the US mars rover Spirit has spoted an UFO flying through the martion skys...
I wonder if I should go down to my local x-com recrutiment office and avoid the rush.
-Blade FireLight
Insert Coin for Victory.
0
UFO seen on Mars
Started By BladeFireLight, Mar 18 2004 10:41 PM
44 replies to this topic
#1
BladeFireLight
-
- Members
-
- 665 posts
Xcomutil Developer
- Gender:Male
- Location:Joplin, Missouri, USA
Posted 18 March 2004 - 10:41 PM
UFO on Mars
the US mars rover Spirit has spoted an UFO flying through the martion skys...
I wonder if I should go down to my local x-com recrutiment office and avoid the rush.
-Blade FireLight
the US mars rover Spirit has spoted an UFO flying through the martion skys...
I wonder if I should go down to my local x-com recrutiment office and avoid the rush.
-Blade FireLight
QUOTE
Combat is very simple, there is a first place and second place, second place is laying face down in the mud, sometimes, so is first place.
#2
Bomb Bloke
-
- Admin
-
- 4,625 posts
The Smily Admin
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tasmania (AU)
Posted 18 March 2004 - 11:44 PM
Shoulda joined earlier. Now I get to be the Commander. 
BB's X-Com Projects Page - X-Com Games At GamersGate
You're just jealous 'cause the voices only talk to me :P
We love Tammy! :)
You're just jealous 'cause the voices only talk to me :P
We love Tammy! :)
#3
EclipseDog
-
- Members
-
- 98 posts
Wagging the Dog
Posted 19 March 2004 - 12:35 AM
Huh... surprising... you'd think having a relative in one of the American secret agencies would lead to hearing of such things first before the general public if true.
Optimal words being if true though. Somehow I doubt the report, but who knows...
I do know, however, that I personally doubt there is any sentient space-travel-capable life forms out there. I saw a documentary put out by the BBC a few years back that was on our own solar system and how it compares to others out there. If that show was to be believed the odds of life forms even as advanced as we are is infitestimally unlikely.
According to the show, humanity owes its existance to an abundance of factors that all had to come true just to enable us to be.
*) First we have the fortuitous orbit that is in the form of a circle rather than a cylindrical, egg-shaped orbit that most planets take on.
*) Second we are just far enough away that advanced life is sustainable but not so far as to be unable to survive.
*) Third we have a humongous planet with a high gravitational well near enough to our home that it removes a lot of the space debris from impacting and setting back life for millenia and perhaps even ending it entirely.
*) Fourth we have the moon which does the same job so well that it proudly bares its battle scars to the world it bodyguards at great risk to life and limb as they say.
*) Fifth we have the existance of both oxygen and water which is very rare for both to be found on the same planet strange though that rarity is to my mind.
*) Sixth we have the renewing, life-alterring properties from the elements of fire and electricity, neither of which is possible in most planets due to the absense of oxygen and water respectively.
*) Seventh was pure good luck. Even if you have all of the right ingredients for something to exist it won't magically pop into existance. Something needed to occur which caused the 'primordial soup' to cook and be stirred, and then, once 'life' came about, take the results out of the elements that 'birthed' it before what was made became undone, similar to how leaving something in an oven too long replaces a delicious masterpiece with a charred inedible disaster.
*) Eight was another case of nearly unthinkable good luck against the odds. It isn't enough that sentience be formed. Even the highest of intelligences cannot begin to explore space without the means of survival and also the means for passing knowledge on, but most of all a concept is worthless unless it can be created. There have been studies done that suggest that humanity may not be the lifeform on earth that can use the most brainpower, however where we excel is at taking the brainpower that we do have and using it to create tools which in turn help us create even greater things, and also in passing our knowledge from one generation to the next instead of needing to rediscover everything time and again as generations pass on. - In other words in order for a species to even become eligible for beginning space travel they need first to have a high intelligence, the ability to pass knowledge on, be free for the most part from predation, easily gather sustenance, able to create and use tools, and perhaps most important of all they would need materials available that can be made durable enough to survive the rigors of the travel - not an easy thing when you consider that all we humans know of metalurgy supposedly came about through pure dumb luck of someone once upon a time forgetting to clean his fire out and a bit of tin and copper becoming bonded into brass unintentionally. Actually that brings up another point... the luck factor and the odds of the same events happening twice in two different occasions. Newton supposedly only figured out the concept of gravity after an apple beaned him on the noggin, whether it was because it knocked some sense into him or just that he simply had never stopped and thought about it we'll never know... but would that same event actually be likely to occur on an alien planet as well? There are many such fortuitous episodes in human scientific discovery, and each single episode would all have to have occurred in order for an alien species to develop the same path as our species did.
*) Finally there was the near annihilation of life that ended the reign of the dinosaurs, which was a necessary thing if a sentient species was to evolve.
To explain better the reasoning behind the last given reason, the dinosaurs were an emphasis of size and force while the brain itself was largely more a minor package deal. It's possible but unlikely that eventually a switch to brain power would have occurred, whereas in the aftermath of their removal the small inherited the earth, but it was an earth that was devasted by the event causing it. This caused the small to search vast areas for sustenance and caused those that could figure out ways to survive to last longer and repopulate, thus eventually leading towards a future with more emphasis on brain power than muscle power for the most part.
Stopping and looking back through all of those requirements makes my mind boggle that even we have made it to the lowly point of development we are at, and firmly removes any thoughts of there being another species out there somewhere that is even more advanced than us... and not just more advanced but so far advanced that they can leave their mother system/galaxy and travel to our own.
It's indeed possible that there is life out there somewhere. But if there is any out there... and that is a much bigger if than most scientists are willing to believe... then it is not capable of visiting us or contacting us.
Optimal words being if true though. Somehow I doubt the report, but who knows...
I do know, however, that I personally doubt there is any sentient space-travel-capable life forms out there. I saw a documentary put out by the BBC a few years back that was on our own solar system and how it compares to others out there. If that show was to be believed the odds of life forms even as advanced as we are is infitestimally unlikely.
According to the show, humanity owes its existance to an abundance of factors that all had to come true just to enable us to be.
*) First we have the fortuitous orbit that is in the form of a circle rather than a cylindrical, egg-shaped orbit that most planets take on.
*) Second we are just far enough away that advanced life is sustainable but not so far as to be unable to survive.
*) Third we have a humongous planet with a high gravitational well near enough to our home that it removes a lot of the space debris from impacting and setting back life for millenia and perhaps even ending it entirely.
*) Fourth we have the moon which does the same job so well that it proudly bares its battle scars to the world it bodyguards at great risk to life and limb as they say.
*) Fifth we have the existance of both oxygen and water which is very rare for both to be found on the same planet strange though that rarity is to my mind.
*) Sixth we have the renewing, life-alterring properties from the elements of fire and electricity, neither of which is possible in most planets due to the absense of oxygen and water respectively.
*) Seventh was pure good luck. Even if you have all of the right ingredients for something to exist it won't magically pop into existance. Something needed to occur which caused the 'primordial soup' to cook and be stirred, and then, once 'life' came about, take the results out of the elements that 'birthed' it before what was made became undone, similar to how leaving something in an oven too long replaces a delicious masterpiece with a charred inedible disaster.
*) Eight was another case of nearly unthinkable good luck against the odds. It isn't enough that sentience be formed. Even the highest of intelligences cannot begin to explore space without the means of survival and also the means for passing knowledge on, but most of all a concept is worthless unless it can be created. There have been studies done that suggest that humanity may not be the lifeform on earth that can use the most brainpower, however where we excel is at taking the brainpower that we do have and using it to create tools which in turn help us create even greater things, and also in passing our knowledge from one generation to the next instead of needing to rediscover everything time and again as generations pass on. - In other words in order for a species to even become eligible for beginning space travel they need first to have a high intelligence, the ability to pass knowledge on, be free for the most part from predation, easily gather sustenance, able to create and use tools, and perhaps most important of all they would need materials available that can be made durable enough to survive the rigors of the travel - not an easy thing when you consider that all we humans know of metalurgy supposedly came about through pure dumb luck of someone once upon a time forgetting to clean his fire out and a bit of tin and copper becoming bonded into brass unintentionally. Actually that brings up another point... the luck factor and the odds of the same events happening twice in two different occasions. Newton supposedly only figured out the concept of gravity after an apple beaned him on the noggin, whether it was because it knocked some sense into him or just that he simply had never stopped and thought about it we'll never know... but would that same event actually be likely to occur on an alien planet as well? There are many such fortuitous episodes in human scientific discovery, and each single episode would all have to have occurred in order for an alien species to develop the same path as our species did.
*) Finally there was the near annihilation of life that ended the reign of the dinosaurs, which was a necessary thing if a sentient species was to evolve.
To explain better the reasoning behind the last given reason, the dinosaurs were an emphasis of size and force while the brain itself was largely more a minor package deal. It's possible but unlikely that eventually a switch to brain power would have occurred, whereas in the aftermath of their removal the small inherited the earth, but it was an earth that was devasted by the event causing it. This caused the small to search vast areas for sustenance and caused those that could figure out ways to survive to last longer and repopulate, thus eventually leading towards a future with more emphasis on brain power than muscle power for the most part.
Stopping and looking back through all of those requirements makes my mind boggle that even we have made it to the lowly point of development we are at, and firmly removes any thoughts of there being another species out there somewhere that is even more advanced than us... and not just more advanced but so far advanced that they can leave their mother system/galaxy and travel to our own.
It's indeed possible that there is life out there somewhere. But if there is any out there... and that is a much bigger if than most scientists are willing to believe... then it is not capable of visiting us or contacting us.
#4
Bomb Bloke
-
- Admin
-
- 4,625 posts
The Smily Admin
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tasmania (AU)
Posted 19 March 2004 - 02:30 AM
Makes you wonder how scientists reckon life on Earth is a fluke, eh? 
However...
Scientists these days are finding the Bible to be more likely then some of their old theories (such as, to take an exaple at random, the Bible being wrong).
But that's not the point! Do we call a full alert or not?! 
However...
Scientists these days are finding the Bible to be more likely then some of their old theories (such as, to take an exaple at random, the Bible being wrong).
But that's not the point! Do we call a full alert or not?!
BB's X-Com Projects Page - X-Com Games At GamersGate
You're just jealous 'cause the voices only talk to me :P
We love Tammy! :)
You're just jealous 'cause the voices only talk to me :P
We love Tammy! :)
#5
Nightshade
-
- Members
-
- 78 posts
Was here
- Gender:Male
- Location:Australia
Posted 19 March 2004 - 07:29 AM
Well I believe that report that its Viking 2.
#6
M. Hoz
-
- Members
-
- 170 posts
Lieutenant
Posted 19 March 2004 - 01:37 PM
It has to be Viking 2,but for the purpose of fun
we will pretend it is'nt.
---------------------
--------------------- Could've been a nice X-Com logo that...
Sorry for wasting your time and space....
#7
JellyfishGreen
-
- Members
-
- 790 posts
Tentacle Pentacle
Posted 19 March 2004 - 03:42 PM
"Scout-1 reporting... The probe from the third planet is still where we saw it yesterday. We expect it to sample some more rocks today, like it did yesterday, and the day before that, and like the other one a few years back... this is SOOOO BOOORING... Waitaminit, is that camera looking at US?"
The deadly Lobsterman threat was finally countered by melee combat with power tools. -ufopaedia.org
#8
shagpuss
-
- Fan Fiction
-
- 175 posts
Acolyte of the Free Pie Front
Posted 19 March 2004 - 08:39 PM
We must remember that we are bound by our current level of knowledge and acheivement. Wow! We've been to the moon several times in 30 odd years. Its the infinite scope of the universe that gives strength to the reasoning that if sentient beings exist here, then why not someplace else? Does all life require the same basic ingredients? I dunt know, but I'd guess at no.
All I ask is that we know 4 sure, b4 I die!
All I ask is that we know 4 sure, b4 I die!
#9
Hobbes
-
- Fan Fiction
-
- 1,197 posts
Peace through superior hairdos!
- Gender:Male
- Location:Area 51
Posted 19 March 2004 - 08:52 PM
JellyfishGreen, on Mar 19 2004, 03:42 PM, said:
"Scout-1 reporting... The probe from the third planet is still where we saw it yesterday. We expect it to sample some more rocks today, like it did yesterday, and the day before that, and like the other one a few years back... this is SOOOO BOOORING... Waitaminit, is that camera looking at US?" "That's OK Scout One. Just approach it from the back and drop the live worms in front of the camera. As soon as they discover them they'll be distracted thinking that there's life on this God forsaken frozen ball and forget about our presence".
Terrain Pack - 44 new terrains for the original game, using OpenXcom
My X-COM Fan Fictions: The Unknown Menace, Abyssal, Eulogy
My X-COM Fan Fictions: The Unknown Menace, Abyssal, Eulogy
#10
Neorapsta
-
- Members
-
- 169 posts
Lieutenant
Posted 19 March 2004 - 09:35 PM
But then you have to factor into account that the BBC takes the most pesimistic views when it comes to human development, being they only take one side of things and it has to please the right sort of people.
Fact is if you use the probability model I normally use, 0.02% of anything your measuring, ie.psychics, fortune tellers whatever. In this case, there would possibly be upto 400 million races in our Galaxy alone, or something around that area, can't be bothered to really go into minute details.
Fact is if you use the probability model I normally use, 0.02% of anything your measuring, ie.psychics, fortune tellers whatever. In this case, there would possibly be upto 400 million races in our Galaxy alone, or something around that area, can't be bothered to really go into minute details.
#11
Shades of Green
-
- Members
-
- 70 posts
Sergeant
Posted 20 March 2004 - 10:47 AM
Quote
do know, however, that I personally doubt there is any sentient space-travel-capable life forms out there. I saw a documentary put out by the BBC a few years back that was on our own solar system and how it compares to others out there. If that show was to be believed the odds of life forms even as advanced as we are is infitestimally unlikely.
Quote
*) Second we are just far enough away that advanced life is sustainable but not so far as to be unable to survive.
Quote
*) Third we have a humongous planet with a high gravitational well near enough to our home that it removes a lot of the space debris from impacting and setting back life for millenia and perhaps even ending it entirely.
*) Fourth we have the moon which does the same job so well that it proudly bares its battle scars to the world it bodyguards at great risk to life and limb as they say.
*) Fourth we have the moon which does the same job so well that it proudly bares its battle scars to the world it bodyguards at great risk to life and limb as they say.
Quote
*) Fifth we have the existance of both oxygen and water which is very rare for both to be found on the same planet strange though that rarity is to my mind.
*) Sixth we have the renewing, life-alterring properties from the elements of fire and electricity, neither of which is possible in most planets due to the absense of oxygen and water respectively.
*) Sixth we have the renewing, life-alterring properties from the elements of fire and electricity, neither of which is possible in most planets due to the absense of oxygen and water respectively.
The bottom line is that we know almost nothing about life, the conditions nescery for its formation, other planets, and other solar systems. The question of extraterrestrial life is an open one.
Quote
Scientists these days are finding the Bible to be more likely then some of their old theories (such as, to take an exaple at random, the Bible being wrong).
Which scientists? And on what facts? but no matter, no need to start a flame war. Especially if the Sectoid empire is coming to knock on our door
#12
Lonestar
-
- Members
-
- 39 posts
Squaddie
Posted 20 March 2004 - 11:58 PM
Das ist richt. I have been on this board for awhile. I'm just a seldom poster.
Anyway, back in the day someone posted a topic entitled 'Do Sectoids Exist? And Other Queries.' I posted the real probabilities of space life. Then I gave my theory on what I believe to be the actual cause of RUFOs. I also posted saying that anyone interested in what the over 500 requirements for life are can private message me.
People then replied that I was close-minded and did not research the topic (I believe I also said to them about how I researched the topic for years. I may not have told them though. I'm not sure). Out of the 10-20 people who posted in the topic not one asked to see the requirements for life.
I had other online debates (in every single one I was accused of being close-minded) where people commited libel and slander.
In the Cryptozoology.com forum is a Creation versus Evolution topic. In it is over 1000 topics. Someone there does not want to give up.
My point is that on-line you cannot win debates. Especially if you are the only one defending your position going up against 30 some people. I have won nearly every debate I have been in "off-line". I could go on but I won't.
So you are right, Shades of Green, there is no no need to start a flame war.
Anyway, back in the day someone posted a topic entitled 'Do Sectoids Exist? And Other Queries.' I posted the real probabilities of space life. Then I gave my theory on what I believe to be the actual cause of RUFOs. I also posted saying that anyone interested in what the over 500 requirements for life are can private message me.
People then replied that I was close-minded and did not research the topic (I believe I also said to them about how I researched the topic for years. I may not have told them though. I'm not sure). Out of the 10-20 people who posted in the topic not one asked to see the requirements for life.
I had other online debates (in every single one I was accused of being close-minded) where people commited libel and slander.
In the Cryptozoology.com forum is a Creation versus Evolution topic. In it is over 1000 topics. Someone there does not want to give up.
My point is that on-line you cannot win debates. Especially if you are the only one defending your position going up against 30 some people. I have won nearly every debate I have been in "off-line". I could go on but I won't.
So you are right, Shades of Green, there is no no need to start a flame war.
#13
M. Hoz
-
- Members
-
- 170 posts
Lieutenant
Posted 22 March 2004 - 04:37 PM
<<====
I want to see those "requirements of life".
Now, I really don't want to annoy you all with my
own views, but I have to say these two things:
1. We're all probably somehow closed-minded.
2. We have no way to know what these "requirements"
are, since we have only seen one, STS, "form"
of life. We can't judge.
Or maybe it's just me being stupid. Who knows?
I want to see those "requirements of life".
Now, I really don't want to annoy you all with my
own views, but I have to say these two things:
1. We're all probably somehow closed-minded.
2. We have no way to know what these "requirements"
are, since we have only seen one, STS, "form"
of life. We can't judge.
Or maybe it's just me being stupid. Who knows?
Sorry for wasting your time and space....
#14
Strong Bob
-
- Members
-
- 567 posts
Sailor Jupiter is hot
Posted 23 March 2004 - 01:37 AM
I'd also like to see these requirements. Mainly because I've read so much literature stating how we know for sure that most of these "requirements" are a rare case but have not seen one shred of proof why.
Seriously, it's already been stated that we don't know much of anything on how other solar systems are, what elements they're comprised of, and whether or not the necessary elements for life are present. How, I ask, how can we even judge anything? It's like saying we know for sure the actual nature of the universe if we lean in either direction. Personally, I say it's close minded to say either is the case. Mainly because science has been proven wrong far more often than it has been proven right. And there are things that we were far more certain of, mere decades ago, that is dead obvious to be otherwise now.
Lonestar, ring me up on a messenger sometime. Maybe we can discuss this without the restrictive pains of an online message forum.
Seriously, it's already been stated that we don't know much of anything on how other solar systems are, what elements they're comprised of, and whether or not the necessary elements for life are present. How, I ask, how can we even judge anything? It's like saying we know for sure the actual nature of the universe if we lean in either direction. Personally, I say it's close minded to say either is the case. Mainly because science has been proven wrong far more often than it has been proven right. And there are things that we were far more certain of, mere decades ago, that is dead obvious to be otherwise now.
Lonestar, ring me up on a messenger sometime. Maybe we can discuss this without the restrictive pains of an online message forum.
Strong Bob's random Star Trek quote of the year:
*Scans rock* "It's dead, Jim." - McCoy
"Very funny, Bones." - Kirk
*Scans rock* "It's dead, Jim." - McCoy
"Very funny, Bones." - Kirk
#15
M. Hoz
-
- Members
-
- 170 posts
Lieutenant
Posted 23 March 2004 - 06:44 PM
Quote
Personally, I say it's close minded to say either is the case. Mainly because science has been proven wrong far more often than it has been proven right.
again. "Proof" is a reflection of our judgement, and since we can't judge,
we can't prove either. *Copies and pastes in a more appropriate forum*
Quote
And there are things that we were far more certain of, mere decades ago, that is dead obvious to be otherwise now.
then disproved again, and again, and again...
EDIT: Not that I want to clutter this topic
with my :mad: . Make a new one if you must.
Sorry for wasting your time and space....
#16
EclipseDog
-
- Members
-
- 98 posts
Wagging the Dog
Posted 23 March 2004 - 11:17 PM
Hayia all. Just got back from my road trip hence my previous silence but I'll try to respond to everyone here and again when I next can as I may have to set out again frequently.
Quoting Neorapsta: But then you have to factor into account that the BBC takes the most pesimistic views when it comes to human development, being they only take one side of things and it has to please the right sort of people.
Fact is if you use the probability model I normally use, 0.02% of anything your measuring, ie.psychics, fortune tellers whatever. In this case, there would possibly be upto 400 million races in our Galaxy alone, or something around that area, can't be bothered to really go into minute details.
You may well be right regarding BBC's objectivity or rather their lack thereof, Neo. However, I'm aware of the 'Formula for Advanced Life' that you are speaking of and saw yet another documentary, this time on Nova - which is a bit more objective, wherein a scientist explained all of the factors in their equation for advanced life. Sadly that formula suffers from the same lack of objectivity which the BBC has, only in its case it is from the opposite side of the argument.
The formula takes into account all of the possible Galaxies x Star systems within each galaxy x Possible planets orbitting each star, etc. The formula did contain a factor for the unlikeliness for life to start and another for life to advance but even then it didn't accurately account for each in the equation and a few other negative modifiers, but it intentionally only included a few negative modifiers but a sleu of positive. However the formula left out completely most of the factors that led to life as we know it, such as having just the right type of minerals to create things that were building blocks in our ability to create ever better things. It also did not take into account things such as predation, food supplies, and other very essential categories in the advancement from simple life to complex and then later advanced sentience. There is a vast list of key ingredients to the end-product of a race of space travellers, or for that matter even a species that can even equal our own existance, that just are never taken into account by any of the scientists that are true believers in its possibility.
If the best possible formula for our equals being out there somewhere only has a 0.000*1 % (The * because I can't remember the exact number of 0s before the 1 but that it was quite a few) chance of probability when you don't even take into account all of the things that could go wrong to prevent it, then the odds after taking those things into account would be so small that it is no wonder the scientists, who earn their living by proclaiming their field of study to be worth spending money on, would completely avoid using the true formula for life equal to our own.
I'm going to give you an example of just how unlikely it is to find a race of space travellers or even a species capable of broadcasting or even receiving signals from across the emptiness of space.
Imagine if you will that humanity never rose up on earth to become the dominant higher life form, but rather that snakes ruled the roost. It could have very well happened if they had been able to become a higher level predator over mankind's early ancestors, and as it is they exist nearly everywhere on earth including some places that are inhospitable to humanity. Now imagine that our brains or even a more advanced brain capability were given to them. Even though their brains were at our own current level or higher they would not have been able to build cities or travel even as far as the moon simply because of their body design.
Some might attempt to counter that with an argument that snakes would grow the limbs necessary to do these things, however that growth just would not happen and wouldn't even be suggested unless the suggestor has done absolutely no study into how evolution works.
Snakes used to have arms and legs just like most land animals, in fact certain species can still be found which have not quite fully lost the tiny bone spur which one upon a time would have been an upper limb bone. The reason they no longer have legs is that the species without legs were able to not only survive but rather actually thrived in the environments encounterred.
Say a litter of seven babies are born and six had the standard limbs found commonly among animals, while the seventh had something wrong with it... say a leg bone wasn't strong enough to support its weight for instance. If it had stuck with attempting to walk 'normally' it would have died off due to hunger/thirst/predation early in life. Since snakes exist we know that their ancient ancestor learned to accomodate its disability by using a different mode of locomotion. Now this crawling or whatever animal has reached the reproductive stage of life... for evolution to work it had to have passed its genes off which means that it somehow was able to attract/ambush/whatever a mate during his/her breeding cycle. The catch is that one parent would have had to have had a fully functioning set of legs... this would have led to a gene clash between the gene leading to a fully functional limb and the other which contained the false limb. In order for the missing limb to have won out and been passed onto the second generation and then beyond that through all of the later generations then it would have had to have been a dominant trait that overpowerred the limbed genes of the other partners in the genetic chain.
What this means is that even if you somehow managed to create a snake/lizard hybrid birth the odds of the offspring (and their offspring in turn on down the line) regaining the limbs, would not occur. The missing limb trait would be too strong of a trait in the species. Thus snakes are pretty much doomed to eternal limblessness. The other cause of evolution (and also the one that is the most common), climate changes, would no longer be able to force the snake into a new evolutionary path. Either their limbless state would continue to be useful with the climatic changes that occurred... or else the entire index of species known as snakes would die off in a world that could no longer support them.
Besides which... all of that talk about genetically forcing a return of a limbed state to snakes is useless when you speak of a world where snakes have assumed humanity's place as the highest lifeform. After all the reason they became the top of the chain would have been because they were the best around... they would have no example (such as our own human society) of limbs being worth having. No limbs has led to a total lack of tools, machinery, construction abilities, or any of the other necessities for receiving and sending messages or outright space travel.
In other words, earth would have become a place teeming with life, perhaps even intelligent life, but without any means of alerting other outside life forms to their existance or becoming aware of them in turn.
The main problem with the existance of another space-age species existing besides humans and also being able to contact with our own is that there are so many levels of negativity which argues against it.
1st it needs just the right planetary host.
2nd life needs just the right elements on its planet for life to be formed.
3rd it needs to be able to grow beyond the point of simple cell organisms such as bacteria.
4th it needs to evolve into a species with high intelligence and reasoning capabilities.
5th it needs to be able to have the capabilities to change its environment (ie tool use, manufacturing, construction, chemistry, etc.).
6th it needs to be safe from predation and have an adequate food/water supply to allow for a large society.
7th it needs to actually have the thought of an exterior life existence occur to it or it wouldn't ever even bother searching for it.
To clarify that seventh point - Humans lived on the continents of North and South America, yet other humans living on the European continent never even thought of their existance nor tried to contact them nor search for their existance. The only reason that changed is that explorers found them while searching for something else entirely (a shortcut to the other side of their own land mass - ie the Orient), prior to that and without that occurring both groups had been and would continue to have been unaware of each other's existance and never made any attempts to look for or visit each other.
On the surface that's an even greater argument for searching the cosmos for life, except that those other life forms in the 'new world' had originally been connected by land to the life native to Europe/Africa/Asia but had been seperated by rising water levels. This is not a case of two sets of life growing from nothing but rather pre-established life simply continueing to exist exactly as it had with very little change if any, and simply being forgotten about or mourned for dead by relatives that had fled away from the water levels.
It is quite possible that this could even explain the myth of Atlantis when you stop to think about the correlations, and how the ones who fled back to the original side of the former land bridge had no way of knowing that the water stopped rising prior to swallowing the rest of that land mass and the people now seperated onto it - and antler tipped spears were a major jump in technology from stone tipped which would fit the requirement of technological advancement spoken of in the myths if the tale was indeed that old and had been passed down and retold in ways to be more understandable or entertaining to later peoples.
Anyway, returning to the subject I began to meander away from, without thinking of something being possible in the first place it will not be searched for, and if it is not searched for then it won't be found without sheer dumb luck of accidently stumbling across that unimagined thing/concept/being.
8th the vastness of space is humongous. Even if a species became space-aware and space-capable, the time necessary to find a second species also space-aware/capable is so long that in all likelihood the two societies could never connect in the timeframe between from when their society reached that level and the eventual ending of their society due to planetary or celestial changes no longer allowing for their form of life to exist.
In other words it isn't enough that a second set of life grow like our own has, it also needs to have done so/begin to do so during the proper timeframe to allow for our contact with them. Imagine if a space-capable species came about even as often as once in ten thousand years. It could very well have last occurred too early for our own advancement to that level to have realized it and by the time we ourselves had reached the same pinnacle theirs could be gone already and the next yet to come might also be too late for our own ability to make contact with them prior to the ending of our existance due to some factor or another.
All of that leads down to the very last factor in any formula for the ability to make contact/be contacted with/by alien life forms. Did all of the building blocks for advanced life tumble exactly right then also stop tumbling at just the right instant (in comparison with the vastness of time) for the two to affect one another. Without the last factor of time, any formula for the existance of life (in regards to the reason the quest for it exists - contact) will be flawed and useless. And with that last factor added in... it is mathematically and scientifically impossible.
Quoting Shades of Green: The fact that Earth's advanced life suits our very specific temperature means nothing; LIFE, represented by bacteria, could exist in warmer places (120 degrees celsius at least) and colder ones (beneath the ice on Antartica). Most of Earth is not in these extremes, so most life forms evolved to suit the common temperature. Thermophilic bacteria are rare because vulcanic hot springs are rare.
The problem with what you just stated is that bacteria are not advanced forms of life. Yes, bacteria can survive conditions we cannot even imagine the difficulties to. However, bacteria cannot emit radio waves through the cosmos, nor can it build spaceships to travel said cosmos and then abduct/meet other species. If advanced life could handle what simplistic bacterial life can handle there would be advanced life forms everywhere in our own solar system you would even have to look farther than the moon for that.
Even when life deals with harsh environments it does not lead to any of the steps necessary for planetary travel. Or rather let's put it this way... the day we see a space shuttle rise out of the depths of the ocean and blast off in search of other worlds while pilotted by a crew of jellyfish and other life forms that evolved, where even sunlight does not appear to exist in any detectable way other than the presence of that life, is the day you'll have won your argument.
Quoting Shades of Green: Which planet? jupiter? Saturn? meteor impatcs on Earth are quite common. The fact that we don't see as many craters here as we see on Mars or the moon owes it's existance mostly to our atmosphere. Most debries burns up on atmospheric entry, and the craters left behind by the bigger bodies are eroded as time passes. Venus, which has no moon (but a hell of an atmosphere - literally), has nearly no craters on it's surface as well.
I was intending to mean Jupiter when I wrote that post. As for your arguments of impact frequencies... you are both right and wrong in that quote. Earth is indeed under constant heavy bombardment by the lil things that either fully burn away in our atmosphere or the remainder that actually impacts hardly affects life on the planet. However, if Earth was being hit by the bigger space debris we would not have had a chance. Semi-recently, Jupiter was impacted by a meteor that fragmented due to its intense gravity but was estimated to be as large as Earth's own moon if not bigger. If Jupiter wasn't spinning around out there larger debris would be able to pass through Jupiter's range without being dragged by its gravitation field into a collision with it. If that had been the case it would have continued on through and may well have impacted with our planet with such devastating mass that our atmosphere simply could not protect us. Speaking of Jupiter's existance and the way its sucks up space debris... a documentary that came out about that planet a few years back theorized that the gigantic hurricane storm (that appears as a dark spot swirling that planet's atmosphere) was in fact caused by a vacuum created when an overly large celestial body impacted with the atmosphere and continued through leaving a wake in its passing. If true that would have been devastating if it had hit Earth since the 'hole' is supposed to be even bigger than our entire planet.
Quoting Shades of Green: Earth didn't have free molecular oxygen when it was first formed; It's atmosphere was mostly water vapor (which later formed the oceans), CO2 and nitrogen. Oxygen began to appear in the O2 form only about 3 or so billions of years ago, only AFTER life appeared, due to photosynthesis. And water are quite more common than was first thought; Mars, for example, has lots (even if frozen, it had flowing water once upon a time), and Europa probably has a huge under-surface ocean (again, we don't know enough data on it to make any conclusion).
Err... I'm not sure if you realize it but water in a vapor state still contains its 'H20' properties, thus water as we know it did not exist until Oxygen as we know it existed. You are right that earth once did not have the molecule we know of as Oxygen, it also however did not have the molecule we know of as water, but rather back then it was a mixture of the CO2 and hydrogen you touted. In other words it did not contain both the CO2 and H alongside the bonded pseudo-water... it was rather entirely a mixture thereof into pseudo-water-vapors.
We may never exactly be sure what caused the potent mixture of CO2 and hydrogen to rain down onto the surface in that previous form of water, although I personally would assume the mixture's fallout occurred after a large impact to the earth's gaseous external layer via meteor/whatever.
You are entirely correct though regarding the origins of Oxygen and the process that caused it. However I can't figure out why you stated that as if you were arguing against something I said since I never said otherwise. Edit: Hrm on second thought I think it came from my mind thinking one thing and my typing saying another. When I said "lacking oxygen" I had meant "lacking CO2" which is what simple life forms process oxygen from. I apologize for the confusion.
As for the rarity of water or the newfound lack thereof... to the best of my knowledge they have yet to find that frozen water on mars but rather merely evidence which leads scientists to believe that water once existed on that planet (through the land appearrance similar to dried waterbeds on earth). As for Europa... last I heard it wasn't exactly water but rather was a unique form of liquid gas that would be inhospitable to life on Earth.
Quoting Shades of Green: The bottom line is that we know almost nothing about life, the conditions nescery for its formation, other planets, and other solar systems. The question of extraterrestrial life is an open one.
Again a case of being both right and wrong. We know almost everything vital for the creation of life and its continuation and advancement afterward. What we lack knowledge of is what was the instigator that caused life to suddenly spark from its base materials. You are very right in your statement in regards to celestial knowledge and the lack thereof. But you are wrong in stating that because of that the possibility of ET being open-ended.
Suppose one were to willingly accept that every galaxy contained over 1000 star systems and each star system contained over 10 planets and allowed for an overly optimistic view of life on those planets and said that even half of those allowed for life in some form. At that point run a complex program that checks that life hosting planets. You know the drill... evolution, predation, gene dominancy, food supply, water supply, brain power, advancements in the right technologies and theories, etc. Then add a second program that took all remaining planets where life was and give them a random start date and space-capable/searchable length of existance along with the time requirred to reach destinations & wait for response. (For instance Carl Sagan's famous message is supposed to take 50k years for a response to be received back if there is even anyone/thing there to do so and can do so.) Then run a final program that has them randomly search the cosmos for other life without knowing exactly where to look (where even the slightest bit off can make the difference of reaching a system or passing it by)... then you tell me whether or not anyone actually contacted each other in your experiment.
It is far from an open and possible subject.
Quoting Neorapsta: But then you have to factor into account that the BBC takes the most pesimistic views when it comes to human development, being they only take one side of things and it has to please the right sort of people.
Fact is if you use the probability model I normally use, 0.02% of anything your measuring, ie.psychics, fortune tellers whatever. In this case, there would possibly be upto 400 million races in our Galaxy alone, or something around that area, can't be bothered to really go into minute details.
You may well be right regarding BBC's objectivity or rather their lack thereof, Neo. However, I'm aware of the 'Formula for Advanced Life' that you are speaking of and saw yet another documentary, this time on Nova - which is a bit more objective, wherein a scientist explained all of the factors in their equation for advanced life. Sadly that formula suffers from the same lack of objectivity which the BBC has, only in its case it is from the opposite side of the argument.
The formula takes into account all of the possible Galaxies x Star systems within each galaxy x Possible planets orbitting each star, etc. The formula did contain a factor for the unlikeliness for life to start and another for life to advance but even then it didn't accurately account for each in the equation and a few other negative modifiers, but it intentionally only included a few negative modifiers but a sleu of positive. However the formula left out completely most of the factors that led to life as we know it, such as having just the right type of minerals to create things that were building blocks in our ability to create ever better things. It also did not take into account things such as predation, food supplies, and other very essential categories in the advancement from simple life to complex and then later advanced sentience. There is a vast list of key ingredients to the end-product of a race of space travellers, or for that matter even a species that can even equal our own existance, that just are never taken into account by any of the scientists that are true believers in its possibility.
If the best possible formula for our equals being out there somewhere only has a 0.000*1 % (The * because I can't remember the exact number of 0s before the 1 but that it was quite a few) chance of probability when you don't even take into account all of the things that could go wrong to prevent it, then the odds after taking those things into account would be so small that it is no wonder the scientists, who earn their living by proclaiming their field of study to be worth spending money on, would completely avoid using the true formula for life equal to our own.
I'm going to give you an example of just how unlikely it is to find a race of space travellers or even a species capable of broadcasting or even receiving signals from across the emptiness of space.
Imagine if you will that humanity never rose up on earth to become the dominant higher life form, but rather that snakes ruled the roost. It could have very well happened if they had been able to become a higher level predator over mankind's early ancestors, and as it is they exist nearly everywhere on earth including some places that are inhospitable to humanity. Now imagine that our brains or even a more advanced brain capability were given to them. Even though their brains were at our own current level or higher they would not have been able to build cities or travel even as far as the moon simply because of their body design.
Some might attempt to counter that with an argument that snakes would grow the limbs necessary to do these things, however that growth just would not happen and wouldn't even be suggested unless the suggestor has done absolutely no study into how evolution works.
Snakes used to have arms and legs just like most land animals, in fact certain species can still be found which have not quite fully lost the tiny bone spur which one upon a time would have been an upper limb bone. The reason they no longer have legs is that the species without legs were able to not only survive but rather actually thrived in the environments encounterred.
Say a litter of seven babies are born and six had the standard limbs found commonly among animals, while the seventh had something wrong with it... say a leg bone wasn't strong enough to support its weight for instance. If it had stuck with attempting to walk 'normally' it would have died off due to hunger/thirst/predation early in life. Since snakes exist we know that their ancient ancestor learned to accomodate its disability by using a different mode of locomotion. Now this crawling or whatever animal has reached the reproductive stage of life... for evolution to work it had to have passed its genes off which means that it somehow was able to attract/ambush/whatever a mate during his/her breeding cycle. The catch is that one parent would have had to have had a fully functioning set of legs... this would have led to a gene clash between the gene leading to a fully functional limb and the other which contained the false limb. In order for the missing limb to have won out and been passed onto the second generation and then beyond that through all of the later generations then it would have had to have been a dominant trait that overpowerred the limbed genes of the other partners in the genetic chain.
What this means is that even if you somehow managed to create a snake/lizard hybrid birth the odds of the offspring (and their offspring in turn on down the line) regaining the limbs, would not occur. The missing limb trait would be too strong of a trait in the species. Thus snakes are pretty much doomed to eternal limblessness. The other cause of evolution (and also the one that is the most common), climate changes, would no longer be able to force the snake into a new evolutionary path. Either their limbless state would continue to be useful with the climatic changes that occurred... or else the entire index of species known as snakes would die off in a world that could no longer support them.
Besides which... all of that talk about genetically forcing a return of a limbed state to snakes is useless when you speak of a world where snakes have assumed humanity's place as the highest lifeform. After all the reason they became the top of the chain would have been because they were the best around... they would have no example (such as our own human society) of limbs being worth having. No limbs has led to a total lack of tools, machinery, construction abilities, or any of the other necessities for receiving and sending messages or outright space travel.
In other words, earth would have become a place teeming with life, perhaps even intelligent life, but without any means of alerting other outside life forms to their existance or becoming aware of them in turn.
The main problem with the existance of another space-age species existing besides humans and also being able to contact with our own is that there are so many levels of negativity which argues against it.
1st it needs just the right planetary host.
2nd life needs just the right elements on its planet for life to be formed.
3rd it needs to be able to grow beyond the point of simple cell organisms such as bacteria.
4th it needs to evolve into a species with high intelligence and reasoning capabilities.
5th it needs to be able to have the capabilities to change its environment (ie tool use, manufacturing, construction, chemistry, etc.).
6th it needs to be safe from predation and have an adequate food/water supply to allow for a large society.
7th it needs to actually have the thought of an exterior life existence occur to it or it wouldn't ever even bother searching for it.
To clarify that seventh point - Humans lived on the continents of North and South America, yet other humans living on the European continent never even thought of their existance nor tried to contact them nor search for their existance. The only reason that changed is that explorers found them while searching for something else entirely (a shortcut to the other side of their own land mass - ie the Orient), prior to that and without that occurring both groups had been and would continue to have been unaware of each other's existance and never made any attempts to look for or visit each other.
On the surface that's an even greater argument for searching the cosmos for life, except that those other life forms in the 'new world' had originally been connected by land to the life native to Europe/Africa/Asia but had been seperated by rising water levels. This is not a case of two sets of life growing from nothing but rather pre-established life simply continueing to exist exactly as it had with very little change if any, and simply being forgotten about or mourned for dead by relatives that had fled away from the water levels.
It is quite possible that this could even explain the myth of Atlantis when you stop to think about the correlations, and how the ones who fled back to the original side of the former land bridge had no way of knowing that the water stopped rising prior to swallowing the rest of that land mass and the people now seperated onto it - and antler tipped spears were a major jump in technology from stone tipped which would fit the requirement of technological advancement spoken of in the myths if the tale was indeed that old and had been passed down and retold in ways to be more understandable or entertaining to later peoples.
Anyway, returning to the subject I began to meander away from, without thinking of something being possible in the first place it will not be searched for, and if it is not searched for then it won't be found without sheer dumb luck of accidently stumbling across that unimagined thing/concept/being.
8th the vastness of space is humongous. Even if a species became space-aware and space-capable, the time necessary to find a second species also space-aware/capable is so long that in all likelihood the two societies could never connect in the timeframe between from when their society reached that level and the eventual ending of their society due to planetary or celestial changes no longer allowing for their form of life to exist.
In other words it isn't enough that a second set of life grow like our own has, it also needs to have done so/begin to do so during the proper timeframe to allow for our contact with them. Imagine if a space-capable species came about even as often as once in ten thousand years. It could very well have last occurred too early for our own advancement to that level to have realized it and by the time we ourselves had reached the same pinnacle theirs could be gone already and the next yet to come might also be too late for our own ability to make contact with them prior to the ending of our existance due to some factor or another.
All of that leads down to the very last factor in any formula for the ability to make contact/be contacted with/by alien life forms. Did all of the building blocks for advanced life tumble exactly right then also stop tumbling at just the right instant (in comparison with the vastness of time) for the two to affect one another. Without the last factor of time, any formula for the existance of life (in regards to the reason the quest for it exists - contact) will be flawed and useless. And with that last factor added in... it is mathematically and scientifically impossible.
Quoting Shades of Green: The fact that Earth's advanced life suits our very specific temperature means nothing; LIFE, represented by bacteria, could exist in warmer places (120 degrees celsius at least) and colder ones (beneath the ice on Antartica). Most of Earth is not in these extremes, so most life forms evolved to suit the common temperature. Thermophilic bacteria are rare because vulcanic hot springs are rare.
The problem with what you just stated is that bacteria are not advanced forms of life. Yes, bacteria can survive conditions we cannot even imagine the difficulties to. However, bacteria cannot emit radio waves through the cosmos, nor can it build spaceships to travel said cosmos and then abduct/meet other species. If advanced life could handle what simplistic bacterial life can handle there would be advanced life forms everywhere in our own solar system you would even have to look farther than the moon for that.
Even when life deals with harsh environments it does not lead to any of the steps necessary for planetary travel. Or rather let's put it this way... the day we see a space shuttle rise out of the depths of the ocean and blast off in search of other worlds while pilotted by a crew of jellyfish and other life forms that evolved, where even sunlight does not appear to exist in any detectable way other than the presence of that life, is the day you'll have won your argument.
Quoting Shades of Green: Which planet? jupiter? Saturn? meteor impatcs on Earth are quite common. The fact that we don't see as many craters here as we see on Mars or the moon owes it's existance mostly to our atmosphere. Most debries burns up on atmospheric entry, and the craters left behind by the bigger bodies are eroded as time passes. Venus, which has no moon (but a hell of an atmosphere - literally), has nearly no craters on it's surface as well.
I was intending to mean Jupiter when I wrote that post. As for your arguments of impact frequencies... you are both right and wrong in that quote. Earth is indeed under constant heavy bombardment by the lil things that either fully burn away in our atmosphere or the remainder that actually impacts hardly affects life on the planet. However, if Earth was being hit by the bigger space debris we would not have had a chance. Semi-recently, Jupiter was impacted by a meteor that fragmented due to its intense gravity but was estimated to be as large as Earth's own moon if not bigger. If Jupiter wasn't spinning around out there larger debris would be able to pass through Jupiter's range without being dragged by its gravitation field into a collision with it. If that had been the case it would have continued on through and may well have impacted with our planet with such devastating mass that our atmosphere simply could not protect us. Speaking of Jupiter's existance and the way its sucks up space debris... a documentary that came out about that planet a few years back theorized that the gigantic hurricane storm (that appears as a dark spot swirling that planet's atmosphere) was in fact caused by a vacuum created when an overly large celestial body impacted with the atmosphere and continued through leaving a wake in its passing. If true that would have been devastating if it had hit Earth since the 'hole' is supposed to be even bigger than our entire planet.
Quoting Shades of Green: Earth didn't have free molecular oxygen when it was first formed; It's atmosphere was mostly water vapor (which later formed the oceans), CO2 and nitrogen. Oxygen began to appear in the O2 form only about 3 or so billions of years ago, only AFTER life appeared, due to photosynthesis. And water are quite more common than was first thought; Mars, for example, has lots (even if frozen, it had flowing water once upon a time), and Europa probably has a huge under-surface ocean (again, we don't know enough data on it to make any conclusion).
Err... I'm not sure if you realize it but water in a vapor state still contains its 'H20' properties, thus water as we know it did not exist until Oxygen as we know it existed. You are right that earth once did not have the molecule we know of as Oxygen, it also however did not have the molecule we know of as water, but rather back then it was a mixture of the CO2 and hydrogen you touted. In other words it did not contain both the CO2 and H alongside the bonded pseudo-water... it was rather entirely a mixture thereof into pseudo-water-vapors.
We may never exactly be sure what caused the potent mixture of CO2 and hydrogen to rain down onto the surface in that previous form of water, although I personally would assume the mixture's fallout occurred after a large impact to the earth's gaseous external layer via meteor/whatever.
You are entirely correct though regarding the origins of Oxygen and the process that caused it. However I can't figure out why you stated that as if you were arguing against something I said since I never said otherwise. Edit: Hrm on second thought I think it came from my mind thinking one thing and my typing saying another. When I said "lacking oxygen" I had meant "lacking CO2" which is what simple life forms process oxygen from. I apologize for the confusion.
As for the rarity of water or the newfound lack thereof... to the best of my knowledge they have yet to find that frozen water on mars but rather merely evidence which leads scientists to believe that water once existed on that planet (through the land appearrance similar to dried waterbeds on earth). As for Europa... last I heard it wasn't exactly water but rather was a unique form of liquid gas that would be inhospitable to life on Earth.
Quoting Shades of Green: The bottom line is that we know almost nothing about life, the conditions nescery for its formation, other planets, and other solar systems. The question of extraterrestrial life is an open one.
Again a case of being both right and wrong. We know almost everything vital for the creation of life and its continuation and advancement afterward. What we lack knowledge of is what was the instigator that caused life to suddenly spark from its base materials. You are very right in your statement in regards to celestial knowledge and the lack thereof. But you are wrong in stating that because of that the possibility of ET being open-ended.
Suppose one were to willingly accept that every galaxy contained over 1000 star systems and each star system contained over 10 planets and allowed for an overly optimistic view of life on those planets and said that even half of those allowed for life in some form. At that point run a complex program that checks that life hosting planets. You know the drill... evolution, predation, gene dominancy, food supply, water supply, brain power, advancements in the right technologies and theories, etc. Then add a second program that took all remaining planets where life was and give them a random start date and space-capable/searchable length of existance along with the time requirred to reach destinations & wait for response. (For instance Carl Sagan's famous message is supposed to take 50k years for a response to be received back if there is even anyone/thing there to do so and can do so.) Then run a final program that has them randomly search the cosmos for other life without knowing exactly where to look (where even the slightest bit off can make the difference of reaching a system or passing it by)... then you tell me whether or not anyone actually contacted each other in your experiment.
It is far from an open and possible subject.
#17
M. Hoz
-
- Members
-
- 170 posts
Lieutenant
Posted 25 March 2004 - 06:32 PM
The "ET Question" as you call it is an open one,
like all other questions are and will always be.
We have no way of really knowing anything.
we can't compare our "area" to others.
To make it easier to explain (I really have no other way)
I give you a three simple questions.It's not something
I know myself.
1. What is the difference between "Alive" and "Not-Alive"?
Heh, I forgot the other two... :mad:
Answer that, THEN tell me the requirements for "Life".
like all other questions are and will always be.
We have no way of really knowing anything.
we can't compare our "area" to others.
To make it easier to explain (I really have no other way)
I give you a three simple questions.It's not something
I know myself.
1. What is the difference between "Alive" and "Not-Alive"?
Heh, I forgot the other two... :mad:
Answer that, THEN tell me the requirements for "Life".
Sorry for wasting your time and space....
#18
Neorapsta
-
- Members
-
- 169 posts
Lieutenant
Posted 25 March 2004 - 07:14 PM
lol, you can't simply say that a subject is far from open because you believe it is, your entire arguement didn't produce anything that would have closed it in any meaning of the word.
It is simply one of those debates that will never end until you can go to every planet in the galaxy and say there is no life there, or building blocks for intelligent life.
Also given that Scifi generally depict humans as being one of the late entrees into space travel, with many other advanced races and even extinct precursor races. It is also entirely possible that mankind may well be among the first races to evolve, and therefore would explain why things like SETI don't pick up any kind of modulated signal.
It is simply one of those debates that will never end until you can go to every planet in the galaxy and say there is no life there, or building blocks for intelligent life.
Also given that Scifi generally depict humans as being one of the late entrees into space travel, with many other advanced races and even extinct precursor races. It is also entirely possible that mankind may well be among the first races to evolve, and therefore would explain why things like SETI don't pick up any kind of modulated signal.
#19
M. Hoz
-
- Members
-
- 170 posts
Lieutenant
Posted 25 March 2004 - 08:22 PM
Quote
It is simply one of those debates that will never end until you can go to every planet in the galaxy and say there is no life there, or building blocks for intelligent life.
Quote
It is also entirely possible that mankind may well be among the first races to evolve...
Sorry for wasting your time and space....
#20
Bomb Bloke
-
- Admin
-
- 4,625 posts
The Smily Admin
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tasmania (AU)
Posted 26 March 2004 - 02:16 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if we simply wiped out the first alien race we found, on 'general principiles'.
BB's X-Com Projects Page - X-Com Games At GamersGate
You're just jealous 'cause the voices only talk to me :P
We love Tammy! :)
You're just jealous 'cause the voices only talk to me :P
We love Tammy! :)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
