birdlike 0 #26 August 6, 2008 Quote Quote Ok, this blip was moving at "amazing speeds," so where were the complaints of area residents about sonic booms? Or is there some super-special magical UFO technology that somehow prevents them from physically occurring even though some material object is traveling through a medium of air at what I presume would be supersonic speeds (if I read the implication of "amazing" correctly)? These occurances have been reported regularly over the years, with civilians also reporting seeing and hearing things too. From all over the world. Whether the occurances are true or not, I cannot say. I didn't see them. Here's a question for you, then: What is the earliest recorded incidence of a "witness" to a space alien depicting the alien in the form that we commonly picture them (the "little green/grey men" guys with bulbous heads, enormous eyes, tiny mouths)? Do we see such depictions in manuscripts or art from Native Americans going back hundreds of years? Do the Chinese have scrolls of such depictions from several thousand years B.C.? Where are the bulbous-headed aliens in the Egyptian heiroglyphics? Why did we not begin to see aliens depicted the way everyone says the are, today, until after they began to be depicted that way in MOVIES? Quote Quote It's funny how it's ALWAYS, "I spoke to 'this controller,' " and there's never a name, a date, a place. And it's ALWAYS, well, he told me about it at the same time he told me about how he was sworn to secrecy -- so, WHICH IS IT? Was he sworn to secrecy, or did he tell you? Sure, it is funny. I did say it was a third hand story. Of course such stories tend to be general Which pretty much makes it unreliable hearsay, and useless, and dubious, and utterly without credibility! Surely you understand why we have to view it this way. Quote And members of my family have witnessed some inexplainable stuff. I'm stifling a hearty chuckle, here... I have a feeling that what ranks as "inexplainable" in your family might not ... Naw, this one's a meatball, and I'd feel too guilty hitting it so far out of the park. Quote further edit: The nearest star isn't 'x million light years' away. It's about 4.37.() OK, and our fastest spacecraft goes what percentage of the speed of light? Probably less than a thousandth (that's just a tiny guess -- I haven't done the math, and I suspect we probably manage even less than 1/1000). So that would take 4,370 years to get here. Can you think of a project that mankind could undertake and expect to stick with to completion 4,000 years later? Then remember that the energy needed to accelerate to the speed of light increases exponentially as you get closer to it. By the time you begin cutting the travel time appreciably, you are requiring astronomical amounts of energy to accelerate your ship. If these aliens are so advanced as to be capable of this, why is it credible that they'd even want to bother with us?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #27 August 6, 2008 QuoteQuote How is it that an American astronaut can know that the nearest star besides the Sun is X million light years away, and also be familiar with the limit of matter traveling anywhere near the speed of light, and still think that "they" came all this way in any reasonable lifetime or stretch of lifetimes, only to remain secretive and stealthy? Oh, I forgot, they have "warp drives." There are at least 11 stars within 10 light years of earth. take care, space Thank you. So, let's go with an average of 10 light years. What is the shortest period of time in which we would expect even our theoretically fastest ship (as in, the fastest ship we can imagine ourselves building in the next hundred years) could arrive at a point that distance from earth? Let's really talk about where we think aliens might be likely to come from, estimate that distance, estimate the speed we think they'll travel, and see how long they would have to agree to spend enroute just to explore our planet without making serious contact with us. Do we really have justification to think that they'd employ a "prime directive" to avoid contact with us? And even if they did, well, we have people swearing and down to the effect that the aliens have wantonly violated that very directive, left and right.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #28 August 6, 2008 QuoteQuote Using current technology we could build a ship that could reach the nearest star in about 50 years. (Google Project Daedalus.) This really caught my interest - I googled it and read the Wikipedia entry... so is this actually on the radar of being built or is it still just theory? Our civilization cannot get its shit together to come up with abundant clean energy -- and if we did, the muslims would try to blow it up, the Chinese would try to steal it, the Russians would try to copy it, the Japanese and Exxon would try to buy it, and no one would ever benefit from it. I rate the chances of our coming up with a workable "Daedalus" as being pretty much "daed" in the water. Forgive me for being pessimistic, but we cannot even adequately combat the spread of AIDS. Or do you believe that despite our BEST EFFORTS and BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT, we are doing anything but watching that disease FLOURISH? So our human civilization is pretty much a go-nowhere shitpile. Don't expect some Age of Aquarius, singing-in-harmony forward movement toward unity and reaching the stars any time soon. Billvon said that we could reach the nearest star (I assume he means "besides the sun") in 50 years with a workable Daedalus. Now, is there any reason we have to suspect that this star is the center of a life-sustaining solar system? If not, then we'd have to consider the next-nearest star, and keep whittling down the likely candidates from which our meek, shy little alien friends may have come. Look, I think it would be the coolest thing ever if aliens were real. I am not "opposed" to believing it. In fact, I do believe that the chance that ONLY OUR PLANET harbors life (or even intelligent life) with all the billions of galaxies that we know exist, is absurdly, infinitesimally small. (What I mean is I would be willing to bet, as if it could ever be settled in my lifetime, that there is intelligent life in the universe besides us.) I just see no evidence that we have actually found it, or it has found us, as yet. And the more HOAXES that IRRESPONSIBLE, EGO-DRIVEN, IMMATURE fans of the alien belief appear, the tougher it is to believe. Are there a lot of skeptics and nay-sayers? Blame the idiots who have, over the decades, insisted on crying wolf so many times when they KNEW they were full of shit. The damage the hoaxsters have done to any movement toward solving the universe's mysteries is inestimable.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #29 August 6, 2008 Quote Quote >so is this actually on the radar of being built . . . Not even close. It would be horrendously expensive and the payback time (50 years + 4 years) isn't worth it to most scientists. That's too bad. Though not surprising given we're on like a 20 year timetable to even go back to the moon.... This would really be an exciting project for humanity to get behind. Yeah. So would "not destroying ourselves." I'd say we need to do one before the other. Can you guess the order? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #30 August 6, 2008 Quote Quote We're already working on the theory behind such drives, although we have not come up with anything buildable using our current engineering capabilities (such as condensed negative matter stabilized wormholes.) Nonsense. I have one over at the office that we pulled off an alien spaceship that I'm &$*&^(*%*©ç¥√¬¥∑ç∫¬NO CARRIER Thank god someone was able to make me laugh here tonight. Thanks! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #31 August 6, 2008 Quote Do we see such depictions in manuscripts or art from Native Americans going back hundreds of years? Do the Chinese have scrolls of such depictions from several thousand years B.C.? Where are the bulbous-headed aliens in the Egyptian heiroglyphics? Why did we not begin to see aliens depicted the way everyone says the are, today, until after they began to be depicted that way in MOVIES? Quote Yawn. Wrong again. There have been numerous documented UFO sitings since ancient times. Try google and see what you can find. I can't be arsed. Quote If these aliens are so advanced as to be capable of this, why is it credible that they'd even want to bother with us? How would I know? They seem to be credible to great amount of credible people. Quote Thank god someone was able to make me laugh here tonight. Thanks! Really? Didn't you say 'and while religious people believe I'm doomed to hell for not accepting Jesus Christ as my savior'. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
auburnguy 0 #32 August 6, 2008 Spread your cheeks and lift your sack. Thats all this kid is going to need to know for the next 15 years."If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way." - Homer Simpson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #33 August 6, 2008 QuoteQuote Do we see such depictions in manuscripts or art from Native Americans going back hundreds of years? Do the Chinese have scrolls of such depictions from several thousand years B.C.? Where are the bulbous-headed aliens in the Egyptian heiroglyphics? Why did we not begin to see aliens depicted the way everyone says the are, today, until after they began to be depicted that way in MOVIES? QuoteYawn. Wrong again. There have been numerous documented UFO sitings since ancient times. Try google and see what you can find. I can't be arsed. You're telling me that we have verified things like cave drawings, ancient scrolls, etc. in which ancient man proves that the same "little green men" that we depict in shows like "Taken" are what they were encountering in the way-back-when? Funny, I have never seen such proof trotted out. It certainly is not mainstream in the way the famous pictures of Bigfoot or Nessie are. Surely if there were honest-to-goodness ancient scrolls depicting the bulb-headed aliens with bug-eyes, they would be ICONIC in the UFO culture right now. As it stands, it really appears to me that the alien physiology that "everyone knows" was popularized ONLY AFTER movies came up with the design. Prove to me that this type of rendering existed prior to oh, about 1930, ok? I obviously cannot prove a negative and prove that such images don't exist; that's why I'm asking you to bring to me any proof that such images go way back into human history. I don't think they do. I think that what "everyone knows" about aliens is just so much schlocky pop-culture mind candy designed to entertain people who dislike the fact that life, pretty much, is ordinary and boring.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #34 August 6, 2008 Sorry - thought you were asking for UFO depictions in general. It seems your popular aliens originated from H.G. Wells' Of a Book Unwritten, The Man of the Year Million, written around the 1890's. I'd agree with you that it is the product of pop culture and being mental though. More about them here. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #35 August 6, 2008 QuoteSorry - thought you were asking for UFO depictions in general. It seems your popular aliens originated from H.G. Wells' Of a Book Unwritten, The Man of the Year Million, written around the 1890's. I'd agree with you that it is the product of pop culture and being mental though. More about them here. So if we can determine an approximate date at which the popular conception of "aliens" came into being--in fiction--does that not strike a devastating blow to claims that we are really are being visited by beings that--ooh, strange coincidence--look just like the fictional creation would have us think they look? I mean, are we supposed to believe that although aliens have been visiting us since ancient times, helping the Egyptians build the pyramids, or the Mayans configure their calendar, no one ever made a drawing that showed them to look like the bulb-headed bug-eyed little green men until Wells' did? Or are we supposed to believe that more than one super-intelligent, interstellar alien race has visited us, some who look like little green men, and others like ... well, like whatever the ancients drew to depict their alien visitors? Talk about long odds -- not one, but two or more alien races managing to cross interstellar gulfs to visit us? Or are we supposed to believe that we happen to live at the time when aliens just arrived, mere decades ago, and we are the first few generations to see them and that's why there are no ancient drawings of the ones the yokels are seeing in the backwater towns? Do you see why skeptics have such an easy time not believing, yet? This stuff is child-like. I firmly believe that it is born of the "I want to believe (because real reality is just so dull and boring and never really changes much and my life is full of nothing but drudgery)" mindset. That's why these myths and groups and conventions in the desert spring up. People see how mundane real life is, and they are desperate for the entertainment--and yes, the hope--that "aliens from space" represent. Their intellects are weak, their imaginations simple, and this is what they come up with. It's all they have, I guess.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #36 August 6, 2008 QuoteThat's why these myths and groups and conventions in the desert spring up. People see how mundane real life is, and they are desperate for the entertainment--and yes, the hope--that "aliens from space" represent. Their intellects are weak, their imaginations simple, and this is what they come up with. It's all they have, I guess. Perhaps. If you believe life on earth simply evolved, then wouldn't be a natural conclusion to believe life evolved on other planets in the Universe? Sure, there isn't any evidence yet, but it's a fair one. Why couldn't that life be far more advanced than us? Why couldn't they have developed technology way beyond our understanding? To believe 'they're' in the process of visiting earth, abducting random people and sticking probes up their asses does stretch the imagination, yes. But who knows? I reckon that believing there isn't life elsewhere in the Universe to show a closed mind. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #37 August 6, 2008 QuotePerhaps. If you believe life on earth simply evolved, then wouldn't be a natural conclusion to believe life evolved on other planets in the Universe? Sure, there isn't any evidence yet, but it's a fair one. See, I already said that I believe it is perfectly fair to believe that life also took root in far-flung parts of the universe. Don't make an issue of debate out of that: it's not one. But here you say, "Sure, there isn't any evidence yet" (of life beyond our planet) -- BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THESE LOONIES ARE CLAIMING TO HAVE. In fact, some of them claim to have PROOF. QuoteWhy couldn't that life be far more advanced than us? Why couldn't they have developed technology way beyond our understanding? To believe 'they're' in the process of visiting earth, abducting random people and sticking probes up their asses does stretch the imagination, yes. Unless you're engaging in Socratic Debate, I have already agreed with you, and you with me. We both agree that life could have begun, evolved, and advanced on other planets. Hell, for all I know, there could be colonies of life forms that drift through space like plankton, never even living on planets! Wouldn't that be cool? Maybe they propel themselves with some sort of thrust-producing chemical reaction, kind of like a Bombardier Beetle... or that big flying turtle with the rocket-butt from the Godzilla movies. QuoteBut who knows? I reckon that believing there isn't life elsewhere in the Universe to show a closed mind. Once again--you and I are not in disagreement about that. But that realization is a long way away from stating unequivocally that we believe there definitely ARE alien life-forms, and that they're already HERE, and that the government is KEEPING them from us. That steps out into the realm of "loonie." And the more the proof is found lacking as time goes by, the loonier the true-believers appear.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #38 August 6, 2008 Yes, but just because you haven't seen any proof doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any proof. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #39 August 6, 2008 Quote Yes, but just because you haven't seen any proof doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any proof. I can admit that, sure. But WHO HAS seen "proof"? And if they've seen it, why is it not widely understood to exist, the way the Mona Lisa is widely understood to exist? If someone has proof, but won't show me that proof, he can't condemn my continued belief that no one yet has any!Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #40 August 6, 2008 It reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. If there isn't a God because there isn't any evidence, then there isn't other life in the Universe because there isn't any evidence. I think most people believe there is a good chance of there being life elsewhere in the Universe so why are so many closed, like yourself, to the possibility of God? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #41 August 6, 2008 It's not so much that I am closed to the possibility that there is a God... It's that the way the humans on earth have laid out the system of belief, it's so RIDICULOUSLY FUCKIN' ABSURD AS TO COMPLETELY DEFY BELIEVABILITY, to me.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #42 August 6, 2008 QuoteIt reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. If there isn't a God because there isn't any evidence, then there isn't other life in the Universe because there isn't any evidence. You're stooping to using Sophistry on me, there, and I caught you at it. I NEVER SAID that "There isn't a God because there isn't any evidence." That's ridiculous. My belief is far closer to, "There isn't any evidence, because there isn't any GOD." Of course, I don't go so far as to assert, "There IS NO GOD." I don't believe there is, but I freely admit the impossibility of either knowing or proving this is so. That's more than most on both sides of the debate will admit in either direction, and I am kind of proud of myself for having that willingness. But certainly, the organized religions of the world have failed to produce any evidence of God that would convince a nonbeliever like me. In fact, what proves their failure better than their express DEFIANCE? They insist that you HAVE to just BELIEVE -- FAITH -- WITHOUT the benefit of proof! If you need proof, you're not a believer! It's their whole excuse for why they need not be put to the test of providing proof of their God. It's their escape clause!Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #43 August 6, 2008 Quote Quote It reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. If there isn't a God because there isn't any evidence, then there isn't other life in the Universe because there isn't any evidence. You're stooping to using Sophistry on me, there, and I caught you at it. Not at all. Quote I NEVER SAID that "There isn't a God because there isn't any evidence." That's ridiculous. Just like I never said you did. I only brought you into it because to me you seem to have a closed mind on the subject. That's an assumption I made through your mockery. If it's just about man's misuse and misapplication of religion, then fair enough. Fill your boots. Quote My belief is far closer to, "There isn't any evidence, because there isn't any GOD." Of course, I don't go so far as to assert, "There IS NO GOD." You just did. Kind of. Quote I don't believe there is, but I freely admit the impossibility of either knowing or proving this is so. That's more than most on both sides of the debate will admit in either direction, and I am kind of proud of myself for having that willingness. Good, but that just puts you in the same position as everyone else really. Quote But certainly, the organized religions of the world have failed to produce any evidence of God that would convince a nonbeliever like me. In fact, what proves their failure better than their express DEFIANCE? They insist that you HAVE to just BELIEVE -- FAITH -- WITHOUT the benefit of proof! If you need proof, you're not a believer! It's their whole excuse for why they need not be put to the test of providing proof of their God. It's their escape clause! Perhaps, but what else do they have!? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #44 August 6, 2008 Anyway, I only said this: "It reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. If there isn't a God because there isn't any evidence, then there isn't other life in the Universe because there isn't any evidence. I think most people believe there is a good chance of there being life elsewhere in the Universe so why are so many closed, like yourself, to the possibility of God?" as it popped into my head. It reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. That's all. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,611 #45 August 6, 2008 QuoteIt reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. If there isn't a God because there isn't any evidence, then there isn't other life in the Universe because there isn't any evidence. I think most people believe there is a good chance of there being life elsewhere in the Universe so why are so many closed, like yourself, to the possibility of God? We know that abiogenesis is possible, it happened here on earth. We know that evoution is capable of producing intelligent lifeforms capable of a high degree of abstract thought, it happened here on earth. We also know that the universe is teeming with exoplanets, we've detected over 300 of them so far, among only the solar systems closest neighbours, and we've only been looking for about a decade. Put these factors together and it woud be pretty silly to discount the possibility of intelligent alien life somewhere out there. As for God: we've never seen a god. We don't know what properties a god would have. We have no good reason for hypothesising a god, and doing so creates more logical problems than it solves. The two scenarios are only alike in the most superficial way.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,133 #46 August 6, 2008 >What is the shortest period of time in which we would expect even our >theoretically fastest ship (as in, the fastest ship we can imagine ourselves >building in the next hundred years) could arrive at a point that distance >from earth? About twelve years from our perspective, one year from the perspective of people on the ship. (This would be from a total-conversion reaction drive powered ship, which is barely conceivable now.) >and see how long they would have to agree to spend enroute just >to explore our planet without making serious contact with us. Answer - two years subjective time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #47 August 6, 2008 Indeed it's superficial, but doesn't it still stand? Abiogenesis brought up some interesting links: http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Abiogenesis/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html Seems to be a contentious and fascinating subject. Ultimately is there any proof we evolved from non-organic matter? I can't find any. I sometimes wonder; wouldn't it be more likely that God is an 'alien' in some form or other.... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,611 #48 August 6, 2008 QuoteIndeed it's superficial, but doesn't it still stand? Not to my mind, no. QuoteI sometimes wonder; wouldn't it be more likely that God is an 'alien' in some form or other.... Then it wouldn't be God, would it?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #49 August 6, 2008 QuoteThen it wouldn't be God, would it? Why not? It seems there are enough mistakes in the bible, so why not in our common perception of God? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,133 #50 August 6, 2008 >Ultimately is there any proof we evolved from non-organic matter? I can't find any. Nor can I, since I don't know anyone who thinks we evolved from inorganic matter. The most likely materials were both literally organic (i.e. contained carbon) and were similar to materials we now consider organic (i.e. amino acids created outside normal life processes.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
vortexring 0 #34 August 6, 2008 Sorry - thought you were asking for UFO depictions in general. It seems your popular aliens originated from H.G. Wells' Of a Book Unwritten, The Man of the Year Million, written around the 1890's. I'd agree with you that it is the product of pop culture and being mental though. More about them here. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #35 August 6, 2008 QuoteSorry - thought you were asking for UFO depictions in general. It seems your popular aliens originated from H.G. Wells' Of a Book Unwritten, The Man of the Year Million, written around the 1890's. I'd agree with you that it is the product of pop culture and being mental though. More about them here. So if we can determine an approximate date at which the popular conception of "aliens" came into being--in fiction--does that not strike a devastating blow to claims that we are really are being visited by beings that--ooh, strange coincidence--look just like the fictional creation would have us think they look? I mean, are we supposed to believe that although aliens have been visiting us since ancient times, helping the Egyptians build the pyramids, or the Mayans configure their calendar, no one ever made a drawing that showed them to look like the bulb-headed bug-eyed little green men until Wells' did? Or are we supposed to believe that more than one super-intelligent, interstellar alien race has visited us, some who look like little green men, and others like ... well, like whatever the ancients drew to depict their alien visitors? Talk about long odds -- not one, but two or more alien races managing to cross interstellar gulfs to visit us? Or are we supposed to believe that we happen to live at the time when aliens just arrived, mere decades ago, and we are the first few generations to see them and that's why there are no ancient drawings of the ones the yokels are seeing in the backwater towns? Do you see why skeptics have such an easy time not believing, yet? This stuff is child-like. I firmly believe that it is born of the "I want to believe (because real reality is just so dull and boring and never really changes much and my life is full of nothing but drudgery)" mindset. That's why these myths and groups and conventions in the desert spring up. People see how mundane real life is, and they are desperate for the entertainment--and yes, the hope--that "aliens from space" represent. Their intellects are weak, their imaginations simple, and this is what they come up with. It's all they have, I guess.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #36 August 6, 2008 QuoteThat's why these myths and groups and conventions in the desert spring up. People see how mundane real life is, and they are desperate for the entertainment--and yes, the hope--that "aliens from space" represent. Their intellects are weak, their imaginations simple, and this is what they come up with. It's all they have, I guess. Perhaps. If you believe life on earth simply evolved, then wouldn't be a natural conclusion to believe life evolved on other planets in the Universe? Sure, there isn't any evidence yet, but it's a fair one. Why couldn't that life be far more advanced than us? Why couldn't they have developed technology way beyond our understanding? To believe 'they're' in the process of visiting earth, abducting random people and sticking probes up their asses does stretch the imagination, yes. But who knows? I reckon that believing there isn't life elsewhere in the Universe to show a closed mind. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #37 August 6, 2008 QuotePerhaps. If you believe life on earth simply evolved, then wouldn't be a natural conclusion to believe life evolved on other planets in the Universe? Sure, there isn't any evidence yet, but it's a fair one. See, I already said that I believe it is perfectly fair to believe that life also took root in far-flung parts of the universe. Don't make an issue of debate out of that: it's not one. But here you say, "Sure, there isn't any evidence yet" (of life beyond our planet) -- BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THESE LOONIES ARE CLAIMING TO HAVE. In fact, some of them claim to have PROOF. QuoteWhy couldn't that life be far more advanced than us? Why couldn't they have developed technology way beyond our understanding? To believe 'they're' in the process of visiting earth, abducting random people and sticking probes up their asses does stretch the imagination, yes. Unless you're engaging in Socratic Debate, I have already agreed with you, and you with me. We both agree that life could have begun, evolved, and advanced on other planets. Hell, for all I know, there could be colonies of life forms that drift through space like plankton, never even living on planets! Wouldn't that be cool? Maybe they propel themselves with some sort of thrust-producing chemical reaction, kind of like a Bombardier Beetle... or that big flying turtle with the rocket-butt from the Godzilla movies. QuoteBut who knows? I reckon that believing there isn't life elsewhere in the Universe to show a closed mind. Once again--you and I are not in disagreement about that. But that realization is a long way away from stating unequivocally that we believe there definitely ARE alien life-forms, and that they're already HERE, and that the government is KEEPING them from us. That steps out into the realm of "loonie." And the more the proof is found lacking as time goes by, the loonier the true-believers appear.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #38 August 6, 2008 Yes, but just because you haven't seen any proof doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any proof. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #39 August 6, 2008 Quote Yes, but just because you haven't seen any proof doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any proof. I can admit that, sure. But WHO HAS seen "proof"? And if they've seen it, why is it not widely understood to exist, the way the Mona Lisa is widely understood to exist? If someone has proof, but won't show me that proof, he can't condemn my continued belief that no one yet has any!Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #40 August 6, 2008 It reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. If there isn't a God because there isn't any evidence, then there isn't other life in the Universe because there isn't any evidence. I think most people believe there is a good chance of there being life elsewhere in the Universe so why are so many closed, like yourself, to the possibility of God? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #41 August 6, 2008 It's not so much that I am closed to the possibility that there is a God... It's that the way the humans on earth have laid out the system of belief, it's so RIDICULOUSLY FUCKIN' ABSURD AS TO COMPLETELY DEFY BELIEVABILITY, to me.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #42 August 6, 2008 QuoteIt reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. If there isn't a God because there isn't any evidence, then there isn't other life in the Universe because there isn't any evidence. You're stooping to using Sophistry on me, there, and I caught you at it. I NEVER SAID that "There isn't a God because there isn't any evidence." That's ridiculous. My belief is far closer to, "There isn't any evidence, because there isn't any GOD." Of course, I don't go so far as to assert, "There IS NO GOD." I don't believe there is, but I freely admit the impossibility of either knowing or proving this is so. That's more than most on both sides of the debate will admit in either direction, and I am kind of proud of myself for having that willingness. But certainly, the organized religions of the world have failed to produce any evidence of God that would convince a nonbeliever like me. In fact, what proves their failure better than their express DEFIANCE? They insist that you HAVE to just BELIEVE -- FAITH -- WITHOUT the benefit of proof! If you need proof, you're not a believer! It's their whole excuse for why they need not be put to the test of providing proof of their God. It's their escape clause!Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #43 August 6, 2008 Quote Quote It reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. If there isn't a God because there isn't any evidence, then there isn't other life in the Universe because there isn't any evidence. You're stooping to using Sophistry on me, there, and I caught you at it. Not at all. Quote I NEVER SAID that "There isn't a God because there isn't any evidence." That's ridiculous. Just like I never said you did. I only brought you into it because to me you seem to have a closed mind on the subject. That's an assumption I made through your mockery. If it's just about man's misuse and misapplication of religion, then fair enough. Fill your boots. Quote My belief is far closer to, "There isn't any evidence, because there isn't any GOD." Of course, I don't go so far as to assert, "There IS NO GOD." You just did. Kind of. Quote I don't believe there is, but I freely admit the impossibility of either knowing or proving this is so. That's more than most on both sides of the debate will admit in either direction, and I am kind of proud of myself for having that willingness. Good, but that just puts you in the same position as everyone else really. Quote But certainly, the organized religions of the world have failed to produce any evidence of God that would convince a nonbeliever like me. In fact, what proves their failure better than their express DEFIANCE? They insist that you HAVE to just BELIEVE -- FAITH -- WITHOUT the benefit of proof! If you need proof, you're not a believer! It's their whole excuse for why they need not be put to the test of providing proof of their God. It's their escape clause! Perhaps, but what else do they have!? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #44 August 6, 2008 Anyway, I only said this: "It reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. If there isn't a God because there isn't any evidence, then there isn't other life in the Universe because there isn't any evidence. I think most people believe there is a good chance of there being life elsewhere in the Universe so why are so many closed, like yourself, to the possibility of God?" as it popped into my head. It reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. That's all. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #45 August 6, 2008 QuoteIt reminds me of the continual God/Evolution debates. If there isn't a God because there isn't any evidence, then there isn't other life in the Universe because there isn't any evidence. I think most people believe there is a good chance of there being life elsewhere in the Universe so why are so many closed, like yourself, to the possibility of God? We know that abiogenesis is possible, it happened here on earth. We know that evoution is capable of producing intelligent lifeforms capable of a high degree of abstract thought, it happened here on earth. We also know that the universe is teeming with exoplanets, we've detected over 300 of them so far, among only the solar systems closest neighbours, and we've only been looking for about a decade. Put these factors together and it woud be pretty silly to discount the possibility of intelligent alien life somewhere out there. As for God: we've never seen a god. We don't know what properties a god would have. We have no good reason for hypothesising a god, and doing so creates more logical problems than it solves. The two scenarios are only alike in the most superficial way.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,133 #46 August 6, 2008 >What is the shortest period of time in which we would expect even our >theoretically fastest ship (as in, the fastest ship we can imagine ourselves >building in the next hundred years) could arrive at a point that distance >from earth? About twelve years from our perspective, one year from the perspective of people on the ship. (This would be from a total-conversion reaction drive powered ship, which is barely conceivable now.) >and see how long they would have to agree to spend enroute just >to explore our planet without making serious contact with us. Answer - two years subjective time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #47 August 6, 2008 Indeed it's superficial, but doesn't it still stand? Abiogenesis brought up some interesting links: http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Abiogenesis/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html Seems to be a contentious and fascinating subject. Ultimately is there any proof we evolved from non-organic matter? I can't find any. I sometimes wonder; wouldn't it be more likely that God is an 'alien' in some form or other.... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #48 August 6, 2008 QuoteIndeed it's superficial, but doesn't it still stand? Not to my mind, no. QuoteI sometimes wonder; wouldn't it be more likely that God is an 'alien' in some form or other.... Then it wouldn't be God, would it?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #49 August 6, 2008 QuoteThen it wouldn't be God, would it? Why not? It seems there are enough mistakes in the bible, so why not in our common perception of God? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,133 #50 August 6, 2008 >Ultimately is there any proof we evolved from non-organic matter? I can't find any. Nor can I, since I don't know anyone who thinks we evolved from inorganic matter. The most likely materials were both literally organic (i.e. contained carbon) and were similar to materials we now consider organic (i.e. amino acids created outside normal life processes.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
