

You clearly don't get it and thus have no credibility. This is sad for one because there are many weak-minded people like you who believe in fake science and fairy tales. It is sad and pathetic and at the same time laughable due to lack of perspicacity.

There is a time limit because aliens have been long overdue and NASA head honcho has claimed it.

For one, you do not understand the fine tuning facts. Even the atheist scientists understand it and have moved on to multiverses as the explanation. The trouble is there is no observational data or experiment to base their beliefs on.

There is no evidence of aliens whatsoever from the probes. The groups and people who do have credibility in this field -- Enrico Fermi, Frank Drake, SETI, Elon Musk and more have said intelligent aliens would have contacted us already. Also, we would have found a microbe or some basic type of life elsewhere. There have been more than enough probes sent out as I have stated. Thus, you do not understand the Drake equation and Fermi paradox and what it means. This has been explained to you in the past and yet you continue to ask and repeat the same boring questions.

Even after this, the intelligent people like myself and the creation scientists are subjected to ramblings by the leftist head of NASA that due to their superior technology aliens will be found. The technology is paid for by out tax dollars, that they will find a microbe and more. It's based on false hope such as water on Mars and false science. Thus, it's better to spend our money on something better like better space stations and to see if we can set up a supply station for them on the moon. Maybe we can set up a defense system there to prevent large asteroids from hitting our planet.

Finally, to answer your last question, it's the creation scientists who are left out. These are the people with the real observational science that there are no aliens. Why not believe them and spend our tax dollars on real science projects.

Back to this?

Neither the Drake Equation nor the Fermi Paradox are any sort of definitive formula proving the non-existence of intelligent alien life.

How far into the universe do you think humanity has sent probes? If you didn't realize it, we've barely gotten anything outside of the solar system, and that is an almost infinitesimally small portion of the universe as far as we can tell.

I didn't ask you anything about people being left out of something. I asked why you group scientists as either atheist or creation scientists.

You seem to have an over-inflated idea of just how much humanity has gotten direct, close-up observational data about.

I didn't think you were one to be able to connect the dots and figure it our for yourself. Drake and Fermi provided solid scientific method for estimating intelligent alien life. However, we find through Fermi's calculations that where is everybody? Thus, the thinking today from the time of Carl Sagan (who also believed in aliens and wasted taxpayer dollars sending a time capsule up into space) is that life is indeed rare in the universe. This is evolutionary thinking.

>>How far into the universe do you think humanity has sent probes? If you didn't realize it, we've barely gotten anything outside of the solar system, and that is an almost infinitesimally small portion of the universe as far as we can tell.<<

This is a perfect example of you not being to use fine tuning facts and Drake and Fermi's work to come up with valid scientific theory. There has been more than enough probes sent to discover life in outer space. We haven't found one microbe. Even NASA head honcho thinks we'll find evidence of alien life by 2025. She can't put the evidence together either, but is basing it on her own biases and faith in very expensive technology and telescopes. Instead, we should be spending the money elsewhere.

To the contrary, I understand scientific probability and calculations just fine. Unlike you, I am not influence by emotional reactions to solid scientific evidence that go counter to my worldview.

You clearly have no idea how vast the universe is if you think "there has been more than enough probes sent to discover life in outer space." That statement might be true if you assume life should be found in a very few places in our solar system, but otherwise it is ridiculous. The universe could be teeming with life without humanity knowing it, because we have not been able to directly observe 99.9999999% of the universe. You might want to get an idea of the scale of the universe before you declare that the probes sent by humanity should have discovered life.

I am familiar with the Drake Equation and Fermi's Paradox. Neither is a scientific theory. Neither is testable. They are at best hypotheses without the ability to test. You may have decided they are gospel truth, but that's your opinion.

First, you ignore the fine tuning facts.

You don't know how many probes have been sent, do you? I do. What Drake and Fermi does is put scientific focus on the existence of aliens. It's not based on an abundance of planets in the universe anymore. To the contrary, we've found that the probability they do not exist is high. In addition, you neglect to factor time. More scientists agree with me that life is rare.

Finally, you continue to struggle with real observational science as you didn't even know about SETI. They've been looking to contact aliens for years and now have to raise funds to support themselves. Not only are they putting the theory to the test, they admit that they should've found alien life by now.

I'll be moving on now. Sorry, but don't have time to waste instructing the ignorant.

 

[james bond]

Ha ha. You just provided evidence for God. Life is rare and we're the only life here because God made it that way. And it 2017, the chicken came before the egg became a fact. That's more evidence of God.

The egg clearly came before the chicken, as dinosaurs had eggs.

I'm not sure if what you said was sarcastic.

You can't prove God by stating things that you believe and can't possibly know.

Wrong. Scientists found protein outside on the chicken's egg used to by the shell to help protect its contents. This type of protein is only found inside chickens.

You provided evidence for God in that an abundance of life exists on Earth and no where else. The scientific belief today is life is rare. This is because God only created life here.

I'm not proving God. There is no proof, but there is mountains of evidence if one has faith.

Not sure what you think the composition of an egg shell proves, but that shell was once inside a chicken.

Meaning the chicken came first. You just admitted it.

It's an absurd discussion, and I have no idea what it has to do with anything, but that doesn't prove what you want it to. Evolution is a long slow process, and there is no reason to believe the protein you mention was even present in the first iterations of the egg producing process, or whether it was first introduced specifically in the egg shell or in some other part of the chicken. I understand that people who like to compare creationism to real science like to make quick evaluated judgments about such things, but the question of which came first is still nothing more than a silly unanswerable question

It's not even a discussion anymore as the chicken came before the egg is fact.

Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof" - CBS News

 

[Montrovant]

Why is there a time limit on discovering alien life?

If a NASA chief believes that aliens will be discovered by 2025, that is her opinion. So what? It neither confirms nor refutes the existence of alien life. It's one person's opinion.

What evidence discovered by human probes discounts the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe?

Why are you so fixated on grouping scientists into either atheist scientists or creation scientists?

You clearly don't get it and thus have no credibility. This is sad for one because there are many weak-minded people like you who believe in fake science and fairy tales. It is sad and pathetic and at the same time laughable due to lack of perspicacity.

There is a time limit because aliens have been long overdue and NASA head honcho has claimed it.

For one, you do not understand the fine tuning facts. Even the atheist scientists understand it and have moved on to multiverses as the explanation. The trouble is there is no observational data or experiment to base their beliefs on.

There is no evidence of aliens whatsoever from the probes. The groups and people who do have credibility in this field -- Enrico Fermi, Frank Drake, SETI, Elon Musk and more have said intelligent aliens would have contacted us already. Also, we would have found a microbe or some basic type of life elsewhere. There have been more than enough probes sent out as I have stated. Thus, you do not understand the Drake equation and Fermi paradox and what it means. This has been explained to you in the past and yet you continue to ask and repeat the same boring questions.

Even after this, the intelligent people like myself and the creation scientists are subjected to ramblings by the leftist head of NASA that due to their superior technology aliens will be found. The technology is paid for by out tax dollars, that they will find a microbe and more. It's based on false hope such as water on Mars and false science. Thus, it's better to spend our money on something better like better space stations and to see if we can set up a supply station for them on the moon. Maybe we can set up a defense system there to prevent large asteroids from hitting our planet.

Finally, to answer your last question, it's the creation scientists who are left out. These are the people with the real observational science that there are no aliens. Why not believe them and spend our tax dollars on real science projects.

Back to this?

Neither the Drake Equation nor the Fermi Paradox are any sort of definitive formula proving the non-existence of intelligent alien life.

How far into the universe do you think humanity has sent probes? If you didn't realize it, we've barely gotten anything outside of the solar system, and that is an almost infinitesimally small portion of the universe as far as we can tell.

I didn't ask you anything about people being left out of something. I asked why you group scientists as either atheist or creation scientists.

You seem to have an over-inflated idea of just how much humanity has gotten direct, close-up observational data about.

I didn't think you were one to be able to connect the dots and figure it our for yourself. Drake and Fermi provided solid scientific method for estimating intelligent alien life. However, we find through Fermi's calculations that where is everybody? Thus, the thinking today from the time of Carl Sagan (who also believed in aliens and wasted taxpayer dollars sending a time capsule up into space) is that life is indeed rare in the universe. This is evolutionary thinking.

>>How far into the universe do you think humanity has sent probes? If you didn't realize it, we've barely gotten anything outside of the solar system, and that is an almost infinitesimally small portion of the universe as far as we can tell.<<

This is a perfect example of you not being to use fine tuning facts and Drake and Fermi's work to come up with valid scientific theory. There has been more than enough probes sent to discover life in outer space. We haven't found one microbe. Even NASA head honcho thinks we'll find evidence of alien life by 2025. She can't put the evidence together either, but is basing it on her own biases and faith in very expensive technology and telescopes. Instead, we should be spending the money elsewhere.

To the contrary, I understand scientific probability and calculations just fine. Unlike you, I am not influence by emotional reactions to solid scientific evidence that go counter to my worldview.

You clearly have no idea how vast the universe is if you think "there has been more than enough probes sent to discover life in outer space." That statement might be true if you assume life should be found in a very few places in our solar system, but otherwise it is ridiculous. The universe could be teeming with life without humanity knowing it, because we have not been able to directly observe 99.9999999% of the universe. You might want to get an idea of the scale of the universe before you declare that the probes sent by humanity should have discovered life.

I am familiar with the Drake Equation and Fermi's Paradox. Neither is a scientific theory. Neither is testable. They are at best hypotheses without the ability to test. You may have decided they are gospel truth, but that's your opinion.

First, you ignore the fine tuning facts.

You don't know how many probes have been sent, do you? I do. What Drake and Fermi does is put scientific focus on the existence of aliens. It's not based on an abundance of planets in the universe anymore. To the contrary, we've found that the probability they do not exist is high. In addition, you neglect to factor time. More scientists agree with me that life is rare.

Finally, you continue to struggle with real observational science as you didn't even know about SETI. They've been looking to contact aliens for years and now have to raise funds to support themselves. Not only are they putting the theory to the test, they admit that they should've found alien life by now.

I'll be moving on now. Sorry, but don't have time to waste instructing the ignorant.

I don't need to know the exact number of probes sent by humanity. I know that only 2 have ever gone beyond the solar system, and then only just. That is a drop in the ocean compared to what is believed to be in the universe.

The Drake Equation and Fermi Paradox are based on a lot of assumption. Neither is a scientific theory, and in fact, from what I've read, Fermi actually asked his question about why we haven't seen alien life as a fairly light-hearted question.

I know what SETI is. So what? That SETI exists and has not found evidence of alien life does not in any way mean alien life does not exist. You seem to have a real problem understanding just how little we are able to directly observe in the universe. People at SETI may believe they should have found alien life, but that does not mean they are correct.

You complaining about the ignorance of others is funny.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You clearly have no idea how vast the universe is if you think "there has been more than enough probes sent to discover life in outer space."

there really is no point in trying to have an honest discussion with somebody like that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Evidence life exists = we're on a planet, we're alive, there's abundant life on the Earth. We are aliens to all other planets.

Evidence God exists = nothing.

Ha ha. You just provided evidence for God. Life is rare and we're the only life here because God made it that way. And it 2017, the chicken came before the egg became a fact. That's more evidence of God.

The egg clearly came before the chicken, as dinosaurs had eggs.

I'm not sure if what you said was sarcastic.

You can't prove God by stating things that you believe and can't possibly know.

Wrong. Scientists found protein outside on the chicken's egg used to by the shell to help protect its contents. This type of protein is only found inside chickens.

You provided evidence for God in that an abundance of life exists on Earth and no where else. The scientific belief today is life is rare. This is because God only created life here.

I'm not proving God. There is no proof, but there is mountains of evidence if one has faith.

You say I'm wrong, then give evidence that has nothing to do with the FACT that dinosaurs had eggs.

Abundance of life no where else? What the fuck? Prove there's no life elsewhere. Show me that every planet in the universe has no life. You can't. It's that simple. So stop lying.

Yes, there's mountains of evidence God exists if "one has faith".

I mean, if I want to believe that Superman, Spiderman and all the superheroes exist, then just by believing (making shit up) I can "prove" they exist.

Making shit up and passing it off as "evidence" isn't going to get you very far.