The Instigator
daboss
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
baggins
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Their are other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
baggins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,226 times Debate No: 8121
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (7)

 

daboss

Pro

I would like this to be an analytical debate.. thank you

Because i agree that their are other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe I offer the following case.

1) With the big bang theory this can still be true
The big bang theory could have very well happenened to many other galaxys and/or planets. althought we might be the smartest life form does not make us the only

2)With Christianity this can still be true
The christian bible only shows the happenings on earth and nowhere else. it states no where in the bible that their are no other lifeforms or that he only made "adam and eve" and then stopped their or that "adam and eve" were his first creations

3) There's no way to prove it
my opponent might state that their's no way to prove it, but their's no way to prove alot of things. but on the other hand their's not really a way to prove that it's NOT happening.
baggins

Con

Thanks a lot for starting this debate.

You have said :
"my opponent might state that their's no way to prove it, but their's no way to prove alot of things. but on the other hand their's not really a way to prove that it's NOT happening."

And you are completely correct. However - as the instigator and pro for this debate it is your responsibility to prove your case. An inability to do so means you fail to prove your case and lose.

You have offered no proof whatsoever. You have talked about 'big bang theory' taking place in other galaxys. Big Bang occurred once in the UNIVERSE. As per our current knowledge of science - there is only 1 universe.

You have argued that the Holy Bible (or what is important in my case - The Quran) does not deny the possibility. But these books does not confirm it either! The fact that God has not talked about his creation on other planets is an indication that there are no such life forms.
Debate Round No. 1
daboss

Pro

1) the proof of aliens
in this quote from alienvideos.net you can see that their are in fact aliens which proves that their are living creatures somewhere else in the universe.
"The most commonly reported alien, The Grey, typically stands no more than 3 to 4 feet in height, has long thin arms, large black eyes, and an enormous skull circumference. The large black eyes are speculated to be a type of artificial lens. Underneath, they would actually have a white color and pupil."

2)multiple universes
steven hawking proved that there were more than one universe. He showed that they connect very similar to a figure 8.. he described it as squeezing a balloon in the middle and the two circles were the universes.

3)the bible doesn't prove it
the bible doesn't prove that it isn't true but as my opponent stated that it doesn't confirm it either... that was my whole point stating that you can't use the holy bible or the big bang theory to back you up.
baggins

Con

1. Existence of aliens has never been established scientifically.
http://www.skepdic.com...

2. Multiverse is an unfalsifiable scientific hypothesis. It is Interesting to read - but can't be used as proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't want to win this debate just based on burden of proof. Let me show a few reason why life on other planets is unlikely.

1. For a planet to be hospitable to life, it has to be located in 'Goldilocks zone' - which is extremely narrow and rare.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. Even with right condition, the creation of life is extremely unlikely. Indeed scientists use 'anthropic principle' to justify our existence. This principle indicates that we are most likely unique!
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
daboss

Pro

I'd first off like to state every single one of his cards are from wikepedia... anyone can write anything on wikepedia.

1) aliens
alot of things have never been established scientifically.. but many people have spotted aliens and still the existence of only us living in the universe is very unlikely.

2)multiverse
it has been proven by steven hawking in a 2 hour long lecture showing it through a mathematical equation.

3)goldilocks zone
he states the goldilocks zone is extremely rare and narrow.. rare is an opinion. their is narrow for a worm and narrow for an elephant until he can give me a definition his point does not stand

4)unique
of course we're unique other lifeforms may be totallky different from us but the chances of any of the theorys of life coming to existence in other areas other than earth is highly likely.
baggins

Con

1. You want links from peer reviewed journals? Check out 'external links' section on wiki pages. Incidentally you have not posted a single link except mentioning alienvideos.

2. Aliens: Many people have imagined things. Many people have exaggerated. Many have mistaken something else. And most simply lie for cheap publicity. Till date - there is no established alien sighting. Of course aliens may exist. But till date there is no PROOF.

3. Multiverse : Did Hawking say that multiverse is a fact or even falsifiable scientific theory. Or was it just speculation. I am afraid - there may be a problem in your understanding.

4. Goldilocks Zone: Sure narrow and rare are opinion. But not mine - It is the opinion of large number of scientists.

5. Anthropic principle: Without understanding what anthropic principle is, you decided to pick on one word I used - 'unique'. My mistake. I rephrase: Anthropic principle indicates we earthlings are alone in the universe.
Debate Round No. 3
daboss

Pro

1)Wikepedia
anyone that knows anything about research would realize an analytical is WAY better than using wikepedia wikepedia is like writing something down in a notebook and trying to use it as pure evidence

2)Proof
their is proof. although their might not be 100% legitimate proof that will be able to be proven 100% of the time their still is proof

3)Multivers
Hawking showed through a mathematical equation that their are in fact more than one universe...
SPACE.COM-->>
Believe it or not, theorists have an answer. And the answer appears to be, Yes.

To understand why, you have to go back to the Big Bang, that mysterious, mother-of-all-explosions that most astronomers believe spawned our universe. One second, according to theory, there was nothingness. The next, our cosmos sprang into existence. Nature seems to have pulled off the feat of getting something -- in fact, everything -- for nothing

4)Goldilocks
although scientist may believe it is small.. no definition
baggins

Con

Anyone who knows anything about research knows that Wikipedia is the best point to start research on any topic. Naturally there is a problem if someone's research stops at Wikipedia.

---

In this debate it was the task of the instigator to prove that there is extra-terrestrial life. He has singularly failed to produce any proof. There was a passing mention of aliens and big bang. Later he tried to pass of a scientific hypothesis as a fact without producing a single source.

Rather, I presented reasons why life on other planets is unlikely. Neither of my objections, about rarity of Goldilock zone or Anthropic principle has been answered at all. The only answer presented has been an in toto rejection of Wikipedia.

The result should be clear. VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aristotle1 4 years ago
Aristotle1
As noted in one of the comments it is suggested that a planet to be inhabitable it needs to be in the goldilocks zone and this is correct however stating that this is unlikely is absurd. While it mat not be commonplace a place such as out universe which is infinite in its size would then suggest an infinite amount of inhabitable planets. Lets say for every million planets one has microbial life; the universe is infinite, leaving infinite life to flourish throughout the stars
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
What does the Multiverse have to do with the existence of extraterrestrials? They can exist with or without a Multiverse. And Pro, why do you keep using the Bible to prove your points in debates? The Bible proves nothing. If the Bible was considered empirical evidence, we would believe that dinosaurs boarded Noah's ark a few thousand years ago.
Posted by baggins 7 years ago
baggins
While using Wikipedia for checking out sensitive issues - one should try to check the discussion page. That gives lots of insight on the issue involved.

For technical topics wikipedia is close to perfect - provided it is used as a starting point. The external links section is specially important. Of coarse - it cannot replace peer reviewed journals.
Posted by baggins 7 years ago
baggins
@ RoyLatham

A discussion on Drake equation would have indeed made the debate much more interesting. However the parameters assigned in Drake equation are wildly over-optimistic. A 100 billion stars in milky way - and 100 billion galaxies in all gives ~10^22 stars. I think the probability of formation of unicellular life - given the perfect conditions, would alone be much lower than this. People involved in formulation of Drake equation were astronomers - and consequently gave it a probability of 1!
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
panda, Using Wikipedia is like listening to your Uncle Charlie. There are true things there, but the reader must be aware that some are not. The typical problem is lopsided presentation of evidence, wherein the writer cites umpteen references that favor his position on the subject, but omits contrary references. In most cases I suspect the writers don't know what the contrary references are. I think Wikipedia is great for non-controversial topics (which is probably 99% of the entries), but they often reflect bias on politically sensitive issues.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Panda, Wikipedia is a valuable resource. However, it simply does not meet the test of peer-reviewed rigor. I love Wikipedia, and use it for most things that aren't controversial; things that educated minds aren't currently disagreeing on. But when you are trying to ride the crest of a wave of information in a particular field, you need information from sources that are as reputable as possible.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Bah, pro should have argued the existence of bacteria on Mars. Nevertheless, I despise those who discredit wikipedia because "anyone can write on it". Yet, it uses many sources, and is basically a go-between for getting information.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro failed to meet the burden of proof. The case could have been argued as a probability using the Drake Equation http://en.wikipedia.org... The equation is usually applied to the 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, but the probabilities would be much higher considering all the 100 billion galaxies in the universe. I think it would suffice to show the probability is nearly one.

Pro had poor spelling and grammar.
Posted by animea 7 years ago
animea
Pro never follows through on his burden of proof. The only link was too a very suspicious website. So both the debate and sources go con.
Posted by daboss 7 years ago
daboss
yea i do that alot...

i'm 15
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Slurve 7 years ago
Slurve
dabossbagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by prov1s 7 years ago
prov1s
dabossbagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
dabossbagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
dabossbagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
dabossbagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by daboss 7 years ago
daboss
dabossbagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by animea 7 years ago
animea
dabossbagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07