Aliens and the Unknown

acosmichippo

Genius
Platinum
Sep 10, 2007
15,385
1,023
113
DC
Agree to disagree. That was the point of my post. Call it what you will, it's no less legitimate, nor is yours less legitimate than mine. I took exception to someone's opinion/beliefs/observations being called "uninformed, uninspired and rambling". My understanding of this forum was that we are free to express our opinions, not to simply attack others' opinions with no rebuttals. That's too easy, for what I consider to be a reasonable and intelligent bunch we have here.
like i said earlier, i was on my phone at the time and didn't feel like responding point-for-point. Yes, I should have withheld comment until I could elaborate. But now I am at home, and I will. And I will do my best to not make any theological comments.

As for your beliefs, I'm not even going to go there.

We're just not used to having intelligent, deep discussion in Off Topic. It has been a while.
and it'll be a while, i suspect.
 

evolution83

Zealot
Gold
Mar 2, 2009
3,322
43
48
California
My understanding of this forum was that we are free to express our opinions, not to simply attack others' opinions with no rebuttals.
I hardly see Mindi attacking your opinion in any way. She was simply stating her own opinion just like everyone else. We're a friendly group here; no need to get defensive. If you do, take it to a PM, please.
 

acosmichippo

Genius
Platinum
Sep 10, 2007
15,385
1,023
113
DC
evo, i think she was referring to me. Anyway, my belated rebuttal:

The universe is 46billion LY across, but its only 13billion LY old. Now ask yourself how is this possible... that it takes more time to cross the Universe than it is old. I personally think Time is a man made invention to quantify something and "Time" cannot quantify the Universe. Time itself is a massive error (based on my understanding of it all). Say person X is 20, and person Y is 25. Person x stays on Earth, while person Y goes aboard Humanities first interstellar ship. While person X remains 20 on earth, if person Y is now (hypothetically) 500 LY away from Earth is person Y now aged 525? So say person Y returns to earth, Based on time's current ways of working, person X should be long dead and succeeded by 3-4 generations?
You have just attempted to describe the theory of relativity. Just because two objects move through time differently based on their relative velocity does not make time a "massive error". Time is a dimension as much as the space we live in. People gave time units to measure its passage, but by no means created time itself.

I also personally think, (If you have an open mind for all types of possible scenarios regarding Earth) there may have been many iterations and zeniths of Humans (or maybe other species) (Maybe we are "the first" Human type species. What if humans are placed on this planet as a grand experiment to see how far they go, how much they advance, and what they do and create, and then once they reach a certain set date... or a certain level of knowledge the "observer" or "progenitor" picks a number of humans, and then proceeds to cleanse and undo the entire planet. (A little Knowing meets the Matrix minus the solar flare and machines, but an interesting thought none the less).
So humans were placed on a planet that happens to be populated by millions of other species with the same basic building blocks, tens of thousands with similar physical construction and physiology, and over a dozen species with a variation of DNA from our own of less than 2%?

Sometimes I do get upset that recorded history is only give or take -4,000 years. So what was before that? I find it extremely ignorant to just surmise and say we were all primitive cave men, or even microbes. And I hate how history is almost written via a pseudo Biblical Sense (we can thank the Crusaders/Templar for that).
Have you heard of anthropology and/or paleontology? Just because a culture or individual organisms didn't leave a written record, doesn't mean there isn't empirical evidence that we can find to form theories through the scientific method. Not some willy-nilly daydream after watching a scifi flick.

Anyway an immensely complex species like us with all our atoms, DNA, systems, cells, specializations doesn't organize its entire self to coexist within one being within 4000years or even 8000 years. We are, dare I say too perfect, too specialized for nature to have created us over the many millennia via "hit and miss" trial and error, created but didn't survive... evolve it to survive better etc.
You are quite correct. It took almost 3 billion years.

We are simply too complex and too perfectly crafted to be from nature. I personally think we had help, or something engineered us. Its almost like we've been tailor made for the planet. Our immune systems function via its gravity, and so does our skeletal and muscular system. Hence why when Astronauts leave the planet and spend extended periods of time in zero gravity in orbit or off world they come back with atrophy, very weakened immune systems, less bone marrow density, and more radiation exposure. Im not claiming to know nature... but I'm skeptical that she accounted for all these things and made us.
Nature didn't account for anything. She simply threw everything she had at life, and we are the result. It's only natural that after 3 billion years the creatures that are most fit to live in their respective environments are still around.

And as a general addendum, a theory is much more than an hypothesis or a myth. A theory is an explanation that fits gathered empirical evidence. In the case of evolution, this means:
-Homologies: organisms that share characteristics are related to common ancestors.
-Fossils: Hard evidence of how life has "changed" over time.
-Distribution: Distribution of fossils in strata, and of dead and living organisms across the planet.
-Experiments, observation, organization of taxonomies, etc… it all amounts to gross amounts of empirical data that supports evolution.

The point is (and I do apologize for the caps in advance), it's FAR FROM "IGNORANT" (QUITE THE OPPOSITE, ACTUALLY) to say homo sapiens were cavemen, or that all life shares single-celled organisms as ancestors. It is, by definition, ignorant to claim otherwise without providing evidence to contradict hundreds of years of studies suggesting so.
 

Europa

Moderator
Senior Moderator
Dec 12, 2008
28,453
5,404
113
Utah
Agree to disagree. That was the point of my post. Call it what you will, it's no less legitimate, nor is yours less legitimate than mine. I took exception to someone's opinion/beliefs/observations being called "uninformed, uninspired and rambling". My understanding of this forum was that we are free to express our opinions, not to simply attack others' opinions with no rebuttals. That's too easy, for what I consider to be a reasonable and intelligent bunch we have here.
I wasn't attacking your opinion about creationism. I simply stated it was an opinion, not a fact, as you claimed in your previous post.
 

CanadianNemo

Genius
Gold
Aug 31, 2010
1,295
267
83
I wasn't attacking your opinion about creationism. I simply stated it was an opinion, not a fact, as you claimed in your previous post.
I wasn't referring to your post when I said that. I was referring specifically to the comment that I quoted. I didn't find your comment to be attacking at all, I merely used it as an opportunity to clarify the point of my previous post (albeit unsuccessfuly).
 

iP5

Evangelist
Gold
Sep 7, 2010
2,964
136
63
Toronto
The universe is 46billion LY across, but its only 13billion LY old. Now ask yourself how is this possible... that it takes more time to cross the Universe than it is old.
The simple; looking up from the north pole, a star at the far end of the universe took 13bil years to reach us. Looking down from the south, a star at the other end would take another 13bil years to reach us as well. Stands to reason then that 13bil years ago the universe was 26bil LY across, minimum. Now add to this that the universe has been expanding all that time. The far limit then is that currently the universe is 52bil LY across. Makes sense now?

Yes, the universe is larger than what we can see. Also, that when looking, not only are we looking far in place but back in time.

References:

Two applicable laws of physics; no object can have a velocity faster than the speed of light; time is not constant relative to planes of reference at different velocities, it's slower for the plane that is moving faster.

Another item in physics that applies here, our understanding at and immediately after the big bang is fuzzy.

Miscellaneous:

Yes, adding the fourth axis of time is very hard visualize :p
Time or at least, points in time, is like gravity to me, very easy intuitively and actually so difficult intellectually.

Finally:

Your other comments ring of pseudo-science. PuhLeease ;)
I would add, we've tons of ability to dig and date human settlements and observe a sensible progression one would attribute as advancement. That's not to say though that we are actually any better than our forebears. I totally believe that if possible, you could take a gifted individual from the past at a young age and easily teach him/her anything and everything that we know today. So primitive is not applicable, we just benefited from having more history than they. The saying goes, we stand on giants.

And your suggestion of some Atlantean-like rise and fall. Even annihilation is traceable in the geologic record. No matter that I share your romanticism in wishing that say, the tales of middle earth was biblical versus just epic.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 

CanadianNemo

Genius
Gold
Aug 31, 2010
1,295
267
83
Also, acosmichippo, very good rebuttal! (No passive-aggressiveness, facetiousness or sarcasm here. I mean that). I was reacting only to your choice of words in your previous criticism, not to your knowledge on this subject or your beliefs.

And I'll take care of this one for everyone: CanadianNemo, back on topic please! ;)
 

iP5

Evangelist
Gold
Sep 7, 2010
2,964
136
63
Toronto
Science has had its fair share of mistakes, so forgive me if I'm not as sold on "solid scientific principles" as you. I know creation to be true. I base that on my own set of facts, which are no more or less legitimate than yours. Everyone forms opinions based on their own set of values, from which they pick and choose "facts" upon which to base their beliefs. Science included.
Actually, science spends significant efforts to test hypothesis experimentally. The elevation to "fact" is after a consensus that the hypothesis is observable, consistent, true. Even then though, the proof is openly available and welcoming of scientific criticism. Truth of nature being the higher aspiration.

Finally the collection of related "facts" may become elevated to "scientific theory". This is nothing like "lay theory". The former is the pinnacle of what is held to be truth. The latter can be as useless as rambling ideas. Yes, I really wish they had used something other than the word "theory". Maybe it's choice was to remind us of humility when approaching the grandeur of nature.

Yes, science and scientist are fallible. What differentiates it though from many other human endeavors is that challenge is at it's core and NATURE, not man/woman, is held as the only honest speaker, all others, suspect. Hopefully this approach gives credence to legitimacy that will stand the test of time.

After all, it is what it is whether we know/accept of it or not :D

disclaimer: at best I'm a backyard science-fan.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 

iP5

Evangelist
Gold
Sep 7, 2010
2,964
136
63
Toronto
Rambling.

You can't teach a chimp quantum physics. Heard that on Quirks & Quarks and really liked the context behind it.

Just an immediate thought. It would have been interesting if Nature had time to use the stegasaurus as the template for "intelligent" life. A vegetarian with a second brain in it's tail. Might have given rise to a gentle being with the capacity to easily tackle dualities such as space-time. At least it could actually focus better whenever it had it's head in it's ass :p

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 

CanadianNemo

Genius
Gold
Aug 31, 2010
1,295
267
83
Actually, science spends significant efforts to test hypothesis experimentally. The elevation to "fact" is after a consensus that the hypothesis is observable, consistent, true. Even then though, the proof is openly available and welcoming of scientific criticism. Truth of nature being the higher aspiration.

Finally the collection of related "facts" may become elevated to "scientific theory". This is nothing like "lay theory". The former is the pinnacle of what is held to be truth. The latter can be as useless as rambling ideas. Yes, I really wish they had used something other than the word "theory". Maybe it's choice was to remind us of humility when approaching the grandeur of nature.

Yes, science and scientist are fallible. What differentiates it though from many other human endeavors is that challenge is at it's core and NATURE, not man/woman, is held as the only honest speaker, all others, suspect. Hopefully this approach gives credence to legitimacy that will stand the test of time.

After all, it is what it is whether we know/accept of it or not :D

disclaimer: at best I'm a backyard science-fan.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
Agreed! What is going on in my brain though is that I wonder why people are so open to the idea that there is other life out there, but so convinced that our science here on Earth is the "be all, end all" of fact? It seems to me to contradict itself. If there are an infinite number of possibilities with respect to other life, why not so with science (which is seen as solid fact in some people's eyes)? Our limited knowledge of the "whole picture" of science, by the odds, certainly leaves significant room for error. I don't dispute science, nor evidence. I do, however, note that before evidence to the contrary, mankind thought the world to be flat. I would suggest, in comparison, that as we begin to explore further and further into the universe, we may discover things that could turn our "facts" upside down. We have much to learn and I'm certainly interested to see the progress made in my lifetime!
 

iP5

Evangelist
Gold
Sep 7, 2010
2,964
136
63
Toronto
Agreed! What is going on in my brain though is that I wonder why people are so open to the idea that there is other life out there, but so convinced that our science here on Earth is the "be all, end all" of fact? It seems to me to contradict itself. If there are an infinite number of possibilities with respect to other life, why not so with science (which is seen as solid fact in some people's eyes)? Our limited knowledge of the "whole picture" of science, by the odds, certainly leaves significant room for error. I don't dispute science, nor evidence. I do, however, note that before evidence to the contrary, mankind thought the world to be flat. I would suggest, in comparison, that as we begin to explore further and further into the universe, we may discover things that could turn our "facts" upside down. We have much to learn and I'm certainly interested to see the progress made in my lifetime!
Mostly agreed. Flat was based on the observations at the time. I take these positives from this specific example.

They eventually got it right by modeling based on astronomic observation, before it was irrefutable by actual navigation.

And, what other discipline do you know, is prepared to do 180's, discarding what was once sacrosanct in respect of the highest calling, truth before everything.

By contrast every other school has far more self serving, biased agendas. This alone should afford science a respect above other forms and forums.

Can you imagine Christianity abandoning a core tenant. If not, then no wonder that those outside question/suspect both teaching and intent. For the record though, I do subscribe to a god paradigm. My fellowship would crucify me for such a meek statement ;) Born catholic so it took a while to purge the fear that they tried to engrain. Now held dearly as I see spirituality being an essential aspect to human nature.

As for infinite number of possibilities. For sure, our planet is spherical for general intents and purposes. Technically I believe it bulges at the equator. Discarding this claim is, for the life of our species, removed from any possibility and infinite is now infinite minus one. Again, it was science before it was observed beyond doubt.

Anyway, outside of the spiritual sphere, I trust that if our "facts" are turned upside down, it will be within science versus from without.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 

acosmichippo

Genius
Platinum
Sep 10, 2007
15,385
1,023
113
DC
Agreed! What is going on in my brain though is that I wonder why people are so open to the idea that there is other life out there, but so convinced that our science here on Earth is the "be all, end all" of fact? It seems to me to contradict itself. If there are an infinite number of possibilities with respect to other life, why not so with science (which is seen as solid fact in some people's eyes)? Our limited knowledge of the "whole picture" of science, by the odds, certainly leaves significant room for error. I don't dispute science, nor evidence. I do, however, note that before evidence to the contrary, mankind thought the world to be flat. I would suggest, in comparison, that as we begin to explore further and further into the universe, we may discover things that could turn our "facts" upside down. We have much to learn and I'm certainly interested to see the progress made in my lifetime!
that's the key there. Of course we will discover new facts that will force us to adjust our understanding of the universe. That's the whole point.

But you seem to be implying the existence of a Cosmic Teapot. In other words, if a person makes a claim that is unfalsifiable, the burden of proof is on them to show it is true - not on everyone else to prove it's wrong.
 

Europa

Moderator
Senior Moderator
Dec 12, 2008
28,453
5,404
113
Utah
evo, i think she was referring to me. Anyway, my belated rebuttal:



You have just attempted to describe the theory of relativity. Just because two objects move through time differently based on their relative velocity does not make time a "massive error". Time is a dimension as much as the space we live in. People gave time units to measure its passage, but by no means created time itself.



So humans were placed on a planet that happens to be populated by millions of other species with the same basic building blocks, tens of thousands with similar physical construction and physiology, and over a dozen species with a variation of DNA from our own of less than 2%?



Have you heard of anthropology and/or paleontology? Just because a culture or individual organisms didn't leave a written record, doesn't mean there isn't empirical evidence that we can find to form theories through the scientific method. Not some willy-nilly daydream after watching a scifi flick.



You are quite correct. It took almost 3 billion years.



Nature didn't account for anything. She simply threw everything she had at life, and we are the result. It's only natural that after 3 billion years the creatures that are most fit to live in their respective environments are still around.

And as a general addendum, a theory is much more than an hypothesis or a myth. A theory is an explanation that fits gathered empirical evidence. In the case of evolution, this means:
-Homologies: organisms that share characteristics are related to common ancestors.
-Fossils: Hard evidence of how life has "changed" over time.
-Distribution: Distribution of fossils in strata, and of dead and living organisms across the planet.
-Experiments, observation, organization of taxonomies, etc… it all amounts to gross amounts of empirical data that supports evolution.

The point is (and I do apologize for the caps in advance), it's FAR FROM "IGNORANT" (QUITE THE OPPOSITE, ACTUALLY) to say homo sapiens were cavemen, or that all life shares single-celled organisms as ancestors. It is, by definition, ignorant to claim otherwise without providing evidence to contradict hundreds of years of studies suggesting so.
Excellent rebuttal! I completely agree.
 

AdrianCubed

Zealot
Gold
Jul 19, 2008
3,585
40
48
London or Miami
I don't understand where this became an argument?

I was just putting in my opinion and whimsical outside the box thoughts on it all. Im by no means an expert nor do I know all the "facts". I was trying to not take a side (such as not supporting scientific theory/evidence that everyone generally holds up as a law or fact and keeping open to all possibility). I like to think outside of the box, and if its wrong because it differs from what we know today then so be it. The Universe is so massive a few handful of scientists opinions/research cannot simply be the end all, fact, has to be this way because any other is wrong.

It came off as rambling because I have my own ideas and opinions on science/possible and impossible, thoughts on different things and im horrible at presenting them in an organized and cohesive way. I find it easier to just paint what im thinking and I get the message across better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bennyboy

CanadianNemo

Genius
Gold
Aug 31, 2010
1,295
267
83
I don't understand where this became an argument?

I was just putting in my opinion and whimsical outside the box thoughts on it all. Im by no means an expert nor do I know all the "facts". I was trying to not take a side (such as not supporting scientific theory/evidence that everyone generally holds up as a law or fact and keeping open to all possibility). I like to think outside of the box, and if its wrong because it differs from what we know today then so be it. The Universe is so massive a few handful of scientists opinions/research cannot simply be the end all, fact, has to be this way because any other is wrong.

It came off as rambling because I have my own ideas and opinions on science/possible and impossible, thoughts on different things and im horrible at presenting them in an organized and cohesive way. I find it easier to just paint what im thinking and I get the message across better.
Well said.
 

Europa

Moderator
Senior Moderator
Dec 12, 2008
28,453
5,404
113
Utah
I guess it's fun to pretend and think outside the box, but if it goes against what science has proven to be true, I can't take it seriously.

We may not have all the answers, but some of those thoughts are improbable and silly, such as humans being placed here as an experiment.

Reason and science are my guidelines and deep knowledge is my objective. I'd rather adjust my views based on what's observed, however tiny and insignificant it makes me feel, than deny the validity of these observations just to feel reassured and superior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iP5 and Bennyboy

iP5

Evangelist
Gold
Sep 7, 2010
2,964
136
63
Toronto
I guess it's fun to pretend and think outside the box, but if it goes against what science has proven to be true, I can't take it seriously.

We may not have all the answers, but some of those thoughts are improbable and silly, such as humans being placed here as an experiment.

Reason and science are my guidelines and deep knowledge is my objective. I'd rather adjust my views based on what's observed, however tiny and insignificant it makes me feel, than deny these validity of these observations just to feel reassured and superior.
+1. Need like function in Tapatalk.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bennyboy

acosmichippo

Genius
Platinum
Sep 10, 2007
15,385
1,023
113
DC
I don't understand where this became an argument?

I was just putting in my opinion and whimsical outside the box thoughts on it all. Im by no means an expert nor do I know all the "facts". I was trying to not take a side (such as not supporting scientific theory/evidence that everyone generally holds up as a law or fact and keeping open to all possibility). I like to think outside of the box, and if its wrong because it differs from what we know today then so be it. The Universe is so massive a few handful of scientists opinions/research cannot simply be the end all, fact, has to be this way because any other is wrong.

It came off as rambling because I have my own ideas and opinions on science/possible and impossible, thoughts on different things and im horrible at presenting them in an organized and cohesive way. I find it easier to just paint what im thinking and I get the message across better.
Then maybe you should avoid using words like "ignorant" when you're being whimsical.