The Religion of Aliens

mickrock

HavingCrack wrote: »

I would hardly say it's 'more' plausible than random chance. What is your basis for such an assumption other than blind faith? It's not a criticism, just an observation.

Perhaps you have blind faith that it's all purely by random chance.

If it's inconceivable that the universe, life itself and consciousness came about randomly, then the only alternative would be a creative intelligence.

Tomk1

Solair wrote: »

You'd really wonder about our species' suicidal and self-destructive tendencies though and how they are compatible with intelligence.

We put vast resources into building devices that could destroy all life on Earth i.e. Nuclear Weapons.

We spend the rest of our time gambling on ridiculous things (stock markets), fighting over utter nonsense and ensuring half of our population lives in dire circumstances.

So, I'm not entirely sure that you could define our lot as all that intelligent.

We can discuss things abstractly, but we're a bit loopers!

The fact is we are animals, we have animal instints, no matter if we're super-smart or super-stupid (which often reverses & difficult to say by our actions)

On statistics, sometimes no-one wins the lotto, sometimes 1, sometimes more. If the probabilty of winning the lotto were appied to each solar system of say just limiting to a billion stars, then there has to be a few winning solar systems, some even with 2 winners, now whether that life survives and developes to levels of Human un-intellegnce is another statistic.
I think Carl Sagen says it best, but prob on the christian-list of books of what not to read or only with christian-factor 8 glasses.


Now if a god did exist, where's the problem of it creating life on other planets, as it seems to love free-will and crap like that, allso seems more likely not to put all the eggs (adam&eves) in the one basket, so one utopian planet turns all atheist the god :rolleyes: but says they're ok, found the true path of free-will another planet all christian the god :rolleyes: I don't know if they got it or just fear me another planet all Muslim the god :rolleyes: this is boring and I'm not even sure if they're even worshiping me another planet all Buddhists TG :rolleyes: wtf do they think they're my equal ..... The god thinks for a while....this has been a fracking waste of time, just have to create more planets maybe one of them will be entertaining.

pokertalk

LumpyGravy wrote: »

7 of 9 was human :-)

they were all human! they were just actors!

Logical Fallacy

mickrock wrote: »

How did life, human or alien, start off in the first place and then evolve?

It's inconceivable that it's by random chance. Intelligent design is the more plausible explanation.

mickrock wrote: »

Perhaps you have blind faith that it's all purely by random chance.

If it's inconceivable that the universe, life itself and consciousness came about randomly, then the only alternative would be a creative intelligence.

You haven't offered a reason as to why it's inconceivable.

The universe is, as far as we are aware, infinitely big, which means an infinite number of occurrences between an infinite number of variables under and infinite number of circumstances.

Within that context our existence was almost a certainty.

conor.hogan.2

One thing that irks me more than "evolution is juts a theory!" is the "well you just have faith too, but in science!".

As if science and blind faith are the same thing or equatable.

Randomer.

Guill wrote: »

Harry Potter had more super powers than Jeasus (son of God Jeasus), therefore it is more probable that Harry exists.

lol have to ask though, but how does having more superpowers effect how likely someone/thing exists ? :P

mickrock

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You haven't offered a reason as to why it's inconceivable.

The universe is, as far as we are aware, infinitely big, which means an infinite number of occurrences between an infinite number of variables under and infinite number of circumstances.

Within that context our existence was almost a certainty.

You're assuming that life started as the interaction of the right chemicals under the right conditions. This is a theory which there is no evidence for yet.

I don't think life/consciousness is simply a product of matter.

Wereghost

I don't think that there are any interstellar civilisations out there in the galaxy; the rest of the universe is arguably moot, but unless said local interstellar civilisations have all turned up very recently, they should in theory be all over the place by now. Life tends to spread, and assuming that this applies to space-faring races, a single one could probably spread across the galaxy end-to-end within a few tens of millions of years. Yet complex life has been around for longer than that here. Mammals took over the surface of the earth after the dinosaurs' extinction created a power vacuum, but that could in principle have happened tens of millions of years before or after its eventual date. Similarly, on another Earth the last glaciation, which here ended about 12,500 years ago, could have ended 50,000 years earlier or could still be ongoing. So forget Star Trek, where alien races tend to be within a few decades or centuries of each other in broad developmental terms; other planets have in theory had plenty of time to give birth to other technological civilisations capable of sending out feelers between the stars; and even of crossing the galaxy end-to-end. Some have argued that if they were there, they'd be here and that the fact that we exist at all shows that they don't.

wonderfulname

mickrock wrote: »

You're assuming that life started as the interaction of the right chemicals under the right conditions. This is a theory which there is no evidence for yet.

I don't think life/consciousness is simply a product of matter.

Put it this way, we can prove it is chemically and biologically possible, on top of this we can show it is mathematically probable, on the other hand ID is a product of someones imagination and has no evidence in its favour.

Maybe in your head the latter makes more sense, but again, that just says a whole lot about your own understanding of the universe, not the concepts at hand.

Kanoe

already participated in this discussion some decades ago, (and for decades) know how it ends.

mickrock

wonderfulname wrote: »

Put it this way, we can prove it is chemically and biologically possible, on top of this we can show it is mathematically probable

No, abiogenesis hasn't been proven to be chemically or biologically possible. No mechanism has been proposed to fully explain how life started.

wonderfulname

mickrock wrote: »

No, abiogenesis hasn't been proven to be chemically or biologically possible.

I'm sorry, what?

Define abiogenesis.
Define prove.

Elaborate on why ID is the most plausible of explanations, given all we know.

Tomk1

Scrawny71 wrote: »

I don't think that there are any interstellar civilisations out there in the galaxy; the rest of the universe is arguably moot, but unless said local interstellar civilisations have all turned up very recently, they should in theory be all over the place by now. Life tends to spread, and assuming that this applies to space-faring races, a single one could probably spread across the galaxy end-to-end within a few tens of millions of years. Yet complex life has been around for longer than that here. Mammals took over the surface of the earth after the dinosaurs' extinction created a power vacuum, but that could in principle have happened tens of millions of years before or after its eventual date. Similarly, on another Earth the last glaciation, which here ended about 12,500 years ago, could have ended 50,000 years earlier or could still be ongoing. So forget Star Trek, where alien races tend to be within a few decades or centuries of each other in broad developmental terms; other planets have in theory had plenty of time to give birth to other technological civilisations capable of sending out feelers between the stars; and even of crossing the galaxy end-to-end. Some have argued that if they were thee, they'd be here and that the fact that we exist at all shows that they don't.

But if the planet is near say a million light-years, then it won't be for another million years before we might be able to spot them, given that faster than light speed currently theoretically impossible, that would be say 2 millions years before contact, unless they developed say 5 million years ago...have to stop, my brain is really starting to hurt.

mickrock

wonderfulname wrote: »

I'm sorry, what?

Define abiogenesis.
Define prove.

Er, did you think abiogenesis had been proven?

You'll have to look into the matter a bit more deeply.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Elaborate on why ID is the most plausible of explanations, given all we know.

For example, take the origin of the digital information along the spine of the DNA molecule.

I think ID is more a more plausible explanation than a blind, undirected process.

wonderfulname

mickrock wrote: »

Er, did you think abiogenesis had been proven?

I said it was proven to be possible, not proven to be historical fact, you claim this is not so, I suggest you look a little deeper.

mickrock wrote: »

For example, take the origin of the digital information along the spine of the DNA molecule.

What about it?

mickrock wrote: »

I think ID is more a more plausible explanation than a blind, undirected process.

And thankfully most people know you're wrong.

mickrock

wonderfulname wrote: »

I said it was proven to be possible, not proven to be historical fact, you claim this is not so, I suggest you look a little deeper.

No, abiogenesis has not yet been proven to be even theoretically possible.

Nevertheless, you seem to have blind faith in it.

wonderfulname

mickrock wrote: »

No, abiogenesis has not yet been proven to be even theoretically possible.

It moved past theoretical in the fifties...

The man in the sky on the other hand :rolleyes:

Kanoe

we're still on man in sky mode then? great. wonderful.

wonderfulname

Kanoe wrote: »

we're still on man in sky mode then? great. wonderful.

You could always add something about the aliens and get that end of the discussion going again?

B_Fanatic

Randomer. wrote: »

Then you are also arguing that Harry Potter and every other fictional character that has been made by mankind has a 00.1% chance of being real people.

No, I never said there is a 1 in 1000 chance of harry potter being real.

Also the actual existence of a character that is known to be fictional is FAR more unlikely than the existence of a character that is widely anticapated to have existed (God/Jesus/Whatever)

Kanoe

I love aliens.

wonderfulname

Been out to the mothership recently so?

Kanoe

not for at least ten years

mickrock

Richard Dawkins thinks life on earth might have been seeded by aliens.

But he has no idea how the aliens came to be.

B_Fanatic

I think instead of vaguely pointing at the credibility of Abiogenesis and offhandedly mentioning "information in the spinal column of DNA" you need to start linking (Research articles) that people can read on so you actually have an argument. Saying it exists is not enough on the internet - or in person for that matter. A pdf or even a website on the other hand would lend your (Plural) points some substance.

My argument against intelligent design: 'Science' (I hate saying that) generally insinuates we are not 100% sure how everything came to be but here are some possible explanations we are working on. Discrediting them doesn't take away from the scientific view that we are primarily in the dark regarding such topics. What IS true however is that day by day scientists and researchers are making substantial discoveries and we are quickly (relatively quickly anyway) making ground on all sorts of matters.

I don't believe saying science doesn't answer all the questions is an argument for intelligent design. Intelligent design is saying that we don't know how everything came from nothing so something must have put it there. Instead of assuming the presence of an immortal being, how is it not just as likely if not more likely that the universe is infinite in time, and had no beginning? I.e. it always has been and always will be. Maybe it's cyclic? This is speculation. I am simply willing to admit that I don't know.

Could you answer the bold please?

Kanoe

B_Fanatic wrote: »

Maybe it's cyclic? This is speculation. I am simply willing to admit that I don't know.

M theory supports this as a possibility.

As it happens I don't see why these are all conflicting ideas/theories/suggestions anyway.

Pherekydes

B_Fanatic wrote: »

Yes, really.

The probability may be ridiculously small, maybe even infinitesimally so, but that's still a probability. You can't be 100% certain, only 99.9 recurring :P

99.9 recurring is precisely the same as 100.

B_Fanatic

Pherekydes wrote: »

99.9 recurring is precisely the same as 100.

I was hoping someone wouldn't point that out... Even infintesimally probable is the same as impossible (100%) but how else do I illustrate that something can be extremely improbable? 10^-300 or something would probably do it I guess




It is way too early/late for this

Pherekydes

Scrawny71 wrote: »

I don't think that there are any interstellar civilisations out there in the galaxy; the rest of the universe is arguably moot, but unless said local interstellar civilisations have all turned up very recently, they should in theory be all over the place by now.

Why is that? The human race hasn't spread all over the universe. Why would we assume another civilization is far more advanced than we are?

niall_h

Youtube - The Drake Equation Explained

Try finding a similar equation for the existence of an all-encompassing entity that listens to everyone's prayers, is everywhere at once, sends his 'only son' (despite creating the entire population of the planet) to Earth to be born of a virgin & to be killed thus opening the gates of Heavan, a place he created, where we can go if we're good.

?