I agree - myself I'm really glad that there are numerous religions - the only problem I have is with
people are convinced that their religion is the only true religion - there are many ways to worship "God " or whomever you want to call it - Christ, Mohamed, Buddha etc. - the more the merrier I say!

Someone said that "the math says" that there must be other life forms out there because there are so many stars and therefore so many more planets. Someone else gave the Drake equation that's supposed to show how many inhabited planets there are.

But the math doesn't say that there must be other life forms out there. In fact, it says the opposite. Probability calculations have been done to find the probability of the simplest self-replicating life form coming together through the random jumbling of chemicals in some warm pond somewhere. Even for such a simple life form, the odds are staggeringly low, so low in fact that it is well and truly at zero, like 1 chance in 10 to the power of 5000.
To give an idea of the enormity of this number, they then show how this number is affected by the number of planets in the universe and the age of the universe. It goes something like this:

Instead of using the number of likely suitable planets in our calculation, lets bias the figures in favour of life evolving anywhere, by assuming that all the atoms in the universe (estimated at 1e80, that's a 1 followed by 80 zeroes) are actually sets of atoms, with each set having sufficient amounts of each type of atom to make a living organism. Then, let's assume the atoms in each set jumble around and make a trillion "tries" per second to come up with the correct combination that would result in a simple cell. Finally, let's assume these trials have been taking place for 20 billion years, which is a little longer than the alleged age of the universe. So you get 1e80 times 1e12 times 2e9 times 365 times 24 times 60 times 60, which comes to (approximately) 6.3072e108. (a 6 followed by 108 zeroes)
Now divide that by the initial probability of 1e5000 and you get 1.6e4891 or roughly a 1 followed by 4891 zeroes. The probability of success is thus 1 over this figure, or 0.00000000000000...(4890 zeroes go here)...00000000016
As you can see, even when you bias the assumptions in favour of life spontaneously arising, the odds are still basically zero, impossible. Anything below 1e-50 is taken to be the same as zero. So it doesn't matter how many planets there are. Life can't just arise from non-living chemicals, it would have had to be created for it to exist anywhere.

Now, the bible might not explicitly tell us about life on other planets, but it does tell us that Jesus came to this planet to die once for all of Adam's kin (Jesus is our kinsman-redeemer), and it also tells us that when God finally puts an end to all sin and sinners that the heavens will burn with fire. So beings on other planets, if they exist at all, would be destroyed by this refining of the heavens and the Earth by fire, and would have no hope of salvation because they are not blood-related to Adam. God would not be unjust like this, so this would suggest that there cannot be other planets with lifeforms on them. We may think that's a huge waste of space, but space is only big to us, but to God it isn't big at all. After all, He is omnipresent, so that at the same time that He is present with you in your room, He is also present at the farthest reaches of the universe He created.

There's also another problem with aliens existing and visiting Earth: Interstellar travel is simply not feasible.
The nearest star is 4.5 lightyears away from us. It takes light, travelling at 3e8 meters per second, 4.5 years to get there.
If we could reach even 1/10th the speed of light, it would take us at least 45 years to get there, so a young astronaut at 25 years of age, would reach the nearest star at 70 years of age, hardly a good age to be clambering around on foreign worlds.
And that's even IF we could reach 1/10th the speed of light. It takes an enormous amount of energy to accelerate to that speed, and the same amount of energy to slow down again at the other end. If you want a return trip, you'll need two lots of the same amount of energy again to come back. A space ship suitable for travelling such long distance would be huge and heavy, and to move such a huge mass would take so much energy that it would be impossible for the ship to carry that much energy with it. Also, it would be unrealistic to expect a ship to remain functional for 50+ years journeying through space and subjected to cosmic radiation. Things wear out, materials break down or rust. The people inside the ship would also be subject to cosmic radiation over extended periods of time, so would likely die of cancers before reaching the destination.

If you try to shorten the journey by travelling faster, you just massively increase the fuel problem to get up to such speeds, and you come up against yet another problem: Space isn't empty. In every cubic kilometer of space there are thousands of tiny dust particles. Hitting one of these at even 1/10th the speed of light would impart so much energy to the hull of the ship, it would be like detonating the world's most powerful nuclear weapon right up against the hull of the ship, and the ship would be destroyed. One of the space shuttles got hit by a tiny paint speck, travelling at an estimated 17,000mph and that tiny speck caused significant damage to the window of the space shuttle. Imagine what a pea-sized pebble at 500,000mph would do, or how about a grain of sand at 50,000,000mph?
In sci-fi movies they have "deflector shields" but this would just add to the energy problem: A huge amount of energy would be required to rapidly move all particles out of the path of the ship as it approaches at 1/10th the speed of light.
And what about larger particles, like car-sized rocks and asteroids? To change course to weave around them would be disastrous for the crew on-board as the g-forces would mush them up against the inside walls of the space ship. And it would take a lot of energy to change course too.

Inter-stellar space travel is just not feasible.

So how are these aliens getting here? Are they really inter-stellar travellers?
A movie is coming out soon (or may have already come out in your region) that exposes what this UFO/alien phenomenon is all about. It tells you what secular researchers have discovered about this phenomenon, it interviews abductees and researchers and scientists, and reveals some startling details.
Go check it out at a cinema near you:
http://www.alienintrusion.com

That's only because as a species, we are barely 1 million years old... What if a species was a billion years old?...

Firstly, I take issue with our species being barely 1 million years old. We are actually barely 6000 years old.

Secondly, even if there was a species a billion years old... so what? The laws of nature cannot be broken, no matter how much time you spend thinking about it.
Those "solutions" in movies are science fiction and are not feasible because of the energy requirements alone, not to mention other difficulties they present.

well, look at it this way: what have humans learned/accomplished in the last 500 years? What will we learn in the next million? What could they hacef learned in a billion... Lots of information in the universe, we haven't tapped into any of it...

Ummm, the human 'species' is about 2 million years old. Our current civilization is only, at the most, 6 - 10 thousand years old. Our current technology is just over 100 years old.
The whole alien phenomenon is roughly 60 - 70 years old, starting about the same time science fiction started to become readily available at magazine stands.

The first word in UFO is Unidentified.
It is something flying but it is unidentified.
When it is assumed it is an alien craft of some sort it is no longer unidentified.
If you see alien craft you are not seeing UFOs, you are seeing alien craft. You have identified it as an alien craft.
However, unless you already know what an alien craft looks like you can't be sure. Identifying a flying object without a knowledge base as a foundation is a delusion. Once the mind is set deeply into a delusion it is very hard to find the reality. The delusion creates supporting delusions to reinforce itself.

Lets look at a single aspect of the UFO sighting experience.

Lights in the sky late at night.

At night, the Sun is on the other side of the planet. Its distance causes a measurable degree of arc to the light that passes by the planet. The planet is wide enough at that distance that the light cannot reflect off anything relatively close to its surface. Even the Moon has periods when it falls in Earth's shadow.

You have an alien species that has mastered space travel to cross the vast distances to get here. This implies they have a certain degree of technological understanding that we humans, as yet, cannot fathom.
We primitive humans do have stealth technology. We navigate the oceans without light in submarines at our level of technology.
Why then would a technologically advanced species need lights on their crafts. Why would they need external lights at all?

Lets figure these aliens have advanced sensors. They might come in handy for detecting objects in their path at high speed while getting here. These advanced sensors might easily be 'tuned' to detect and possible range of spectrum at great distances.
They might be able to detect micro-ranged objects from high orbit or snap a sensor sweep while passing a planet.

Yet, they come to the surface and abduct people to experiment on?

So, these highly advanced beings, that have the technology to get here, go stupid when they get here and revert back to primitive technology while here?

Oh and they also come here to mutilate cattle and draw designs in our fields. Because well, if you are going to travel trillions of miles to a small insignificant planet you might as well have some fun when you get there.

with as many things out there or that we believe are out there ..they all

have the same mindset to not be seen or heard from..kind of suspicious don't

you think..

kind of like the flying spaghetti monster or the tooth fairy or ... you know ...

I think he's a creationist... He won't know any better...

Yeah, there's a lot of crap on his cracker and he drinks a different kool-aid.
But, we all have our own way of looking at things and if he is content with his version, so be it.
Doesn't hurt me in the slightest way.

I can say the same about you. Your beliefs as stated in your post are nonsense as far as I'm concerned. You assume that long distance interstellar travel is possible, but it simply is not. Do you understand the various reasons why it is not possible? Can you list them all?

You also make this automatic assumption that aliens are always way way way more advanced than mankind, technologically. So, could they never be slightly more advanced than us, or at the same level as us?

Those "lights" in the sky could be due to a number of reasons:
(1) It's sunlight reflecting off a craft.
(2) It's part of their propulsion system that (unavoidably) generates light as a by-product of thrust.
(3) For whatever their reason... they want to be seen.

This last reason seems quite plausible and fits in with what some UFO researchers have concluded, which is that the so-called aliens' purpose here at the moment is to condition mankind, to get us to believe in their existence as inter-stellar travellers. (When in reality they are inter-dimensional travellers with a deceptive purpose.)


No, you don't know that, you're assuming that. You're assuming a premise, then building a whole case with conclusions on that unproven assumption. And the assumption is unreasonable in light of scientific knowledge which rules out the feasibility of interstellar travel.


If you're gonna conduct a thought experiment, can you at least switch your own thinking cap on? Here are some possible reasons:
(1) To be seen.
(2) To illuminate something (especially when/if the craft is landed).
(3) To signal.
(4) To comply with air-travel regulations around their home planet.


Instead of "figure", the correct word here would be "assume".


They might, they might, they might...

And then you build this supposed implausibility on these three "mights".
Because, you know, all "advanced" alien life forms build sophisticated medical diagnostics machines into their craft to analyse all the minutiae of a planet's biological species while safely orbiting at 17,000 mph 250 miles above the planet's surface!
And you arrive at this conclusion because you didn't bother to think that there may be other reasons or motives of why they might abduct people, regardless of what technology they may or may not have.
I guess your friends must be astounded when you visit them face-to-face, even though you have access to technology that allows you to interact with them remotely, so why didn't you use it? Well maybe there were reasons that over ride the use of technology, such as:
(1) Your technology gadgets were unavailable for some reason.
(2) You needed face-to-face interaction to achieve something you could not do via remote technology.
(3) You simply prefer face-to-face interactions at times.


I think you're being very restricted in your reasoning. Maybe you should go see the movie, and research related material, to understand more about what these visitors are up to and what their motives might be.

And no, mankind is not 2 million years old. If you think it is, where's the evidence for this?
Lots of scientific evidence points to a young Earth, young universe (relative to our frame of reference), and a young biosphere hugely affected by the laws of thermodynamics which causes it all to run down towards decrepitude.

when you say "young earth", how young are you thinking?

The fact is, I have NEVER seen an alien.
The fact is, I have never seen unidentified flying objects that I thought were aliens.

I understand the vast distances that are invovled with space travel.
I understand that humans do not have the technology to make interstellar flights.

I do understand the density if the Universe.
I do understand that life is common in the Universe.
I do understand the implications of the Drake Equation.
I do understand that our level of technology may be common.
I do understand that it would take significantly higher levels of technology to cross those vast distances.

I believe there can be species that have developed higher levels of technology, that might have a means unknown to humans to reach destinations at such vast distances.

Any description of aliens is entirely speculative.
Because, we have no reality of facts on the subject.
Therefore, might, assume and guess are the only things we can do.
We have no evidence to make an exact measurement.

There are scientific constants that are measurable with repeatable results. Light travels at a certain speed, isotopes decay at a certain rate. Through observation and measurement we arrive at a working model of facts that fit reality.

If the Earth and the Unverse were merely 6,000 years old, there would be an abundance of facts supporting that.

Its funny how I have no problem letting others believe what they want, despite the evidence to the contrary but others can't seem to allow me to have scientific knowldege.

Aliens are going to be alien.
There is no way humans are going to know their motives without studying them. Then, even after a study, we will assign our values to their traits.

One last note, you can take your points of argument and set them against any religion or cult and arrive at the same conclusions.

Reality is measurable and yeilds the same results no matter who tests it. The technology that allows us to communicate is based on reality, not belief. The composition of a rock is reality, not belief. The composition and characteristics of light is reality, not belief. Nanotechnology is reality, not belief. Quantum states are reality, not belief.

Reality is reality because there is evidence that can be measured and tested.

Where is the evidence of aliens? A few blurry photographs? Testimony from other people.
People lie, misinterpet and fantasize. Evidence and measurement do not. A 1 inch square may or may not be 1 inch square. It may be 1.00006 on one side and 1.00007 on the other. People will tell you it is 1 inch square but evidence and measurement will define it as not. Just because people believe it is 1 inch square, doesn't make it so.

Lol Tom...this guy seems pissed off the earth isn't 6000 years old...

That was a major factor in my decision to stop being religious.
I read an article once where the 6000 believers wrote that dinosaurs and man existed in the same time frame, in unison on this planet.
It also digressed into a few long paragraphs of how dragons existed.

It was at that time in my life that I started looking into the scientific processes that explain reality.
Of the two, the science just made more sense.

While I have abandoned religion for quite a few reasons I still believe there is a supreme entity a GOD of everything for lack of a better description.

The way I see it, the Universe (note that I capitalize Universe) is the Alpha and the Omega (first and last). Everything that exists is part of the Universe.
The fact that I exist within the Universe makes me part of the Universe, not something separate. Every thought, feeling, dream and action I have is the Universe doing so. In this sense, the Universe is a thinking, feeling, dreaming, acting entity.
Being only part of the Universe does not mean I am the Universe but the Universe is me. It is you, them and everything else in existence. Any aliens that exist are also part of the Universe.

The scope of the Universe is relative to those that contemplate it. I am 57 years old because I am on Earth and it revolves around the Sun at a given speed. The Sun is about 20 years old because it revolves around the galaxy at a given rate of speed. Its all relative.

The Universe may be only a moment old. From our perspective, based on the given speed of our star, we calculate it at 14 billion years or so.
But if you relate, size to relativity, the expanding Universe may have only recently begun its existence.
I don't subscribe to the Big Bang Hypothesis. If you were to consider the Universe as an explosion, we are still within the explosion. Think of a fire cracker in slow motion. The explosion initiates, has duration and dissipates.

The way I see the Universe is more like a percolation. But, if you look at a percolation in slow motion there is an initiation, a duration and a dissolution. As I see it, we exist within the duration of a specific local of percolation.
Its our relative view that makes it seem longer. The same way an ant sees a mile.

Religion specifically dates the Earth and all existence at 6,000 years because it views the world from mankind's ability to reason.
It attempts to separate man from the animal.

Given that we currently have no proof of anything existing before man started reasoning, an alien civilization must be only 6,000 years old, Therefore any alien visitation must have taken less than 6,000 years to get here. Since mankind has reached its current level of technology within 6,000 years, all aliens must have technology levels similar to man.

From my point of view, even alien civilizations that lasted hundreds of millions of years are instantaneous fragments in time at the relativity of the Universe.

We think we are the only intelligence the Universe has. But by relativity, we may only be part of the current manifestation in a relatively long Universal intelligence.

This begs the question of was the Universe initially aware or did it become aware as it evolved to this point.
The way I see it, the Universe was a reaction of physical properties and mutation to reason was an inevitable outcome that occurred within it at many different locations to various degrees.
Of which, man on this planet, in this star system, in this galaxy is but one rendition.

All religions are just fear based tactics to control the masses...

Yeah, Its a Caveman Bob story

LOL! You've never seen an alien, and yet you say life is common in the universe! So, how many alien civilisations or colonies have we discovered to uphold this notion that life is common in the universe? The answer is zero! SETI has come up with zilch after years of searching. You don't know whether life is common in the universe. That's a belief that some people have, yet you treat it as fact.


Other people, however, have had experiences with crafts and/or beings that they thought, or were led to believe, were from another planet.


I'm not sure that you do. In another comment somewhere I showed how statistical probability calculations show that life evolving anywhere from non-living chemicals has a probability so stupendously low that it is regarded as zero, and not even the Drake Equation can move that probability figure far enough away from zero to get anywhere near the tiniest plausibility figure, so it remains zero.


Besides technology, there are other barriers to travelling those vast distances. Travel time is one of them, requiring travel time well beyond the life time of the travellers. Cosmic radiation is another, slowly destroying the genome of the travellers, as well as slowly destroying the materials that the ship is made of. Given enough time, oxygen and water and other supplies will eventually leach out of storage tanks. Stored foods will eventually spoil. If a hydroponic food system is operated on board, its pumps and hoses and other fittings will eventually fail. And so on and so forth...



At least you acknowledge it as a belief, but it is not rooted in science. Scientists understand enough of the cosmos to know of the energy requirements for hyper-fast space travel, and the problems of avoiding collisions with even tiny dust particles at those speeds.


And yet you speak about these aliens being common around the universe, and definitely having superior technology. In one breath you say "why would they need lights on their craft, and why would they need to abduct humans when they can analyse them remotely with the technology on their craft" and in the next breath you say those same aliens with their amazing technology would have trouble detecting Earth's radio signals, or remotely analysing Earth for it's size, orbit, and mineral resources.



You are behind the times a bit. Analysis of light speed measurements over the years has shown that the speed of light has changed. Similarly, there is evidence that suggests radioactive decay has not always proceeded at the same pace and that certain factors influence the rate of decay.


And there is! You just won't hear it from your friendly neighbourhood evolutionist scientist. From creationist scientists I have learned that there are numerous "clocks" in nature which show the universe cannot be billions of years old, and that the Earth is much less than a million years old.


Actually, you come across as one who sneers at someone like me for having my beliefs in God and a young universe, and that you alone have a solid grasp on true science. But as I have already shown with some examples in this post, you are a bit behind in your knowledge of science. Also, you assert that aliens exist, despite the fact that you have never seen one. And you make other assertions about aliens without the slightest evidence to back up those assertions. So you are not talking from a science (knowledge) position, but from a faith (belief) position. My faith position, at least, is rooted in real substantiated history, and supported by scientific observation.



Many of these scientific "realities" are interpretations of the data. The humans making these interpretations do so within a framework of their beliefs and presuppositions, which affects how they will interpret the data. These humans are fallible and can be wrong. Science has had to scrap previously established "facts" when new evidence and new interpretations showed them to be wrong. So it's important to note the distinction between the reality that is, and the reality as we believe it is.


Indeed they do. Evolutionists, for instance, have been caught numerous times in hoaxes and falsifying of data to "prove" evolution. Yet you have unshakeable trust in these "scientists".


The results must still be interpreted, so it's not quite as objective as you think it is.
Evolutionists and creationists, for instance, have the same data and the same measurements, yet come up with completely different explanations for them. That is due to their different paradigms or starting suppositions. We are all biased in one way or another. The question is which bias is the best bias to be biased with.

Dinosaurs and man did exist in the same time frame! And there is evidence for this:
(1) Read the book "After the flood", which is mainly about the geneaology of the European people traced back to one of the sons of Noah, but also includes many historical reports the researcher found where people encountered dragons (as they were known at the time). One such report even involved the Roman army who were laying siege to a city and were then themselves besieged by a dragon.

(2) Dragon/dinosaur rock paintings have been found in various places around the world.

(3) A dinosaur like a stegosaur or something is shown carved into an ancient temple in Laos or somewhere around there.

(4) The Icca stones depict numerous dinosaurs.

(5) People have reported seeing dinosaurs in the Congo. The locals were shown drawings of various living and extinct animals and pointed to a particular dinosaur as the one they see occasionally in their region. It is known to them as Mokele Mbembe.

(6) Pterodactyl-like creatures have been reported in Kenya.

(7) Fresh (unfossilised) dinosaur blood and blood vessels and other tissues have been found in partly-fossilised dinosaur bones. These features would degrade and fall apart well before 65 million years is up, so these dinosaurs cannot have become extinct 65 million years ago.

(8) There are two depictions of dinosaurs in the bible. One called the Behemoth, and the other the Leviathan. They're in the bible's book of Job, around chapter 41. These descriptions show that man and dinosaur co-existed.

There's probably more evidence but I'm not aware of it all.

As for the rest of your post, you were seriously venturing into cuckoo land with those fanciful fantasies. I'm glad my belief in God the Creator is rational, sensible, and backed by science.