Just to clarify . . . I am not arguing the idea that there is intelligent life elsewhere. If not in our galaxy, then in another. It seems a supreme display of human ego to assume otherwise.

My argument is that it's a bit presumptuous to assume that it will be humanoid in form. Which I also feel is a display of human ego.

I'm wondering now if the underlying question in the original post is less about the existence of intelligent life elsewhere, but rather what, exactly, constitutes "intelligent."

Excellent post, CarolA. I can't disagree with you on any point. Glad to see that someone seems to understand the difference between traveling through a "wormhole" and being sucked into a black hole, as well. I've spent some time on forums dealing with people's terror of black holes as a result of the LHC, and it seems many have a hard time with this subject.

As much as I love "Stargate" and other SF shows, I can see a whole lot of technical problems (just a few!) with most interstellar travel that doesn't take too much notice of the speed of light.
Also, unless you can tap into a few neutron stars or some other exotic means of energy it takes a lot of power to start fooling laws of physics - I think a Mr Einstein had a few words to say about this.

A pity, it would be very exciting to meet an alien.

Domesticated, Intelligent, Top of the Food Chain.

Is there a difference between a herd of cattle and a school of fish. Are not the microbes, that begin the food chain also the top of the food chain, making them the most intelligent life form, as they resist evolutionary adaptations in the choice to remain a life form. What if these beings are simply waiting for their evolutionary fault to disipate before they undergo that series of adaptations once again, for now content to simply feed on the decaying matter of their creation. Is that intelligence.

Over population.

Earth, currently the only planet in the universe, capable of sustaining life. The universe however, is yet prepared for the existance of humanoid life, so this culture basin we inhabit, sustains all humanoid life within the comunities of species that co-exist. The petridish waiting to infect the universe at that moment when life is sustainable.

Fact, Hypothesis, Probability, Belief.

"Do not underestimate the power of the force". When you condemn someone elses conjecture over a theory of unspeakable outcomes, you do not posess intelligence or reason, you have simply put your faith in the understanding of things, into the hands of religion. Religion is not a link to the www, page of God, it is simply a stance of great acceptance. Great minds are not only those that delve into the feilds of science. Science is not the root of all creation, nor is it the pinnacle of creativity and maybe we should not be so predetermined to rule out any possibilities, simply because it defies our religion.

That we know of. Hence the Drake equation.

The Drake equation, is nothing but a supposition of probality, based on a theory that relates to a miniscule field of ideals, determined by others. Its only basis of conjecture, is that you are informed enough in these limited fields so as to subscibe to the possibilities. Alter any field in the most limited of ways and suddenly it falls to zero. Algebra in its simplest form. If we coninue to believe we are the converts of such ""science"" as this, the definition of intelligent, will not include us. There are only two Drakes that I can inform you of, one is Sir Francis, the other is a goose.

Quit pretending to grow with ideas and imagine them. Too much effort is wasted in attempting to correlate possible validations based on theory without any knowledge. Where the only facts are the forums of equations that can yield infinite and yet, empty results.

Now VideCorSpoon, this is not a direct assault on you, as I was only set off by your response and I decided to be a little more assertive. To you I will simply say that the word "currently", was in fact including "that we know of". All this discussion is, relays the possibilities that we do not know anything other than that which we can refer and the only other thing I know is what imagination brings me. Yours, someone elses or mine.

This,I perceive,is indeed a terrifying topic to negotiate.Initially,you should know that aliens and ghosts both are extraterrestrial and are arcane,there have been innumerable doubts if they do exist.No extraterrestrial things materialize before us and communicate with us,devoid of the fact that there had been peculiarities of seeing UFOs.

Since UFOs had existed,these aliens,in conjunction with ghosts,still exist in space,nevertheless,we are not acquainted with the location of them.

Urangutan,

Thanks VideCorSpoon. I have never read any of Descartes. I do not deny the possibilities within the equation but it is not a yard stick, it is just another stick. The discussion of Aliens is not a matter of probability, unless you count that they either do or do not, as a fifty/fifty chance in probable terms. The equation does not consider actuality, possibility,commonly and steers strait to eventuality. The equation looks at the seabed for a mirror and overlooks the glass. Aliens would use that equation and fly right beside each other and only find us. It exists only because, speculation cannot tie the same knot.

As for currently and Drake being involved I would have to say no. It confirms the speculation on the term, if not of. You see if alien life forms lived on the moons of Jupiter, it would not be considered of importance, as they are not planets.

You would infer, so that we may refer, I confer my apologies.