life on other planets

Definitely. Think about it. When you look up at the night sky you see billions of stars. Go out to Nebraska and you see even more. More than half of those stars half a system of planets of their own. The Wilky Way Galaxy holds roughly 400 billion stars. Now imagine more than half of those with a system of planets. So that's about what? Maybe at least 5 planets each? So there's at least 1 trillion planets in just the Milky Way Galaxy alone. How illogical is it to assume not one out of these trillion planets (of just the Milky Way let me remind you) holds even a bit of life on it? Remember life doesn't have to be weird creatures or humanoids, but can be trees, bacteria, worms, anything. It's just illogical to think only one planet in the entire universe (which we still are unaware of the size) has living organisms on it. Anyone who really believes that needs to pull their head out of his ass and wake up.

Pnoom! wrote: As do, arguably, dolphins, among other examples.

Thanks for all the fish.

Fight Club wrote: Definitely. Think about it. When you look up at the night sky you see billions of stars. Go out to Nebraska and you see even more. More than half of those stars half a system of planets of their own. The Wilky Way Galaxy holds roughly 400 billion stars. Now imagine more than half of those with a system of planets. So that's about what? Maybe at least 5 planets each? So there's at least 1 trillion planets in just the Milky Way Galaxy alone. How illogical is it to assume not one out of these trillion planets (of just the Milky Way let me remind you) holds even a bit of life on it? Strictly speaking it is neither illogical or logical to make that assumption; in fact, assumptions are alogical whereas their relation to other assumptions is logical (but even then the situation is not so rigid, as such evaluations are dependent on the interpretative model employed).  Now is such an assumption plausible?  I suppose it is.  Yet I still don't find the total argument convincing. Remember life doesn't have to be weird creatures or humanoids, but can be trees, bacteria, worms, anything. It's just illogical to think only one planet in the entire universe (which we still are unaware of the size) has living organisms on it. Again: why is this assertion "illogical"?  Does it contradict any known evidence or well-established theory?  Not to my knowledge.  Incidentally, the "logical" (i.e., rational) position is that of disbelief:  believe P when there's evidence for P. Anyone who really believes that needs to pull their head out of his ass and wake up. Well, now you've convinced me.

dolphins will eventually realize "hey, what if i get out of the water and crawl around?" and the cycle repeats............ cmon! they figured out how to masturbate by jumping out of the water, and as they hit the water coming back down, well, you know the rest. (this is not meant to be offensive, dirty, or anything else. I'm being serious and mature about it. I brought this up to explain my point that dolphins are probably the most intelligent creatures on this planet and they have similar thought processes as us. I'm sorry if i can't actually post this, but if I get in trouble for what i said, that'd be sad.)

Edited by darkshade - July 14 2008 at 22:51

maybe the creator(s) meant for life on other planets to never meet each other, thus why we're so far away from the nearest star.

this came up in a discussion i had about God or whatever, and how it's possible there's 2, but no more. and how 1 being created the 2. but that could turn this into SERIOUS arguments...