I like learning new things... please point out what is wrong. I wrote it in a general sense as I know in everything there are extremes, however, if I'm wrong about these generalities of Big Bang, let me know.

Your statements are so full of crap and easily contradicted by studying the vast differences of life on our own planet.

1) 99.9% of life found on this planet is carbon based. However, we have found life we thought couldn't exist in deep sea sulfur vents that are sulfur based.

sure but that is still an element we understand.its evolution atleast has happened according to earth.

i am not saying it cannot exist.just saying our consciousness won't conceive it

the same way we cannot see x-rays's,gamma rays

2) Big Bang started at a single point and spread out over an endless vacuum of space. This means that solar systems/planets closest to the point of origin would be vastly older than systems further out. I would put a very large wager that we are not near the center meaning that there are countless societies that exist that are far older and more advanced that us.

thats where oyu are wrong.

newton's physics suggest's absolute space and time which is correct

but einstein's physics also suggest's that we can measure the changes in time like going from one point to another.

so it just cannot be that two earth-like planets were born on the same time.

we can't pin point where big bang happned,it isn't like the center from where the universe is around it.it was just an invent which our current conciousness perceives

BIG BANG won't even matter 200 years as human understanding and vision  of the world would have toally changes.evolution must have happened which we just cannot comprehend today and conciousness will be different.

kinda like super powers.for exmaple if wer can comprehend electricity today and think what it can do and how cool it would be to have infamous like powers.

but when electricity wasn't invented,a person couldn't even comprehend.100's of years from now a person would think of it as a toy,by then they would have new science-fiction powers that we cannot comprehend today.

3) Additionally, looking at the history of our own planet... humans from the America's were vastly behind in regards to technology and weapons as compared to humans in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East when they came into contact. Why would you think life forms on different planets would be similar?

for that you have to look at the human migrations and human evolution throughout ages

if you know what old world and new world means

it was that africa,asia,europe were the first world which were kinda linked and near so migrations happened.

AMERICA,AUSTRALIA were new world lands as less people had migrated to them as they were dicovered later with new way's of transport.

here you also get the explanation why europe trounced everyone as they had horizontal lands which facilitated agriculture,china has the same.

african lands are vertical so different variations of sunlight which left them behind.

4) There is WAY too much out there for it to be remotely conceivable that Earth is the only planet with not only life, but intelligent life. If I was given trillions of trillions of dollars, I could guarantee a winning ticket in every lottery game in this world.

no it wouldn't.i used to think like this way back when i had a science fiction imagination and money can make anything happen mindset.

5) Even from a religious perspective it seems illogical that a omnipresent God would create such a large canvas to only put life on one part of one pixel.

there you are wrong again

read on consciousness and quantum mechanics,also on super string theory aka m theory.you will understand everything.

either

The only real argument anyone can make is whether or not anyone can develop a capability to travel across the great distances between star systems and galaxies in the first place.

it will in time,will be like star wars,trek

but we will get our own people there not find anyone.

checkout kardashev scale

I think it is quite obvious that what kitler53 said is sarcasm :|

I thought you were joking, but looks like you are not.   

yup

The darwin theories are LIMITED due to the time he stated them, just like the one that implies all living beings are made of Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.  "Every being, from the smallest amoeba to the largest whale, share the same life stream. Our DNA blocks are all the same".  That theory is NOW invalid.

it will be again valid after understanding in a some years time

this type of thing happens every few year when something new is found or infromation and knowledge is lost.

The NASA have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today, Instead of using phosphorus, uses the poisonous arsenic for its building blocks.  That bacteria may be original of earth or maybe not, who knows.

if is of earth and the elements we understand

What darwin stated so long ago that seemed to be right , now is "not so true", because as time passes new things are discovered.

sure but u also have to take into conideration his vision of the world  atm was different,our vision is diffrent.conciosness changes

Aliens obviously do exist, and if you are so closed minded to think otherwise it is a shame.

to think everything is possible is being close minded 

you really need to research on time,conciousness

o_O.Q said:

einstein is not omnipotent, he is not god... all he has done is put forth his ideas on how some things are based on know ledge available in his era which for all we know may be proven wrong in this one or the next... its never a good idea to take these theories this seriously

nothing is wrong or right

our world constatly changes and the way we perceive them changes. laws of physics change over time as our perception changes

i'm not sure about the point you're getting at here... as you mentioned yes ever living being percieves things differently, but i don't understand how that correlates with the possibilty ofother life existing or not

cause it took us somje time to get to our perception of the world today

its like BIG BANG is point A--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------pont B today's perception.

everything in the space is formed at a different time so their understanding of the owrl is different coupled with the world they developed in.

conciousness is key to understanding what i'm saying.just watch 2 videos i posted in life and space explained thread a few days ago

well that depends on if the aliens are using materials that we are unfamiliar with or if they have somehow altered know materials to make new ones suitable for some task... but its not necessarily set in stone that aliens would come from planets with materials completely different from our own, but i must agree that its very unlikely that aliens would follow the same kind of progression we have in terns of technological developement

read m theory or superstring theory

i'm not saying aliens do not exist.just saying our conciousness and the 3 dimensional world we live in is just different from some other people who perceive the world

Diplomacising? Do humans diplomacise with forest animals before cutting down a forest? If they're that advanced, what makes you think they won't view us as simply an inferior species, and do what we do to the animals we consider to be 'inferior' to us (zoos, funting for sport, circuses, eating us etc.)?

And it's unlikely that a resolution like in War of the Worlds would happen in real life. It is a deus ex machina after all. If the aliens are that advanced, I'm sure they'd study the atmosphere and the environment before exposing themselves to it. Heck, we humans would do the same too. 

There is plenty of possibility of a diplomatic outcome of aliens turning up. They could be a more kinda civilisation than colonial humans.

Furthermore, you may compare us with animals in our inability to do damage to invading aliens, but we have one thing the animals don't have, the sheer bloody mindedness to give it a shot. If aliens were to attack, we would probably detonate nukes as a last resort rather than letting the aliens get our planet :P

You only use diplomacy with those whom you consider your equals.

Couldn't disagree more. Your own examples prove you wrong.

The Pilgrims initially traded with the Native Americans, for food, for land. They did this because they needed food and other things that the Natives could provide. When the settlements began to prosper, then trade was stopped - the colonialists no longer needed anythign from the Natives. The British traded with the Australian Aboriginees, particularly alcohol.

Assuming that the aliens turn up for either colonisation, or for resources (much more likely than simply turning up to wipe us out for the fun of it imo), then they would quite possibly try a diplomatic approach first. Who knows, they may end up attacking later, or they may not.