i am under the impression that carbon along with other forms of matter such as silicon and gold, are "base elements". which is partly why life forms are based on carbon as far as we know. but considering the other base elements, would it be so great a leap so say that a creature could not be based on silicon? i am interested to know if any of that was true. anyway, as you said, virtually all stars give off deadly radiation, including our own(it still does btw). But the great part about planets is that they can form massive magnetic fields that act to deflect harmful radiation. earth does this and so does mars(to a far lesser extent). as for the winds and rains arguement, its true that they could take trillions of years to form all the proteins. assuming they try it only once at a time. but even on a small world, there are billions, if not trillions, of instances when the combination could take place in a given minute.(im not quite sure i convayed the concept quite right with that so let me know if your not on the same page) in addition, impacts from other worlds could potetially send the organic compounds to the potential planetary parent. i could also bring up the arguement about the true definition of a planet, & that it could be possible for life to develop on something other than a planet (ive heard that there is atleast 1 mini-planet with a sustainable atmosphere but im unsure of this) but id rather not so ill let it go.

Yeah, it's pretty pointless. I just like to stick around and stir things up .

They are all elements, yes. The standard periodic table in most chemistry books have 102 of them, although there are some heavier ones that we know of.

Carbon is common in life mostly because of how it interacts with itself and Hydrogen and can form interesting shapes that are useful to biological organisms.

Silicon, Geranium, tin, and lead have similar electron shell configurations, but very likely won't work as well. Tin and lead are metals, so they won't work at all. Silicon and Geranium are closer to Carbon, being metalloids. But they still have some metallic properties that may make them poor candidates for organic molecules.

Between its electron configuration and being the only true non-metal in its column in the periodic table, Carbon essentially sits at a "sweet spot" on the periodic table that makes it ideal for organisms. There literally is no element more ideal for this than Carbon.

Well, all kinds of chemical reactions happen all the time between even non-organic molecules. But you need a lot more than that to create life. Life requires that molecules are arranged in specific ways inside the protective cell walls.

I could shake up parts and pieces in a bowl, but only by putting them together purposefully and in very specific arrangements will I be able to make a watch with them. Even with billions of bowls, I do not think they will ever form a watch spontaneously.

I like this. I am going to make a similar case.

Your in a room of unknown size and dimensions. your vision is limited to 1 milameter infront of your eyes. you have no sense of touch, smell, or taste. you can only hear sounds of specific frequencies and wavelenghts. even then you can only hear things that are very loud and very close to you. you position in the room is also unknown.

you search this room for other entities for 30 seconds. while stumbling around with no direction planning, or even knowledge of what your doing or what your looking for, you find nothing. based on your 30 seconds of blundering, you conclude that nothing else exists in this room.

thats the argument you just made. because humans have been looking for possibilities of life in an incrediably clumsy and crude way for what, 30-40 years at best, and since we haven't found anything that lack of evidence means that there is nothing to be found?

here is one more similar case. i am sitting at my computer desk typing this reply for 5 minutes, while typing i am also thinking about how i would almost rather be dead than thinking about this. since i have spent 5 minutes thinking about my on death (Note. a reletivly crude and ineffective way to kill oneself.) and have still not died, i can conclude that i will never infact die.

Although it is not well understood, there is a theory that organic compounds somehow "self-organise" into existance. May not be totally random after all.

Ah, but the others are saying that stuff must exist in the room because you're inside a football stadium. Never mind if there is really anything in the stadium or not, something must exist because it's such a huge room!

CobraA1 and PraetorFenix, are you completly ignorant!?

Praetor,

1. You said that we can eliminate 99% of stars because of deadly radiation. How do you know these aliens arent resistent to radiation like cockroaches.

2.The habbitable planet may not be terran, this speicies of life may not need a planet like earth.

3. There are SO many stars that even your rediculous claim that "the VAST majority of stars dont have planets" still leaves billions, if not trillions of stars

4. Your blind man rubix cube anology is pointless. What if he got lucky and and did it in even 1 million years.

CobraA1, your so wrong, so many times I dont know where to start with you. I guess Ill just go to your first post and keep going...

1. You said "The opponents claim the opposite it true (that the chances are closer to zero than one can comprehend)." For every equation or theory that says its impossible there is another that says there is definatly alien life

2. You said we have no statistics. We have the statistics that there are an uncountable amount of stars, 320 planets discovered to date some of which are in the habitable zone, and a vast, ever expanding universe, you do the math.

3. You said if it were so probable we would have come in contact with them. Have you seen the size of our universe?

4. You say we know nothing about the probability of life. It doesnt matter, the sheer scale of the universe is so large that even if life is an accident it had to have hapened more than once. Plus that makes your equasion mean nothing if we dont know the probibillity.

5. You said if we havnt dicovered life than its not existant. What about the new things we discover every day? You cant tell me we discovered it the day it apeared, it had to be there before. For example, scientists estimate that there are millions of undiscovered spiecies in the Amazon rainforest, an area smaller than an atom when compared to the universe.

anyway Im only half way through but Im tired and want to go to bed so Ill pick this up In the morning...

Re: OP

As per, Dawkins, it's propable that there is life out there.  Maybe not intelligent.

I think people cling to hope (religion) regardless and would continue to do so even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

A finding of life elsewhere would probably increase nationalism.  If it were really cool it could be like Indepence Day.  We're not that lucky though, I think.

Thing is, anything can be assumed by aliens. Whether they exist or not, we can assume and infer anything we like. Our current models of physics, psychology, evolution, biology, etc... only attempt to explain our human existence and the existence of life on Earth. Not the existence of life in the universe.

Because we can assume anything about an alien, we can assume that may maybe the "survival of the fittest" takes on a new meaning in some alien world. We can assume quite easily, that a particular alien species is not capable of processing what peace or war really means as they have survived in a completely different environment. Perhaps a certain species operates with telepathy, and acts as a hive mind. Every individual of that species is the same, and indivudal thought is not possible, thus they are not capable of civil war, a concept that an alien would not understand of humans. Just as humans would not understand a hive mind mentality. Humans act as individuals, and various views on various things... we could not fathom a true communist style state of hive minds, because we are too chaotic and individualistic to process it. THis is just an example.

I agree that more than likely, Darwin's "survival of the fittest" will still be the same concept no matter where we look at in the universe, but you still can't throw away the thought that maybe a particular alien species is simply not able to understand our human concepts of a particular ideaology, and vice versa. I am 100 percent sure, that their will be ideaologies and concepts SIMILAR to war and peace, that we are not capable of understanding, because we as humans have not been submitted to surviving under that particular concept, whatever that concept may be. As my example above states.

I just want to add that just because we haven't detected any alien signals, doesn't mean there aren't any. We've only been scanning for less than what 50~ years, which is nothing compared to the millions of years such a signal might take to reach our planet. It is likely that if there was a signal, we have either missed it, or it won't get here for a long time.

We can't assume faster than light travel is even possible. Maybe the alien civilizations are bound to sub-light travel like us, which means we will probably never meet another space faring species.

On top of that, maybe they simply can't detect our signals... whether because they either don't use it, is too archaic, too advanced, or they operate on a whole different signal band, hell they may not even need signals at all...

True. Others have said that, and thats a valid point.

lets add this into my room. You don't know how you got there in the first place. And also, the room is "massive" even though you don't no exactly how big

While just assuming that since the room is so large that something else must be there isn't the most logical aproach to that situation. In its defense however, there really isn't a better aproach to take.

And that compared to the alternative, i haven't found any one yet so therefore no one exists, the possibility of others is more resonable.

And it was really only that one statement that you made that ticked me off. the rest of what you said is basicaly just as valid as what (Almost) every one has said.

That said, i personaly believe that if there isn't already, some form of higher lifewill eventualy come into being. Maybe there isn't any now, but a 100 trillion years from now, when every single star and planet in existance has died and been replaced with new ones, the universe will get to try again. Assuming the universe never dies, it has infinate time and a massive area to work with. Even if the odds are 1 in 10^99, if you have unlimited tries eventualy you'll get it.

Going with that, i think there is a good chance that some form of higher life already exists, just far away, and we ill never come into contact with it. As much as it pains me to say this, i don't think we will ever leave our solar system, in a mass colonization effort, so when are sun goes, so do we. which is kinda sad if you think about it. eventualy all of our triumphs and failures, everything that we have, and will ever do, will ultimatly be errased. first we will die and then the sun will eat our planet, not even ruins will be left. the next race that comes along, even an ultra advanced one with some from of FTL travel will find nothing that shows we even existed in the first place.

What many Christians state, does not always hold true to the Bible - obviously, like in this case.

And I might mention that not everything revolves around our sun, either, as you just stated. Is that an example of comparative ignorance? The planets in this solar system revolve around our sun. But, the sun also revolves in and around our galaxy, and our galaxy revolves in and around our universe. And one might ask, is there yet (at least) another level to the revolvement?

I am a Christian (a very fundemental Christian, by the way). But even so, I see no reason to exclude the possibilty of life on other planets. It does not change my perspective in any way. It just means that, while the Bible is fully and completely true (within it's intended scope) - that does not mean that the Bible details and explains every truth that there is to be known. Maybe that is due to the fact that I actually read the Bible, and understand it for what it actually says. Because too many people don't actually read it; they only listen to others to learn what is written - and then spout off the drivel that has been spewed to them.

As to other life being discovered on other planets; hasn't evidence of microbes been found on Mars, or within rocks that have come from Mars? I seem to recall something of the sort in the past several years. Even so, those reports have not been without justifiable rebute. But that is as close as we have come to ET life, so far.

The Bible does mention 'alien' life forms, by the way. Creatures with many wings or being composed mainly of metals,  for example. The different levels of 'angels'. Are they different forms of Man in different states of developement, or are they beings from different planets corresponding to our own in this universe?

Who knows? Not me, that's for sure.

First of all i beleive there is intelligent life in the universe, theres too much out there for there not to be. Also i don't think any of us will be around if and when we do meet them, atleast hundreds of years unless they luck out and stumble across us. Any equations or formulas cannot be used at the minute to work out if there is life anywhere else, we simply don't know enough. The only place we have been succsessfully outside Earth is the moon, which isn't even a planet, and by succsessfully i mean sent people to. How do you know we weren't a fluke and somehow evolved quicker than we were supposed to and we are the most intelligent life in the universe (but unlikely i think). I think if aliens found us they would observe us, see how we live and then after seeing us constanly at war(i think but i'm not certain i remember seeing it somewhere that there has only been one year since world war 2 where there hasn't been a war somewhere in the world) always trying to kill eachother for so many different reasons, they would probably just destroy us to spare anyone else the trouble. But lastly i think that anyone who rules out faster than light travel now is being absurdly short sighted, just because we can't do it now doesn't mean we will never be able to. You go back two thousand years and show the average scientist/inventor any modern day transport method a plane, a car, even the train. They would look at you very confused, who knows what we'll be able to do in another two thousand years.

I've yet to discover intelligent life on Earth...

The question is, which equation is correct?

You can't determine that by counting how many equations there are.

This is not a "democracy of equations."

Pure speculation.

How can I do math if I no statistical samples to determine which fraction of planets have life?

YOU CANNOT PROVE THIS CLAIM.

I'm sick of this "sheer scale" argument.

Let's pretend the chances of getting life is 10^-50. How much life would you expect in the universe?

"Sheer scale" is not an argument. AND it assumes that life rose accidentally via naturalistic mechanisms. Which is also something we think is true, but haven't proven.