hi.frnz .is there any perfect proof for the presence of living things in the universe?
963899
yeah. we are the perfect proof.\nand, the universe is sooo BIG for us to be the only planet with living organisms.
807557
It's hardly surprising that we can see no sign of life out there.  Views of Earth taken from unmanned explorer craft like Voyager taken from within our own solar system show no signs of life either. If you can't see elephants, whales or even forests from only a few million miles away then looking at hazy dots that are planets thousands of light years away expecting to see obvious signs of life is a bit optimistic.\n\nIn addition, given the size of the Universe we can hardly claim to have looked everywhere whilst at the same time it seems inconceivable that some form of life has not evolved somewhere else.\n\nSpectroscopic analysis of stellar nebulae and other "gas clouds" in deep space has revealed the existence of basic organic compounds such as amino acids which are regarded as fundamental building blocks of all living things here on Earth. So if life itself hasn't been located elsewhere, some of the prerequisite precursors certainly have.\n\nThere are also several "fossils" found on meteorites believed to have come from Mars which may or may not prove to be the remains of living things which originated on Mars.
705988
My gut agrees with you, but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions. A sobering (and excellent) read is Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee. One is an astronomer, the other a geologist. They make a convincing case that sentient life elsewhere in the universe is probably quite rare. At a minimum, they make minced meat out of the Drake Equation. Still, with so many possibilities ...\n\nThe other thing to remember is that first and possibly second generation of post-Big Bang stars could never have supported planets with life of any kind. It took billions of years before stars produced sufficient quantities of heavy elements that are essential for life.\n\nand, all those stars and all those galaxies don't exist simultaneously. As we look farther out into space, we are more and more likely looking at objects that no longer exist.\n\nso, having said all that, we must consider this. a) sentient beings are probably quite rare - whether you accept Ward and Brownlee's extreme argument or not. b) that life could only have existed for, say, the last 8 or 9 billion years of the universe's existence. c) the distances to other stars in our galaxy are vast, but the distances *between* the galaxies are mind boggling vast (there's a reason that even in Star Trek, with it's fantasy warp drive, the story lines are all confined to our own galaxy).\n\nJust food for thought.
93296
I want it to be, along with other phenomenon, so I'd be happy to see real proof.  I've seen proof of some kinds of ESP that was undeniably "Something", so why not.
1007231
Current information is insufficient to give a correct answer. Once we explore more of the universe, maybe we could have a logical answer.\nst
85236
You've got the job of science reversed in your mind.  Science cannot state that something doesn't exist, just like an atheist cannot state that they know that God doesn't exist.  All science or an atheist can state is that they don't have any imperical evidence of something, therefore until that evidence is produced it must be assumed that it does not exist.  As of today's date (February 19,2006) there is no hard evidence that UFOs exist.  NONE.  Every single claim that purports to be hard evidence always melts under close scrutiny.  We have no hard evidence to support the belief in UFOs.  Of course some think they know they exist because they saw something they cannot explain but that is not hard evidence.  Until something tangible, weighable, measurable, dissectable is brought forth science will have to hold the skeptical view that until you can prove it, we will assume it is false.
826671
Not only universe is  a proof of God but even a very smallthing like atom also a proof of God.Perfection is possible if there is the God only.
658128
There is no way to prove a negative.  You are asking me to prove that something doesn't exist.
217359
Yes, I fully believe there is life on other planets.  What it took to create life on Earth was not favored to happen.  The odds that Earth would hold any life at all are too small to comprehend.  But we do not know how large the universe is.  We do know that there are trillions of planets, trillions of galaxies, trillions of stars.  The odds that there is not a speck of life on any of those planets is also extremely small.\n\nI must admit that I have seen a UFO, which occurred last year.  I was driving my friends home from a party and I happen to look in the sky to see a bright white diamond-shaped object.  There were four individual diamond lights that made up the overall shape.  I was astounded, and I knew it was not anything that the United States had admitted to having.  I could name every military jet, helicopter, blimp, and passanger aircraft that I see, but I could not for the life of me figure out what it was.  I immediately turned around and drove to follow it.  Within five-ten seconds, the craft had flown so fast that the lights had disappeared (I watched it the entire time).  I'm not saying it was extra-terrestrial, but it was a UFO.  I live in Cleveland, by the way.
91954
>>>>No one denies that there is intelligent life outside of\n>>>> earth, so I want to hear about undeniable evidence of\n>>>> contact w/ this planet.\n\nYou do realise this is what is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle? It doens't work that way. \n\nI don't that life exists elsewhere in the universe, nor do I deny that God exists, nor do I deny that reincarnation occurs, nor do I deny the existence of fairies.\n\nThat doesn't mean that I claim to have evidence for any of those things. On the contrary I am firmly convinced that evidence for those things does not exist.\n\nBut absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So I won't deny those things exist until such time as I have eviddnce that they don't exist. I will instead keep an open mind while operating on the assumption that they dont; exist.\n\nThat's how science works. It doesn't just accept without evidence, nor does it deny without evidence.
362430
I think we would be very naive to believe we are the only life form in the universe.As vast and diverse as it is,I believe there has to be a reason for the formation of these planets to sustain life.That said,who knows when the life was present on these planets?And who knows what life forms are out there as we speak?Perhaps Mars and Pluto had life trillions of years ago but there are no remnants now for us to find.It's a fascinating topic.If you think about the possibilities,it's incredible.
206889
Unfortunately the logic in that link you posted is seriously flawed. It's completely illogical to talk of the universe as "being created", as this implies that the universe exists in time. It fails to realise that time is a part of the universe, and thus the universe has necessarily existed for all time whether or not time is infinite or finite. There is no point in time that the universe didn't exist. The phrase "before the big bang" has absolutely no meaning, any more than "north of the north pole" does. Forcing "common sense" onto the universe is doomed to failure whenever you stray from the common surroundings here on earth. So much of what science has shown about the universe goes very much against common sense or logic. I don't believe in a god myself. A god may or may not exist, but i'm afraid that article certainly isn't proof of it :)
408320
Very niave!  We have been shown that there are other living organisms on other planets that we have have snet out to study.  Just because they are not in human or (our) peoples form does not mean that the planet is not alive. We have also been shown to where some planets have shown previous life on them.
413808
A simplistic 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question of whether extra-terrestrial life exists is not likely to take us to any meaningful conclusion. Nor does a communal belief in the existence of extra-terrestrials lead us, as a race, anywhere closer to understanding the true nature of the universe and its myriad possibilities vis-a-vis the development of life within it. \n\nIt is also to be noted that believing in ET life is an entirely different thing from being successful in establishing their presence. Probabilistic calculations tell us that we would be fools to think of ourselves as the sole "living" beings in this universe. But, the observable universe, atleast as it is at the present moment and given the way we are looking at it, holds no clue of extraterrestrial life of any kind.\n(There's another but to this)But yes, belief in extraterrestrial life, backed by a mathematical understanding of the possibilities would definitely go towards refining our search methodologies. Thats if we are truly interested, and if there is imminent benefit in holding that interest. These are of course, entirely different topics.
855974
neither exist... show me some proof.
1159643
Seriously kid, you need to start reading some real material by impartial authors rather than simply accepting religious dogma.\n\n\n>>>how can my soul come from an amoebe? \n\nAs soon as you present any evidence that the soul even exists science will give that due consideration. Since we have n more evidence for the existence of the soul than for the existence of leprechauns it simply isn’t an issue.\n\nAs far as anyone can tell there is no such thing as a soul.\n\n>>>>u cant go from barely anythin to something far better \n\nWell of course you can you silly girl. Have you never grown salt crystals from warm slaty water? Are you suggesting that a crystal isn’t far better than a random scattering of suspended ions?\n\nIn the real world order comes from chaotic systems all the time.\n\n>>>>and even if the big bang theory or somethin like that was\n>>> true...\n\nWhat exactly does the BB have to do with evolution? You appear be ingnorant, as are most fundamentalists, that these are two totally unconnected fields of science.\n\n>>>> what started evreything?\n\nRandom fluctuations within the quantum foam. That is what started everything.\nBut once again I ask, what exactly does the BB have to do with evolution?\n\n>>>humans havent thought of any theory that hasnt had to have a cause... a greater being\n\nAnd what caused the “greater being” my child? \n\nA “greater being” has to have a cause as well, so what caused that cause that caused the greater being? It’s turtles all the way down. At some point you need to admit that either something came form nothing, or there was no previous point and time itself came into existence.\n\nVague handwaving at some “greater being” doesn’t resolve the basic problem, all it does is violate Ockham’s razor and makes your position logically untenable.
954272
love the question it makes one think\nyour points are all valid \ni would also go so far as to say their is as much proof for the existence of ghosts /dragons /vampires etc as their is for the existence of god so i agree these questions should be asked in the mythology section \nbe prepared for some answers from angry Christians\nwith reference to the answer before mine  i have seen proof of dinosaurs [evolution ]but i have never seen gods bones \nby that logic aliens exist as  you can not prove they don't