Alien/UFO Aliens

Remove this Banner Ad

BIG MATTY WHITE said:
so you are saying if it turned out the diety talked about in religous text was the one after all which created us who tells us we are unique ...that odds are it will happen again ....lol
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm saying He would have created many, many planets with intelligent life. He wouldn't create billions and billions of worlds just to to make only one with life. Absurd.
 
Duritz said:
Yes. I'm saying He would have created many, many planets with intelligent life. He wouldn't create billions and billions of worlds just to to make only one with life. Absurd.
Click to expand...

i give you credit duritz...that is something else.

But the whole thing about space being a waste of space if there is only us....how many planets are there that we know off that dont have life..why are they even there....that is a waste ...so we know wastage is not proof...
 
Duritz said:
BIG MATTY WHITE let's look at it this way:

1. Intelligent life exists on planet earth. We know this. How do we know this? Because we are here. We are alive. Therefore, life exists. Indisputable.

2. If intelligent life exists on planet earth, then it has a probability of existing on a planet. Why? Because life exists on planet earth, therefore life may exist on other planets. The probability of life existing = the likelihood of the conditions required to create intelligent life / the sum of the likelihood of all possible conditions. Indisputable.

3. We do not know what the answer to #2 is, but we know there is an answer to it. Indisputable.

4. No matter how small the answer to #2 is, when you multiply it by the number of planets out there, it will equal at least millions of planets that have developed intelligent life.

It exists. The only question is have we encountered it, and will we. Disputing the above is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You need to stop short of using words describing conclusive proof. As BMW correctly states, life has not been unlocked and created by us, and until it has, we haven't accounted for every variable. There may be one thing we haven't discovered that makes life a possibility on Earth, but reduces the chances elsewhere. Until that is done, it's still up in the air no matter how compelling the evidence - just like any footy match that hasn't got to the final siren...even a team leading by 100 points with a minute to go can still lose if the 19th man walks onto the field...

An example - colonials in Australia had a horrible time for decades trying to import oak trees to Australia, because they wouldn't survive despite the apparently identical conditions. When a symbiotic bacteria was discovered living in the treet roots of Euro oaks but not in Aus, the mystery was solved. In regards to the issue, without knowing how much of this magic life giving variable we would need if it did exist, how can we make a guess as to the likelihood of the answer to our ultimate question...?

I do question your own answer (4) - you can't extrapolate the likelihood of life becoming intelligent mathematically, simply because we have no frame of reference as to how long this takes or what causes it. Von Daniken would tell you we're all aliens anyway and our intelligence comes from offworld. We've also seen several mass extinctions on this planet according to fossil records, of ecosystems that were in action for millions of years with none of them suggesting intelligence development, and yet here we are only a short time after our introduction as a species building spaceships, beating nature, and arguing on BF like a bunch of true higher life forms. The GW shark has no need for greater intelligence, doing just fine since before the dinosaurs without it...

For BMW, I suggest a read up of Hawking. He smashes the notions of "before", "after" and "nothing"... get past that, and things start to unravel. I personally believe we are on a winner with the theories of life as suggested above, even though we can't claim it as gospel just yet...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gibbke said:
You need to stop short of using words describing conclusive proof. As BMW correctly states, life has not been unlocked and created by us, and until it has, we haven't accounted for every variable. There may be one thing we haven't discovered that makes life a possibility on Earth, but reduces the chances elsewhere. Until that is done, it's still up in the air no matter how compelling the evidence - just like any footy match that hasn't got to the final siren...even a team leading by 100 points with a minute to go can still lose if the 19th man walks onto the field...

An example - colonials in Australia had a horrible time for decades trying to import oak trees to Australia, because they wouldn't survive despite the apparently identical conditions. When a symbiotic bacteria was discovered living in the treet roots of Euro oaks but not in Aus, the mystery was solved. In regards to the issue, without knowing how much of this magic life giving variable we would need if it did exist, how can we make a guess as to the likelihood of the answer to our ultimate question...?

I do question your own answer (4) - you can't extrapolate the likelihood of life becoming intelligent mathematically, simply because we have no frame of reference as to how long this takes or what causes it. Von Daniken would tell you we're all aliens anyway and our intelligence comes from offworld. We've also seen several mass extinctions on this planet according to fossil records, of ecosystems that were in action for millions of years with none of them suggesting intelligence development, and yet here we are only a short time after our introduction as a species building spaceships, beating nature, and arguing on BF like a bunch of true higher life forms. The GW shark has no need for greater intelligence, doing just fine since before the dinosaurs without it...

For BMW, I suggest a read up of Hawking. He smashes the notions of "before", "after" and "nothing"... get past that, and things start to unravel. I personally believe we are on a winner with the theories of life as suggested above, even though we can't claim it as gospel just yet...
Click to expand...
Someone gets it
 
Gibbke said:
You need to stop short of using words describing conclusive proof. As BMW correctly states, life has not been unlocked and created by us, and until it has, we haven't accounted for every variable. There may be one thing we haven't discovered that makes life a possibility on Earth, but reduces the chances elsewhere. Until that is done, it's still up in the air no matter how compelling the evidence - just like any footy match that hasn't got to the final siren...even a team leading by 100 points with a minute to go can still lose if the 19th man walks onto the field...

An example - colonials in Australia had a horrible time for decades trying to import oak trees to Australia, because they wouldn't survive despite the apparently identical conditions. When a symbiotic bacteria was discovered living in the treet roots of Euro oaks but not in Aus, the mystery was solved. In regards to the issue, without knowing how much of this magic life giving variable we would need if it did exist, how can we make a guess as to the likelihood of the answer to our ultimate question...?

I do question your own answer (4) - you can't extrapolate the likelihood of life becoming intelligent mathematically, simply because we have no frame of reference as to how long this takes or what causes it. Von Daniken would tell you we're all aliens anyway and our intelligence comes from offworld. We've also seen several mass extinctions on this planet according to fossil records, of ecosystems that were in action for millions of years with none of them suggesting intelligence development, and yet here we are only a short time after our introduction as a species building spaceships, beating nature, and arguing on BF like a bunch of true higher life forms. The GW shark has no need for greater intelligence, doing just fine since before the dinosaurs without it...

For BMW, I suggest a read up of Hawking. He smashes the notions of "before", "after" and "nothing"... get past that, and things start to unravel. I personally believe we are on a winner with the theories of life as suggested above, even though we can't claim it as gospel just yet...
Click to expand...
I read hawking....

But alot of people smash his theories due to no probabilty
 
Gibbke said:
You need to stop short of using words describing conclusive proof. As BMW correctly states, life has not been unlocked and created by us, and until it has, we haven't accounted for every variable. There may be one thing we haven't discovered that makes life a possibility on Earth, but reduces the chances elsewhere. Until that is done, it's still up in the air no matter how compelling the evidence - just like any footy match that hasn't got to the final siren...even a team leading by 100 points with a minute to go can still lose if the 19th man walks onto the field...

An example - colonials in Australia had a horrible time for decades trying to import oak trees to Australia, because they wouldn't survive despite the apparently identical conditions. When a symbiotic bacteria was discovered living in the treet roots of Euro oaks but not in Aus, the mystery was solved. In regards to the issue, without knowing how much of this magic life giving variable we would need if it did exist, how can we make a guess as to the likelihood of the answer to our ultimate question...?

I do question your own answer (4) - you can't extrapolate the likelihood of life becoming intelligent mathematically, simply because we have no frame of reference as to how long this takes or what causes it. Von Daniken would tell you we're all aliens anyway and our intelligence comes from offworld. We've also seen several mass extinctions on this planet according to fossil records, of ecosystems that were in action for millions of years with none of them suggesting intelligence development, and yet here we are only a short time after our introduction as a species building spaceships, beating nature, and arguing on BF like a bunch of true higher life forms. The GW shark has no need for greater intelligence, doing just fine since before the dinosaurs without it...

For BMW, I suggest a read up of Hawking. He smashes the notions of "before", "after" and "nothing"... get past that, and things start to unravel. I personally believe we are on a winner with the theories of life as suggested above, even though we can't claim it as gospel just yet...
Click to expand...


IMHO humans not being able to create life doesn't mean s**t
 
Gibbke said:
2) the presence of intelligent life elsewhere - it may be that we pick up a signal one day, proving other civilisations are arguing over the same s**t we are..
Click to expand...

Surely no civilisation could be as ignorant as our own.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

CountryRace said:
IMHO humans not being able to create life doesn't mean s**t
Click to expand...
To truly understand it, you'd need to come close. You need to understand every component of it before you can extrapolate the likelihood of it occurring in places we have no way of closely analysing. The best evidence we have of alien environments comes from very fuzzy astronomical observation and spectroscopy...there's a hell of a lot we don't know about these planets and about life itself...
 
BIG MATTY WHITE said:
His theories either break the laws of physics or you choose an act of god...
Click to expand...
I'm not reading a debunking of Stephen Hawking, quantum theory or anything to do with the Big Bang anywhere...

His theories only break the laws of physics if you're a fan of Ptolemy...now there was a real debunking...
 
Gibbke said:
To truly understand it, you'd need to come close. You need to understand every component of it before you can extrapolate the likelihood of it occurring in noplaces we have no way of closely analysing. The best evidence we have of alien environments comes from very fuzzy astronomical observation and spectroscopy...there's a hell of a lot we don't know about these planets and about life itself...
Click to expand...

We know life has been found in places we thought it not possible.


The most up to date thing I read in regards to how did life start on earth propose two concepts.

1. Primordial soup: there was some mud and lightening hit it, the next day by magic life.

2. Life came to earth of asteroid, on diamonda or something

3. Not god.

Edit: other theories too. But apparently less well accepted mainstream ...


If we take two to be correct, not only do we know we are essential alien. But we know there was or is life outside our planet.

The next question - why would there not be life else where? Given science now says there are many earth planets. More so, life could start on a slightly different set of circumstance, possibly
 
Last edited:
Gibbke said:
I'm not reading a debunking of Stephen Hawking, quantum theory or anything to do with the Big Bang anywhere...

His theories only break the laws of physics if you're a fan of Ptolemy...now there was a real debunking...
Click to expand...

The big bang theory is messed up in a number of ways IMHO.

For starters, in the god thread they say

Occam razor says it's more probably a single atom that was the cause of the big bang ,


existence outside space and time As opposed to a creator

I am unsure
 
Last edited:
Gibbke said:
We can assume that option 2 is dependant at some stage on option 1...somewhere along the line, the life attached to that asteroid needed that magic zap...

Two things:

1) what magic zap? Life is an electrochemical process
Click to expand...

According to the Wikipedia entry on the subject, for example

The main problem with the primordial soup theory, is that one the stages include 'and that when the magic happens', ie. No life ---> life; Earth (and the universe?) Without a scientific explanation.
 
CountryRace said:
According to the Wikipedia entry on the subject, for example

The main problem with the primordial soup theory, is that one the stages include 'and that when the magic happens', ie. Earth (and the universe?) A
Click to expand...
Sorry...I accidentally hit post on that one way too early, and then lost my train of thought stabbing buttons trying to get it all back...! I'm sure it would have been great, though...!
 
BIG MATTY WHITE said:
so you are saying if it turned out the diety talked about in religous text was the one after all which created us who tells us we are unique ...that odds are it will happen again ....lol
Click to expand...

Do you agree we are alive now?

Do you agree somehow, life must of started, for us to now be alive?

Do you agree BMW has lightening tattoos on his ankles
 
CountryRace said:
The whole thing gives me a headache
Click to expand...

Has given me a headache for as long I can remember!!

2 options for me:
1 - universe is self perpetuating, eternal (which my tiny brain can't reason, the whole something from nothing and it goes forever with a big bang, billions of years of existence, life / us , then black holes sucking it all up and it restarting

2 - something external to our universe started it, which doesn't explain its origin but also means it may have done this thing millions of times before and for what purpose or just random experiments

We still could just be a mental construct, hologram etc that is part of option 2.

Ouch..it hurts

In terms of why this external thing would start a universe, philosophically the best I have read or make sense of is that of experience..to experience itself (perhaps again i dont know or in different manner, maybe our universe is the 'x'th time has done it etc) ....by that which it is not...so separates itself, no longer unified, perfect energy what have you and everything in the universe is part of that self on a journey back to perfection....living/ dying/ rebirthing thousands of times until recognising seeing and rejoining the fold that is all, nothing lost, all make their way back in the end then it all ends in a black hole and away it/we go again!!
 
Jack Gun Cyril Stun said:
Has given me a headache for as long I can remember!!

2 options for me:
1 - universe is self perpetuating, eternal (which my tiny brain can't reason, the whole something from nothing and it goes forever with a big bang, billions of years of existence, life / us , then black holes sucking it all up and it restarting

2 - something external to our universe started it, which doesn't explain its origin but also means it may have done this thing millions of times before and for what purpose or just random experiments

We still could just be a mental construct, hologram etc that is part of option 2.

Ouch..it hurts

In terms of why this external thing would start a universe, philosophically the best I have read or make sense of is that of experience..to experience itself (perhaps again i dont know or in different manner, maybe our universe is the 'x'th time has done it etc) ....by that which it is not...so separates itself, no longer unified, perfect energy what have you and everything in the universe is part of that self on a journey back to perfection....living/ dying/ rebirthing thousands of times until recognising seeing and rejoining the fold that is all, nothing lost, all make their way back in the end then it all ends in a black hole and away it/we go again!!
Click to expand...


And so meant to add that 1 is 2 and 2 is 1,...but the whole starting point is a great mystery and thinking that doesn't give me a headache!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

awaremind
Miami mall Aliens/demons / children rioting incident
Replies
18
Views
1K
Back2backJack
Back2backJack

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top