UFOs? Now that is altogether more highly unlikely.
You think it's unlikely that flying objects exist which people haven't identified?
Any alien civilisation sufficiently advanced enough to travel the huge distances between stars/planets would hardly go for a cruise in Earths atmosphere just to snatch up a person to experiment on. ffs.
Again, no-one can discount the possibility of other sentient life forms in the universe, so these wild 'sightings' abound.
It is highly probable that at least the vast majority of (alien) UFO sightings are false, possibly fake.
Though whether any of them are actually true (even if it's just one or a few) is unknown. We don't really have enough evidence to say.
nope you don't! You hope there is maybe, you can even believe there is, but you can't state it as a fact.
Odds are there might be, but probability isn't a guarantee
If you want to get pedantic, nothing can be absolutely known beyond your own existence ("I think therefore I am").
So in order to have any knowledge beyond that, we have to accept that while we cannot absolutely know anything else for certain, it is far more useful to accept ideas as fact if they have an extremely high degree of probability.
For example, I assume that the universe exists.
Do I know with absolute certainty that it does? technically no. However the probability, while not absolutely 100%, is so close to 100% that it may aswell be (the difference between 100% and the actual probability is incomprehensibly small).
People might argue that the probability of life occurring on a random planet is very small. And yes, that seems to be the case:
And what do you think the odds are that a planet capable of sustaining/creating life could be formed? Maybe it's a zillion to one, and we're that lucky one.
However, this is looking at things the wrong way.
The probability of life occurring on
any one or more planet(s) in the universe is equal to the probability of life occurring on
one random planet multiplied by the total number of planets in the universe.
And just how many planets are there in the universe? If you think there are trillions of trillions of planets, you'd be off by an extremely large margin.
The number of planets in the universe is an incomprehensibly large number, and even the best estimates are likely to be off by a massive degree.
Pick a random planet, and the probability of life on that particular planet is really small.
Consider every planet in the universe, and the probability of life on any one or more of them is so close to 100% that it may aswell be.
*edit*
Actually, no. It is 100%, Because we know for a fact that life has occurred. Here. On Earth.
But I guess the question people really want to know is whether any of them are intelligent and technologically advanced enough to have been here at Earth.
The problem with that is we don't even properly understand how 'it' happened. The theory of evolution is still just that, a theory.
And the colour red appears red.
Just as the theory of gravity is simply the current working model, built on evidence, detailing
how gravity (the label for the known phenomena of what happens) works, the theory of evolution is the current working model, detailing how evolution (the label for the known phenomena of what happens) works.
Under the scientific process, data and evidence to discover what happens or can happen.
Once known physical phenomena (eg gravity) are discovered, we look at the data and circumstances in which it works and try to describe it. A new (untested) description is called a hypothesis.
Once a hypothesis is made, people attempt to make testable predictions - and then test them.
for example, in the case of gravity, one might try to describe the mathematical relationship between mass and gravitational acceleration. Then, using that mathematical description, try to predict how much acceleration would occur given the masses of two objects (the earth and a bowling ball, or the earth and the moon)
If, using repeated (and repeatable) tests with a range of circumstances, the mathematical model accurately approximates the results, the hypothesis then becomes part of a theory describing the known phenomena.
In the instance of evolution, it is known that genetic frequency does change over time.
The theory of evolution is the result of a buildup of data, evidence, predictions and testing to describe and model how genetic frequency changes over time.
One that's slowly getting better and more accurate as our understanding of how things work increases, yes, but still incomplete.
I think you're confusing completeness with accuracy; They're not the same thing.
Einstein's relativity gives accurate models of motion, gravity, and energy transformation, but is not complete.
For instance, I doubt that 'nothing' suddenly exploded with a big bang and created the billions of stars/galaxies/lifeforms everywhere.
And no scientist even attempts to make this claim; it is not part of the big bang theory, and neither is the subject of evolution or abiogenesis.
The theory of the big bang, the theory of evolution, and the theory of abiogenesis are each separate models describing different aspects/events of the universe or processes within it.
