Life on other Planets?

How many people here believe there is life on other planets?I prefer a yes or no vote, with any additional opinions you have.

Well, as long as you are going to try to make things convoluted, don't you at least have to say what capital "E" and capital "P" are?

I see.But how do you arrive at 0.4 for the probability of 1 six? Why isn't it .3? Or .45?Edited by Bolder-dash, : left out word

Yes I see. I don't want to get too far off topic with stats, and maybe I will start another thread, but I believe that there is a way of looking at stats that some theorists agree on and some don't. After this post I will continue it elsewhere, but it goes something like this.If you are going to roll the dice six times and the first two times do not come up with a six, does your probability increase that one of the next 4 times you will get a six (it s a little simplified, but that's the gist of it)? I know I know, the probability for every roll of the dice is the same, and is unaffected by previous rolls..or so it would seem! But I have tested this theory on numerous occasions in gambling situations, and I can tell you that statistically I am way way ahead of the game. In fact I have calculated that I am right at least 75-85% of the time during an evenings worth of gambling. I won't go into the specifics here, but the thing is I always win. How can this be? Is it luck? I guess it could be, but I don't think so (I am not making any of this up). The fact is of all the times I have gambled I have only ever lost money at a casino one time. Go figure.So what are we to believe, what numbers can show or what empirical tests show (me). BTW I have tested my theory literally hundreds of times in a casino, so its not just random error. The point is that when stats say one thing and real life information says another, who do you believe? I don't know.Ok, a small diversion.

My scenario was not some kind of analogy per se (so it really doesn't pertain to your question)-its a real fact. If traditional statistics were correct it should not be possible for the hundred or so times that I have gambled in a casino, to only lose once (and actually there is a caveat to my one lose story-I bet all of my considerable winning from earlier in the day on one particular bet as a whim because I had won so much that day and was feeling stupid). Other than that time, I have never lost. And you can't even say that was a loss really , because it was the money I won earlier that day that I gambled that evening. I always bet using a system similar to what I described. So something is wrong-either the stats or wrong, or I have defied probability too many times.Now all I can say about this is that life is unusual (and I can guarantee you that I have many more stories than this to prove it). You can say well its just an anomaly, as you are always going to get anomalies. But when does an anomaly become a trend? When does an anomaly become empirical evidence?

Well, very interesting. You do believe that seemingly unrelated events are actually somehow intertwined. Well, how about that. There is a cosmic balance.

But that's not what you said at all is it. You said you can find someone who always loses to BALANCE out my improbable winnings.I can understand why you aid this. Clearly you were thinking that for the stats will even themselves out over time, one wins another loses....When does an anomaly constitute evidence?

Well, first off most casino don't really operate on the principal that they will make their little 2 percent or from percent from the odds. That wouldn't be enough for them to make the profits they shoot for. They are not in the business of odds, they are in the business of psychology. When people come to gamble, they want to gamble. if they are winning, they feel that it is not their money that they are winning, and thus become even more inclined to gamble. Most people don't say, oh I have a modest winning after an hour, I think I will go home now. What fun would that be. So if they are winning, they double up. Or if its late, they are getting tired after being there staring at meaningless numbers for six hours, they make rash decisions. No clocks, hard to find exits, lots of noise, these are all just tools of the trade of the psychology of the business. They don't care about odds, they have the ultimate advantage-the desire of everyone to be even richer, even the rich. Give someone 10 and they want 20, give em 20 and they want 40. And when they have 40, and it wasn't their 40 to begin with, its even easier to let it fly. So of course the casino will win, even if it were an exact fifty/ fifty game. If you double up enough at a fifty fifty game, you are going to lose eventually. Money gambled in a casino stays in a casino.

So now let's talk about psychology and numbers. By my findings, when asking evolutionists if they believe in life on other planets, you get a virtual 100% affirmative response-as we have seen in our sample here (I won't include GDR because nothing is affirmative in his world, because for us his world doesn't exist.) Now how can that be, that 100% of the people here say yes, its either likely, or they believe it is true-and yet those exact same people absolutely scoff at the notion that there is a God. If you asked the exact same question and just replaced it with God, the numbers would totally flip flop. You see this here on this forum all the time. how often do you all keep repeating the same old lines-why would you believe in some magic fairy? What proof do you have of a God? Why in the world would you believe in something that you have no empirical evidence of?Just look at how laughable coyote's response is: He is trying to condemn ME for not believing that life on other planets exists! Which is odd, not only because I never made a comment about whether I believe it does or not, but more pertinently because he spends his whole existence on this forum stating unequivocally that a God surely doesn't exist! As do 90 % of the evolutionists here. Some may be agnostic on the issue, but even those who are agnostic about it don't go around saying "well, I don't know, but it sure seems likely, or probable, or you would think so...."all of the types of comments you would get when you ask them about life on other planets.So I think this paints about as clear a picture as one can get in the God no God issue. One could very easily argue that there is much more evidence for a God than there is for life on other planets, let's be honest here. We do have laws of nature, and physical properties and physical constants in the world-so these had to come from some where. We also have consciousness, which nobody can really explain adequately via a chaos model of the world. And if we don't have chaos we have order, and thus the evidence for some kind of force behind the order becomes pretty high.So it kind of puts the whole evolutionist constant nagging about needing evidence to believe, and taking the skeptical approach, and simply being interested in a search for the truth as a not very genuine sentiment, intentionally or unintentionally. You like Star Trek, you are a bunch of star gazing tech geeks, and you love fantasizing about what aliens might look like. You also dislike the politics of religion, and you don't like the idea of being under the control of a mystical force. Its a purely psychological divide-not a rational one.Are there exceptions, sure. But as you all well believe in the power of numbers, these are just anomalies, and in the end star gazing geeks are going to believe in UFO's and not believe in a God. It doesn't matter one lick what the real evidence is. You are predisposed to want to believe in one and not the other. Either through your perceptions of religion, or you love of fantasy worlds (I wonder how many Star Trek/Sci Fi fans are here? No I don't need to wonder, you all are.)You are not about believing what the evidence shows, no matter how often and how vociferously you claim this. You are a victim of your personality, which prefers one thing, and not another. It is not about which is more likely, an alien is no more likely than a God. And yet 100% of you believe in aliens! Pretty darn amazing stats.

You don't know much about casinos.

Yes, and you clearly no nothing about psychology. So you wouldn't make a very good pit boss.

!00% of the regular evolutionist contributors to this website believe there is life on other planets with exactly ZERO evidence for such a belief.If that doesn't tell you anything about the nature of the people, and the inaccurate declaration that so called "scientists" use their rational minds to form their beliefs, then what the fuck are you here for, because you sure as hell aren't going to learn anything.So, just jam your fingers in your ears, and hide your eyes. Or you can attempt the impossible logic of crashfrog 'why did the order have to come from anywhere, and life is ever present throughout the universe", hogwash. Either way, the evidence can't be any clearer, 100% believe in something they have no evidence for, and at the same time insist there is no God.Just don't try to convince me that your beliefs are purely based on sound principals.

There is evidence for life in one form, physical, so that is evidence that there could be life in other forms, meta-physical.See how easy it is to use your catastrophically bad analogies?

Yes, you really got me there, it doesn't make sense at all, come to think of it.You and crashfrog are really genius at spotting bad analogies! Its almost as if its such a bad analogies that it would seem like someone purposely was making a bad analogy to illustrate some point about bad analogies.It such a ridiculous analogy it seems almost a child would make it up. Physical life is evidence for meta-physical life! get outta here! Life on Earth is evidence for life on other planets..get the fuck...wait, what?!No, in the future one should really be careful about trying to pull any fast ones on you guys, you catch it all!

What did I fail to hear? (Please explain in non-vulcan language so I can figure out what you are trying to say)