Justin wrote:
Well.

If you have an equation - "what equals the conditions for life" - and all of the elements of the equation are variable, it's difficult to determine a final value.

Yup.  All we've got are lots of places to plug in our data, but with "unknown" in all the places.

If there were, say, 20 universes, and 10 of them had life on only one planet, and 10 of them had life on 99 billion planets each, we could fairly say that, based on the available data, there is a 50/50 chance that in our universe there is some alien life out there.  But we only have our one universe (ignoring the multi-verse theory for now), and we don't even know much about that.  So, we have no data on which to base a claim about the likelihood of extra-terrestrial life.  And anyway, the next 20 universes might require us to re-work all our figures.

I'm guessing some will say, "Data?  Data?  We don't need no steenking data!"

Tropic Light wrote:
Well, the Drake Equation was written in 1961 and just dealt with the probability of intelligent life capable of radio communications within our galaxy.  Since some of the values within the equation are unknown, then it's impossible to arrive at a viable solution.  The concept though, is valid if you plug estimates such as fc=2,400 into it.  Those exercises will never even give you a ballpark figure because of the unknowns, but it does create an intellectual exercise and a benchmark for scientific inquiry. 

The number of known planets has risen dramatically in recent years, so there is much more known about the numbers and extrapolations than was known 50+ years ago.

Yes to that.  And BTW, that's all that Drake intended his equation to be used for, "to stimulate scientific dialogue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Most people who have posted on this subject have said that it is  likely that there is life somewhere in the universe besides on Earth. But "likely" is a question of probabilities, and probabilities is a question of numbers.

Yet, no one says what the numbers are.  No one even seems to know what the order of magnitude is.  Are the odds that there is alien life out there billions to one?  Trillions to one?  Quadrillions to one?

Seems to me, if we don't know the numbers, we have no logical basis to say that extra-terrestrial life is "likely."  Maybe one day, we'll examine all the celestial bodies and see if they have life.  But we're not there yet, far from it.  So, we don't have empirical data, either.

Nothing seems to be left but feelings.  I, too, "feel" that there is life out there somewhere.  And maybe the feeling is correct.  But it's just a feeling. 

For the "What's your point?" crowd...no point other than the one I just made.

There are no odds, we don't even know how large the universe is. However, it's almost unlikely for life NOT to exist outside of earth.

Consider the following facts:

-There are likely more than 200 billion Solar Systems in our Galaxy
-There are 200billion to inifinite galaxies in the universe (no one knows)
-There are 9 (8) Planets in our solar system, and there is life in it!!! That's 9 to 1 odds for you.
-There is nothing special about the position of earth in the universe or anything special about the conditions that allow life to exist here.
-The physical laws of the universe remain constant throughout, well, the universe.

So whatever cooked us up, there is actually a pretty big chance that the universe as a whole is teeming with life.

'Life' on earth has existed for over 3 billion years. They believe the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, so those are the odds.

If you really need odds, the fine it's 50/50



P.S. As far as physical travel, we haven't even been outside our solar system! The Voyager spacecrafts have been traveling something like 20,000+ KMPH  non-stop for over 30 years now, and one just reached the edge of our SOLAR SYSTEM!

How F'n crazy is that? It will take another like 20-30,000 years to reach the next solar system!

International2014 wrote:

There are no odds, we don't even know how large the universe is. However, it's almost unlikely for life NOT to exist outside of earth.

Consider the following facts:

-There are likely more than 200 billion Solar Systems in our Galaxy
-There are 200billion to inifinite galaxies in the universe (no one knows)
-There are 9 (8) Planets in our solar system, and there is life in it!!! That's 9 to 1 odds for you.
-There is nothing special about the position of earth in the universe or anything special about the conditions that allow life to exist here.
-The physical laws of the universe remain constant throughout, well, the universe.

So whatever cooked us up, there is actually a pretty big chance that the universe as a whole is teeming with life.

'Life' on earth has existed for over 3 billion years. They believe the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, so those are the odds.

If you really need odds, the fine it's 50/50



P.S. As far as physical travel, we haven't even been outside our solar system! The Voyager spacecrafts have been traveling something like 20,000+ KMPH  non-stop for over 30 years now, and one just reached the edge of our SOLAR SYSTEM!

How F'n crazy is that? It will take another like 20-30,000 years to reach the next solar system!

How did you arrive at that figure?  What body of data did you derive it from?

Fotticelli wrote:
You can't calculate probabilities based on the sample of 1.

The only thing that we can say for certain is that we don't know if there is life in the Universe besides the Earth.

Thank you.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Most people who have posted on this subject have said that it is  likely that there is life somewhere in the universe besides on Earth. But "likely" is a question of probabilities, and probabilities is a question of numbers.

Yet, no one says what the numbers are.

To me, the amazing thing about physicists is their ability to hold & appreciate some humongously huge numbers.  Think about the number, a billion -- 1,000,000,000 -- what do you have a billion of?  Our galaxy has 100 billion stars in it -- 100,000,000,000, and that's just one galaxy.  There are roughly 100 billion galaxy in just the observable universe.  That's a hecka lot of stars.

As technology improves, scientists now believe that many, if not most, stars have planets.  So, how many planets are there in the universe?  I don't have a word for a number that big. So, if you want to say that a planet that supports life is one in a quadrillion, well, okay -- that still means that there are billions of life-supporting planets in the universe.

Big numbers.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

To me, the amazing thing about physicists is their ability to hold & appreciate some humongously huge numbers.  Think about the number, a billion -- 1,000,000,000 -- what do you have a billion of?  Our galaxy has 100 billion stars in it -- 100,000,000,000, and that's just one galaxy.  There are roughly 100 billion galaxy in just the observable universe.  That's a hecka lot of stars.

As technology improves, scientists now believe that many, if not most, stars have planets.  So, how many planets are there in the universe?  I don't have a word for a number that big. So, if you want to say that a planet that supports life is one in a quadrillion, well, okay -- that still means that there are billions of life-supporting planets in the universe.

Big numbers.

It isn't what I want to say.  In this thread, I'm asking you.

Astronomers have discovered over 1,000 planets.  But they haven't found life on any of the, except on Earth.

"Many, if not most"?  Sorry, that's not a database that you can hang a statement of probabilities on.

And "life-supporting" does not mean "life-bearing."

International2014 wrote:
-There is nothing special about the position of earth in the universe or anything special about the conditions that allow life to exist here.

While there is nothing special (as far as we know) about our position in the universe, there are plenty of special attributes that the Earth has (position to it's star, molten core, the relationship to it's moon, etc.) that make it "special".  How special that is on a level beyond out solar system is up for debate.  Maybe it's not that special, but it also might be.  Now, given the numbers we're talking about, surely life, even intelligent life, exists elsewhere, but the odds of us finding it (or them finding us) is close to nil (and this assumes that our evolutionary paths overlap, which, given the short time frame for existence on Earth, might be problematic).

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I will go 1/2 on that life will be discovered in our solar system within twenty years. That means you have to put $2 on to win $1. No actually I'd wager on that. Make it 1/4

So that should shut up those who think I'm overly sceptical about life on other planets.

But it won't be intelligent enough to have developed space flight imho. It will be some form of extremophile. It's speculation but based on what we know about life on earth in extreme conditions.
Methane ice dweller:

http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/ … eworms.htm

I suspect that if there is life out there, it will be similar to Earth life in some respects, but also different.  The thylacine comes to mind.  It looked like some sort of canine, but it was not.  It's just that similar environments tend to produce similar organisms.  All of the planets and stars seem to have the same elements found on Earth - nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc.  There are only so many ways those elements will combine.  So, if the planet is old enough, and friendly enough to life, I'd expect to find quadripeds, bipeds, winged creatures, creatures with eyes, water-dwellers with fins, etc.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Members continue to say they believe that there is extra-terrestrial life out there, but without backing it up with math or science.  Well, I'm OK with that. 

Bookies are often a good guide


Here's the betting

66/1 this year
66/1 2019
100/1 any year up to 2020 bar

That's like bet $1 and you win $66 or $100

This is interesting
1/80 2020 and beyond

That means bet $80 and you only win $1


http://m.oddschecker.com/novelty/alien- … -be-proven

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Bookies are often a good guide


Here's the betting

66/1 this year
66/1 2019
100/1 any year up to 2020 bar

That's like bet $1 and you win $66 or $100

This is interesting
1/80 2020 and beyond

That means bet $80 and you only win $1


http://m.oddschecker.com/novelty/alien- … -be-proven

What does Oddschecker base its odds on?

photographybyStavros wrote:
If we go by where there is water there must be life. Then there is a lot of life out there, in various forms. All the accounts of alien and abductions and UFO sightings cannot possibly be hoaxes.

This is my view as well, that not all UFO accounts can possibly be hoaxes, misidentifications or delusions.  The whole idea that everyone who reports UFOs is either a liar, deluded or mistaken is preposterous to me.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
What does Oddschecker base its odds on?

Research. They obviously have little faith in UFO website claims, but think NASA SETI and astrobiologists studying extremophiles etc more reliable to make a book on..

And it's not oddschecker. It's Paddy Power. Oddschecker check odds from various bookies.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
How did you arrive at that figure?  What body of data did you derive it from?

What figure do you think is not correct?

Anyway if you're looking for hard data to analyze 'odds' of life elsewhere, you already know there is no hard data. Even if there was, there is no simple way to factor an equation of the chances of life existing elsewhere, based on what we know today.

We can only 'see' as far as the observable universe, so who really knows what's beyond our 'vision'?

Many physicists and other scientists seem to think that based on what we know about life, there is likely life that exists or has existed outside of our planet.

It can neither be proven or dis-proven with our current knowledge so anything else is purely opinion and educated guesses, which is what you stated in your argument.   You're 100% right.

aspergianLens wrote:
This is my view as well, that not all UFO accounts can possibly be hoaxes, misidentifications or delusions.  The whole idea that everyone who reports UFOs is either a liar, deluded or mistaken is preposterous to me.

Yet every one presented to me in forums here has not hold water. I'd love to see one that does. I'm told an astronaut is a reliable witness yet his accounts are not consistent and he withdrew testimony. I am given a sighting from the Korean war that sounds exactly  like a helicopter, an alleged UFO landing in a forest where felled trees turned out to have axe marks and there is a lighthouse where the lights were reported. To name just a few. None of them stand up to close scrutiny. Find me one that does, and cannot be explained by any more likely explanation.


And the volume of sightings of ghosts demons angels and unicorns doesn't mean they exist(ed) either. Everyone that saw then was a liar, deluded, or mistaken. They were seeing something they couldn't explain. Some if those things we now can eg Marco Polos unicorn a Javan rhino.  Odins hunt likely the aurora borealis etc Those not familiar with red sprites, blue jays, ball lightning, marsh gas 'apparitions', weather balloons, gyrocopters, etc will often imagine them unexplained therefore alien. Hell I've even shown you re pilots being reliable witnesses, one who injured 16 people diving to avoid a collision with Venus, millions of miles away.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Yet every one presented to me in forums here has not hold water. I'd love to see one that does. I'm told an astronaut is a reliable witness yet his accounts are not consistent and he withdrew testimony. I am given a sighting from the Korean war that sounds exactly  like a helicopter, an alleged UFO landing in a forest where felled trees turned out to have axe marks and there is a lighthouse where the lights were reported. To name just a few. None of them stand up to close scrutiny. Find me one that does, and cannot be explained by any more likely explanation.


And the volume of sightings of ghosts demons angels and unicorns doesn't mean they exist(ed) either. Everyone that saw then was a liar, deluded, or mistaken. They were seeing something they couldn't explain. Some if those things we now can eg Marco Polos unicorn a Javan rhino.  Odins hunt likely the aurora borealis etc Those not familiar with red sprites, blue jays, ball lightning, marsh gas 'apparitions', weather balloons, gyrocopters, etc will often imagine them unexplained therefore alien. Hell I've even shown you re pilots being reliable witnesses, one who injured 16 people diving to avoid a collision with Venus, millions of miles away.

I think a real possibility here is that you're too biased against the topic to ever find any evidence to be worthwhile.  You are also probably setting the bar too high for what is acceptable as "evidence".

edit: You probably won't accept anything as evidence, short of a alien body or an intact spacecraft.  You know as well I do, that it is a very remote possibility we'd get that sort of proof.  Though, according to the UFOlogy lore, there have been well over a dozen such crashes and recoveries of downed UFOs, but that our governments keep it from us, for various reasons.

Also, I didn't participate entirely in that other thread, so I don't necessarily know which cases you are referring to, as to not "holding water".  Which ones are you referring to?

aspergianLens wrote:
I think a real possibility here is that you're too biased against the topic to ever find any evidence to be worthwhile.  You are also probably setting the bar too high for what is acceptable as "evidence".

edit: You probably won't accept anything as evidence, short of a alien body or an intact spacecraft.  You know as well I do, that it is a very remote possibility we'd get that sort of proof.  Though, according to the UFOlogy lore, there have been well over a dozen such crashes and recoveries of downed UFOs, but that our governments keep it from us, for various reasons.

Also, I didn't participate entirely in that other thread, so I don't necessarily know which cases you are referring to, as to not "holding water".  Which ones are you referring to?

You are the one with the bias. You have a belief with no evidence to support it and like others invent preposterous reasons to conveniently explain it - the cover up conspiracy model - also without evidence. I have an open mind. But claims of evidence looked at are virtually all flawed.

The cases given to me as credible were all from unreliable websites full of hokum.

But I looked at them and it was claimed they offered sound evidence.

One was astronaut Gordon Cooper. It transpires that he later withdrew claims. Claims that a film taken was hidden was a lie. It exists, as does the report showing a,weather balloon was,responsible.

I was given Rendlesham forest which turned out to have been thoroughly debunked too.

I was given a flatiron as an ancient pyramid, and cave paintings purported to represent aliens, and foo fighters that can be explained by ice halos as they were flying at 15000 ft where that occurs around sources of light and the sky was illuminated by flak,  burning shrapnel in slipstream then flying off in crazy directions, etc, and a Korean GI testimony but is an excellent description of a helicopter with a seachlight, and it all eliminates word for word from one dodgy website anyway.

Not one is from a reliable unbiased source, not one looks remotely like having to say we need a fantastical explanation. And all completely puke on scientific method and are contemptuous of what constitutes evidence.


If these alleged craft can crash they are physical. They would leave some evidence. Oh yeah but scientists looking at it would be in the conspiracy to cover it up to I forgot.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
You are the one with the bias. You have a belief with no evidence to support it and like others invent preposterous reasons to conveniently explain it. I have an open mind. But claims of evidence looked at are virtually all flawed.

If I am biased then so are you, just the opposite way.  I don't have any beliefs without "evidence", though -- it's just that my standards of evidence are different.  As to where to draw the line, it's a matter of viewpoint. 

And I've not "invented" anything.  I made nothing up, so that's "preposterous" of you.  You're also edging too damn close to calling me a liar, and don't like it at all.

The cases given to me as credible were all from unreliable websites full of hokum.

But I looked at them and it was claimed they offered sound evidence.

One was astronaut Gordon Cooper. It transpires that he later withdrew claims. Claims that a film taken was hidden was a lie. It exists, as does the report showing a,weather balloon was,responsible.

I was given Rendlesham forest which turned out to have been thoroughly debunked too.

You won't even read those sites carefully to determine which ones are reliable and which are not.  It's just like before when you wouldn't look at anything I linked to because they aren't peer-reviewed.  Well, too bad, because UFOlogy doesn't get peer-reviewed because of the bias against the subject in mainstream science!

As for Rendlesham, thoroughly debunked by who? Why do you automatically believe the debunkers instead of carefully investigating the matter yourself? You have barely read into the matter and you make up your mind without carefully looking at things.  Haven't you ever heard of "think for yourself?"

I was given a flatiron as an ancient pyramid, and cave paintings purported to represent aliens, and foo fighters that can be explained by ice halos as they were flying at 15000 ft where that occurs around sources of light and the sky was illuminated by flak,  burning shrapnel in slipstream then flying off in crazy directions, etc, and a Korean GI testimony but is an excellent description of a helicopter with a seachlight, and it all eliminates word for word from one dodgy website anyway.

Not one is from a reliable unbiased source, not one looks remotely like having to say we need a fantastical explanation. And all completely puke on scientific method and are contemptuous of what constitutes evidence.

If these alleged craft can crash they are physical. They would leave some evidence. Oh yeah but scientists looking at it would be in the conspiracy to cover it up to I forgot.

I don't really know what you're referring to here, as far as the flatiron, but I think explaining foo fighters away as ice halos doesn't cut it, when it really doesn't match what the pilots reported.  You're going to have to try harder than that.  When a skeptic offers explanations that don't match what the witness reports, it is a failure.

And how do you know what is biased and unbiased? I really want to know, since you seem to have a know-it-all attitude about this and every other subject.

Finally, I'd just like to say, you come across as stubborn, smug, arrogant, and condescending to anyone who dares hold a different opinion than you.  You may be a scientist but you are not necessarily smarter than anyone else here.  Quite frankly, you should just stick to Quaternary Science, because your constant pontificating on subjects you're not familiar with makes you look like a blowhard.

aspergianLens wrote:

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
You are the one with the bias. You have a belief with no evidence to support it and like others invent preposterous reasons to conveniently explain it. I have an open mind. But claims of evidence looked at are virtually all flawed.

If I am biased then so are you, just the opposite way.  I don't have any beliefs without "evidence", though -- it's just that my standards of evidence are different.  As to where to draw the line, it's a matter of viewpoint. 

And I've not "invented" anything.  I made nothing up, so that's "preposterous" of you.  You're also edging too damn close to calling me a liar, and don't like it at all.

The cases given to me as credible were all from unreliable websites full of hokum.

But I looked at them and it was claimed they offered sound evidence.

One was astronaut Gordon Cooper. It transpires that he later withdrew claims. Claims that a film taken was hidden was a lie. It exists, as does the report showing a,weather balloon was,responsible.

I was given Rendlesham forest which turned out to have been thoroughly debunked too.

You won't even read those sites carefully to determine which ones are reliable and which are not.  It's just like before when you wouldn't look at anything I linked to because they aren't peer-reviewed.  Well, too bad, because UFOlogy doesn't get peer-reviewed because of the bias against the subject in mainstream science!

As for Rendlesham, thoroughly debunked by who? Why do you automatically believe the debunkers instead of carefully investigating the matter yourself? You have barely read into the matter and you make up your mind without carefully looking at things.  Haven't you ever heard of "think for yourself?"

I was given a flatiron as an ancient pyramid, and cave paintings purported to represent aliens, and foo fighters that can be explained by ice halos as they were flying at 15000 ft where that occurs around sources of light and the sky was illuminated by flak,  burning shrapnel in slipstream then flying off in crazy directions, etc, and a Korean GI testimony but is an excellent description of a helicopter with a seachlight, and it all eliminates word for word from one dodgy website anyway.

Not one is from a reliable unbiased source, not one looks remotely like having to say we need a fantastical explanation. And all completely puke on scientific method and are contemptuous of what constitutes evidence.

If these alleged craft can crash they are physical. They would leave some evidence. Oh yeah but scientists looking at it would be in the conspiracy to cover it up to I forgot.

I don't really know what you're referring to here, as far as the flatiron, but I think explaining foo fighters away as ice halos doesn't cut it, when it really doesn't match what the pilots reported.  You're going to have to try harder than that.  When a skeptic offers explanations that don't match what the witness reports, it is a failure.

And how do you know what is biased and unbiased? I really want to know, since you seem to have a know-it-all attitude about this and every other subject.

Finally, I'd just like to say, you come across as stubborn, smug, arrogant, and condescending to anyone who dares hold a different opinion than you.  You may be a scientist but you are not necessarily smarter than anyone else here.  Quite frankly you should just stick to Quaternary Science, because your constant pontificating on subjects you're not familiar with makes you look like a blowhard.

You insult me personally, and claim that I'm a blowhard and should stick to QR. But I'm also a geographer familiar with things like marsh gas, ice halos , weather balloons, blue jays and red sprites,  sink holes, etc. So if YOU have an open mind you'd respect somebody with a little knowledge in those areas, plus in some cases local indigenous human and animal activity. If an incident CAN be explained by such you don't NEED to consider fantastic ones. That's how it works. You HAVE to eliminate ALL other possibilities in the course of any analysis of evidence on any field BEFORE you can claim anything, and even then cautiously. This isn't MY opinion, it's how science and the nature of what constitutes evidence works.
You can reject that all you want but those that do will never be taken seriously. Every scientist in every field understands that. I'm paid to tutor students in it. If you wish to believe these websites are not biased you are deluding yourself. I should not have to explain this to you
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_ … science_06

Once more, it's not the SUBJECT of alien life that is what the scientific establishment is against. SETI would not exist if that were true. It is the utter contempt for or ignorance of what constitutes evidence. Either way it's massively insulting to real scientists.

I'm not going over Rendlesham again. READ IT YOURSELF:

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.co.uk/p/r … s.html?m=1

It doesn't offer definite explaination, but it does make it impossible for anybody but a believer to think it's definitely evidence of et craft and there are enough contradictions and alternative plausible explanations to vast doubt and that's all that needed. The burden of evidence is on the claimant.



I have not called you a liar. I'm just saying you cited the convenient 'cover up' excuse to explain the lack of evidence.

But anybody who thinks these unexplained events need et craft to explain them is BIASED because they do not consider ALL the other possibilities. And you HAVE to do that to be taken seriously.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I have not called you a liar. I'm just saying you cited the convenient 'cover up' excuse to explain the lack of evidence.

But anybody who thinks these unexplained events need et craft to explain them is BIASED because they do not consider ALL the other possibilities. And you HAVE to do that to be taken seriously.

I just don't care anymore.

The only thing I care about is how you come across in the forums.  You make a civil discourse difficult when you come across as smug and dismissive of other's viewpoints.

Vivus was right -- you do come across as monomaniacal.

aspergianLens wrote:

I just don't care anymore.

The only thing I care about is how you come across in the forums.  You make a civil discourse difficult when you come across as smug and dismissive of other's viewpoints.

Vivus was right -- you do come across as monomaniacal.

What constitutes scientific method, the nature of evidence. reliable citation etc is NOT a matter of opinion. I may be wrong often in discussion, but someone who refuses to follow or recognize such protocol will always fail and ultimately do damage to themselves.


I am only dismissive of those who ignore such protocol. Nobody will take you or those ufologists seriously while they ignore the basic principles of scientific inquiry. If you cite an unreliable source for example, in ANY debate you will get pulled up on it.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
What constitutes scientific method, the nature of evidence. reliable citation etc is NOT a matter of opinion. I may be wrong often in discussion, but someone who refuses to follow or recognize such protocol will always fail and ultimately do damage to themselves.


I am only dismissive of those who ignore such protocol. Nobody will take you or those ufologists seriously while they ignore the basic principles of scientific inquiry. If you cite an unreliable source for example, in ANY debate you will get pulled up on it.

Granted, but part of the problem -- and I think this is very real -- is that there is a real reluctance to accept any UFO-related research and have it peer-reviewed.  I think there is a serious bias against UFO in the scientific community, and it doesn't help the situation at all.

In other words, how can there be reliable UFO articles when no one will peer review them?


Also, I admit that UFOlogy is not following proper scientific procedure.  I believe that the nature of the problem prevents this, largely.  There is just so little to study besides witnesses themselves, rare trace cases, and radar incidents (which are numerous but inconclusive).

As I've said before, if the subject of the inquiry weren't so elusive in nature, then UFOlogy would be a full-fledged science.

This is also a circular problem.  UFO articles don't have reliable citation because no one will peer-review them, because they don't follow proper procedure, yet they are unable to follow proper procedure because of the elusive nature of the phenomenon they are studying...

International2014 wrote:

What figure do you think is not correct?

Anyway if you're looking for hard data to analyze 'odds' of life elsewhere, you already know there is no hard data. Even if there was, there is no simple way to factor an equation of the chances of life existing elsewhere, based on what we know today.

We can only 'see' as far as the observable universe, so who really knows what's beyond our 'vision'?

Many physicists and other scientists seem to think that based on what we know about life, there is likely life that exists or has existed outside of our planet.

It can neither be proven or dis-proven with our current knowledge so anything else is purely opinion and educated guesses, which is what you stated in your argument.   You're 100% right.

Thank you, sir.