Are We Alone In the Universe? New Analysis Says Maybe

[-Cp]

Scientists engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) work under the assumption that there is, in fact, intelligent life out there to be found. A new analysis may crush their optimism.


To calculate the likelihood that they'll make radio contact with extraterrestrials, SETI scientists use what's known as the Drake Equation. Formulated in the 1960s by Frank Drake of the SETI Institute in California, it approximates the number of radio-transmitting civilizations in our galaxy at any one time by multiplying a string of factors: the number of stars, the fraction that have planets, the fraction of those that are habitable, the probability of life arising on such planets, its likelihood of becoming intelligent and so on. [10 Alien Encounters Debunked (http://www.space.com/9704-ten-alien-encounters-debunked.html)]


The values of almost all these factors are highly speculative. Nonetheless, Drake and others have plugged in their best guesses, and estimate that there are about 10,000 tech-savvy civilizations in the galaxy currently sending signals our way — a number that has led some scientists to predict that we'lldetect alien signals within two decades (http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/alien-life-extraterrestrials-20-years-astronomers-1812/).

Read the rest at:

http://www.space.com/12421-alien-life-rare-universe-extraterrestrials-seti.html (http://www.space.com/12421-alien-life-rare-universe-extraterrestrials-seti.html)

[PostmodernProphet]

Drake's Equation is faulty......the maximum number of planets that might support life rotating any particular star would be two, and then only if they were in totally synchronous bipolar orbit......in reality the likely number of such planets would be one or zero......

any mathematician can tell you the true result of any formula in which you multiply something by zero.......

by application of Drake's Equation, Earth does not exist........

[Missileman]

Scientists engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) work under the assumption that there is, in fact, intelligent life out there to be found. A new analysis may crush their optimism.


To calculate the likelihood that they'll make radio contact with extraterrestrials, SETI scientists use what's known as the Drake Equation. Formulated in the 1960s by Frank Drake of the SETI Institute in California, it approximates the number of radio-transmitting civilizations in our galaxy at any one time by multiplying a string of factors: the number of stars, the fraction that have planets, the fraction of those that are habitable, the probability of life arising on such planets, its likelihood of becoming intelligent and so on. [10 Alien Encounters Debunked (http://www.space.com/9704-ten-alien-encounters-debunked.html)]


The values of almost all these factors are highly speculative. Nonetheless, Drake and others have plugged in their best guesses, and estimate that there are about 10,000 tech-savvy civilizations in the galaxy currently sending signals our way — a number that has led some scientists to predict that we'lldetect alien signals within two decades (http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/alien-life-extraterrestrials-20-years-astronomers-1812/).

Read the rest at:

http://www.space.com/12421-alien-life-rare-universe-extraterrestrials-seti.html (http://www.space.com/12421-alien-life-rare-universe-extraterrestrials-seti.html)

I'm curious how you managed to formulate your thread title after reading that article. I'm even more curious why you felt compelled to so grossly mischaracterize the content of the article with your choice of words in the thread title.

[Mr. P]

I'm curious how you managed to formulate your thread title after reading that article. I'm even more curious why you felt compelled to so grossly mischaracterize the content of the article with your choice of words in the thread title.

LOL... tis CPs MO ya know. :laugh:

[darin]

I'm curious how you managed to formulate your thread title after reading that article. I'm even more curious why you felt compelled to so grossly mischaracterize the content of the article with your choice of words in the thread title.

Did you miss the BIG TEXT at the top of the article which reads:

"Are We Alone In the Universe? New Analysis Says Maybe"

(shrug).

Anything that points to the 'special-ness' of our Plant and the intricate and perfect DESIGN, really hurts folk who place their hopes on magic and random chance being the source of all life.

To think our biological systems just sorta happened, is honestly just as stupid to think coffee beans, milk, vanilla beans and water, if left in their containers will magically 'given millions of years' somehow form into a delicious vanilla non-fat latte.

[Missileman]

Did you miss the BIG TEXT at the top of the article which reads:

"Are We Alone In the Universe? New Analysis Says Maybe"

(shrug).

Anything that points to the 'special-ness' of our Plant and the intricate and perfect DESIGN, really hurts folk who place their hopes on magic and random chance being the source of all life.

To think our biological systems just sorta happened, is honestly just as stupid to think coffee beans, milk, vanilla beans and water, if left in their containers will magically 'given millions of years' somehow form into a delicious vanilla non-fat latte.

The link I followed from his post was: http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/alien-life-extraterrestrials-20-years-astronomers-1812/ which contradicts the title of the thread.

[Gunny]

Drake's Equation is faulty......the maximum number of planets that might support life rotating any particular star would be two, and then only if they were in totally synchronous bipolar orbit......in reality the likely number of such planets would be one or zero......

any mathematician can tell you the true result of any formula in which you multiply something by zero.......

by application of Drake's Equation, Earth does not exist........

The actual fault is the junk science premise that in order for life to exist, it requires a situation the same as Earth, and the presumption that life must be organic (why else would it need a similar world to Earth?) and or that any life is required to exist only within Man's ability to explain it. The biggest flaw in scientific theory is Man's supreme arrogance.

[Gaffer]

Is there life on other worlds? Probably. Is there human life on other worlds? Probably not. The big question is whether there is sentient life capable of building civilizations. And that's what we are really looking for.

[Gunny]

Is there life on other worlds? Probably. Is there human life on other worlds? Probably not. The big question is whether there is sentient life capable of building civilizations. And that's what we are really looking for.

I can go with the probably.

One can get pretty imaginative about what that life might be. I would say as important as your points are, the ability to communicate with us and we with them would also be a necessity.

[Gaffer]

I can go with the probably.

One can get pretty imaginative about what that life might be. I would say as important as your points are, the ability to communicate with us and we with them would also be a necessity.

Communication would be essential. But the distances of space make it extremely difficult to have any kind of contact, even if we just listen in on something. It could take hundreds or thousands of years for a simple sentence to reach either listener.

We are not going to be traveling to other star systems any time soon. They would have to come to us which I'm not comfortable with.

[Gunny]

Communication would be essential. But the distances of space make it extremely difficult to have any kind of contact, even if we just listen in on something. It could take hundreds or thousands of years for a simple sentence to reach either listener.

We are not going to be traveling to other star systems any time soon. They would have to come to us which I'm not comfortable with.

Remind you of that Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Mankind"?:laugh:

[Gaffer]

Remind you of that Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Mankind"?:laugh:

Yep. I just can't help feeling that an alien race that far advanced wouldn't look on us like a bunch of primitives. They would want to establish a small colony and we know where that would lead.

[Gunny]

Yep. I just can't help feeling that an alien race that far advanced wouldn't look on us like a bunch of primitives. They would want to establish a small colony and we know where that would lead.

If that "life" is anything like us, given our history of the way we treat anything we consider inferior, it would most likely get ugly for us quick.

[chloe]

The only aliens I am aware of are the illegal ones bringing there bedbugs into the usa:laugh2:

[revelarts]

I'm not into UFOs or Aliens but the question is a GREAT head game and I love scifi stuff.

But whenever we think of the life off of our planet we usually bring a lot of baggage to the question.

Gaffer I agree with you about human type life, that was my biggest gripe about S. TREK.

but you also mentioned "civilization". why does another life form have to have a civilization? why not a hive mind. Or why does it have to be a group? what if a single life form came out from a place and had the capacity for super high level thought. AND Alone had the capability to build a space craft or other means of travel. might he/she/it assume that it was alone in the universe and never conceive of Communication... ever. Never having any with anyone but it self and lifeless stars and planets all around.
Even with Communication we assume a lot too. They are looking for radio waves. what if a another life form communicated with light. and has been blinking some infra red (?) frequency at us for 10000 yrs that we've been to stupid to pick up on. They're assuming that any INTELLIGENT creatures would respond. maybe it's not light maybe it's magnetic waves or gravametric.

the other thing we assume is relative size.
There are stars far bigger than our solar system and there are things a lot smaller. What if there are super intelligent microscopic life. Science has shown that we can put "intelligence" in an extremely small space. what are the radio wave going to look like to an intelligent group of beings like that? Or a Super huge intelligence that is made up of a galaxy or group of galaxies at an unprecievable infinite distance.

the other thing is capacity and speed of thought, we assume that we are the smartest fastest thinking things around or that other aliens would be just a bit smarter than us with amazing tech that we could understand if given time. What if they were a billion TIMES Smarter and faster thinking, would they even bother talking to us? would we even understand what they were doing at any given time?

What if they were non corporal, made of light or intelligent gas clouds that stretched across the galaxy that didn't use tech they communicated using other means.

etc etc etc

There could be billions of intelligent beings that never get on our radar becuase we are looking for beings "like us" on a lot of levels.

Or we could be alone with God and his crew in universe. Who knows, but i doubt a couple of radio towers are going to tell us one way or the other.

[Gaffer]

I think that way too rev. No telling what might be out there that we wouldn't even recognize as intelligent. I do think man is to hung up on himself. Even in religion god is made to have human characteristics. And one thing that turns me off on scifi shows is aliens that speak English.

[revelarts]

I think that way too rev. No telling what might be out there that we wouldn't even recognize as intelligent. I do think man is to hung up on himself. Even in religion god is made to have human characteristics. And one thing that turns me off on scifi shows is aliens that speak English.

the English thing is funny.

not to turn this into a religious thread but , as you might guess, I don't have a problem with GOD speaking to us or "being like us" in certain respects.
God is large enough to make himself relateable to anything, everything and every creature he's created in the Universe. the fact that there are aspects of our being that are like Him is not a limit on him. We have aspects like him but we don't have all of his. We have no idea and may not even be able to conceive of his full nature. We can't limit his description to us us but we can start there in some respects.

[Gunny]

I think that way too rev. No telling what might be out there that we wouldn't even recognize as intelligent. I do think man is to hung up on himself. Even in religion god is made to have human characteristics. And one thing that turns me off on scifi shows is aliens that speak English.

And don't forget their focus on the ability to shape shift into human form to "fool" us.:laugh:

[Luna Tick]

A few thoughts come to mind. 1. We might be the first. Someone has to be the first intelligent life to develop in the universe. It could be us and others will follow later. If that's the case, we won't make contact with any other intelligent life unless they catch up to us. 2. Other intelligent life may have existed previously, but it's already extinct, in which case we won't make contact. If they had previously sent out radio signals, we could detect them, but maybe they never sent any. 3. We care about whether other intelligent life exists, but maybe the other intelligent life doesn't care whether we exist, in which case they won't trying to communicate. 4. Other intelligent life may exist, but lack the ability to send radio waves. Think of the dolphins. Many scientists believe they're as intelligent as humans. However, because of their physiology (no hands, opposing thumbs or other ability to manipulate objects) they're not able to create radio. If dolphins were the only intelligent life on earth and intelligent life were trying to find them via radio signals, they would not find them. A similar situation might exist with intelligent life on other planets. They're smart, but can't communicate with us. 5. What if intelligent beings were trying to radio us in the 18th century? We were here. We were smart, but we didn't know about radio back then. Wouldn't have worked. Maybe an advanced civilization exists somewhere that can learn and make tools, but they just haven't invented radio yet. 6. Maybe other life exists elsewhere, but it's not intelligent. If microbial life exists somewhere else, it won't be trying to contact us. 7. Maybe other highly intelligent life exists and has already figured out that we do, but it doesn't want anything to do with us for whatever reason and therefore won't make contact.

In short, there are a lot of scenarios where extraterrestrial life may exist, but we simply won't find out about it.

[Little-Acorn]

"Are We Alone In the Universe? New Analysis Says Maybe"


What's "new" about that?

Did ANY previous analysis say, "Yes, we are definitely alone"?

Or did any say, "No, we definitely have living neighbors out there"?

I'd guess that EVERY "analysis" concluded MAYBE.

Every single one.

So why is this one being touted as something noteworthy?

[Gunny]

What's "new" about that?

Did ANY previous analysis say, "Yes, we are definitely alone"?

Or did any say, "No, we definitely have living neighbors out there"?

I'd guess that EVERY "analysis" concluded MAYBE.

Every single one.

So why is this one being touted as something noteworthy?

I'd say there is probably a lot of government funding (aka our tax dollars) at work behind this and whoever is being funded has to justify their expenditures. What better way than repainting the Studebaker and calling it "new"?

Or maybe the media didn't have much else to try and dazzle us with on that particular day. Even Obama has to take some time off from screwing up everything.

[kowalskil]

I can go with the probably.

One can get pretty imaginative about what that life might be. I would say as important as your points are, the ability to communicate with us and we with them would also be a necessity.

Yes, this would be very difficult, considering communication between people on this planet.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

[soupnazi630]

Drake's Equation is faulty......the maximum number of planets that might support life rotating any particular star would be two, and then only if they were in totally synchronous bipolar orbit......in reality the likely number of such planets would be one or zero......

any mathematician can tell you the true result of any formula in which you multiply something by zero.......

by application of Drake's Equation, Earth does not exist........

The Drake equation may be faulty and of course it proves nothing. But it is not faulty in the manner in which you claim.

The number of planets which might support life in any given star system could quite plausibly be more than two. Even within our own solar system there is more than two. A planet does not have to be orbiting it's host star at all in order to fall within the window of being capable of supporting life an example in our star system is Europa a moon of Jupiter. So far as we can tell so far it seems to have the conditions needed to support some form of life even if not intelligent. With the large number of moons and satellites orbiting gas giants the number of planets capable of supporting life increases dramatically.Jupiter itself is also a candidate for some form of life. In addition other planets could have supported life at one time had conditions on those planets been slightly different. Mars for example.

The Drake equation took all of this into account.

[-Cp]

I'm curious how you managed to formulate your thread title after reading that article. I'm even more curious why you felt compelled to so grossly mischaracterize the content of the article with your choice of words in the thread title.

Perhaps if you followed the link to the story, you'd see it is not "My Title" but tis the title of the article?

[Missileman]

Perhaps if you followed the link to the story, you'd see it is not "My Title" but tis the title of the article?

I actually followed the link embedded in the paragraph and assumed the link at the end went to the same place, so didn't look at that one. My bad.

[LuvRPgrl]

Communication would be essential. But the distances of space make it extremely difficult to have any kind of contact, even if we just listen in on something. It could take hundreds or thousands of years for a simple sentence to reach either listener.

We are not going to be traveling to other star systems any time soon. They would have to come to us which I'm not comfortable with.

We have explored space and not any violence has been thought of, or aggressive actions. Once a society attaina a level of intelligence to bridge solar systems, you would think they would be smart enough to not prefer violence.
Plus, if they did reach us, it could be that it is particularly difficult and expensive, so using us as a colony wouldnt be productive for them.
And even if they did come to conquer, yea, they might have superior technology, but their numbers would be limited and probably not that many of them.

[Gaffer]

We have explored space and not any violence has been thought of, or aggressive actions. Once a society attaina a level of intelligence to bridge solar systems, you would think they would be smart enough to not prefer violence.
Plus, if they did reach us, it could be that it is particularly difficult and expensive, so using us as a colony wouldnt be productive for them.
And even if they did come to conquer, yea, they might have superior technology, but their numbers would be limited and probably not that many of them.

A high level of intelligence does not guarantee a non violent society. An armada of ships is not likely, that would be impractical. A few ships or just one coming in peacefully would be the smart way to go. Then request a small area to set up a colony with trade offers. Any attempt at conquest would come much later after they were well establish.

And then again, what better way to unite the world under one govt than to have a threat from another world.

[revelarts]

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kGo1-EVrsx8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kGo1-EVrsx8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Don't Run We are your Friends!

[LuvRPgrl]

<OBJECT width="640" height="390"><EMBED height=390 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=640 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/kGo1-EVrsx8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3 allowScriptAccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED></OBJECT>

Don't Run We are your Friends!
thanks for remindding me of that, I loved that movie !

[PostmodernProphet]

The Drake equation may be faulty and of course it proves nothing. But it is not faulty in the manner in which you claim.

The number of planets which might support life in any given star system could quite plausibly be more than two. Even within our own solar system there is more than two. A planet does not have to be orbiting it's host star at all in order to fall within the window of being capable of supporting life an example in our star system is Europa a moon of Jupiter. So far as we can tell so far it seems to have the conditions needed to support some form of life even if not intelligent. With the large number of moons and satellites orbiting gas giants the number of planets capable of supporting life increases dramatically.Jupiter itself is also a candidate for some form of life. In addition other planets could have supported life at one time had conditions on those planets been slightly different. Mars for example.

The Drake equation took all of this into account.

????.....uh, no......the fact that conditions on those planets ARE slightly different means they can't support life......no two planets in any solar system can be in that position where conditions aren't "slightly different" unless they chance to be in a completely synchronous bi-polar orbit......an unlikely rarity......

beyond that rarity, in any given solar system it may happen that ONE planet is in that unique position that life can be supported......or it may happen that none are.....

[soupnazi630]

????.....uh, no......the fact that conditions on those planets ARE slightly different means they can't support life......no two planets in any solar system can be in that position where conditions aren't "slightly different" unless they chance to be in a completely synchronous bi-polar orbit......an unlikely rarity......

beyond that rarity, in any given solar system it may happen that ONE planet is in that unique position that life can be supported......or it may happen that none are.....

.................uh no .........................

Slightly different conditions does not mean a planet is incapable of supporting life.

Once again you ignore fact that Jupiter and Europa are prime candidates for life despite vastly different conditions than here on Earth. We know that conditions on those two worlds can probably allow some form of life to exist we just cannot get close enough to prove or disprove whether such life exists there yet.

If one considers the vast difference in the circumference in the orbits of Earth and Jupiter one realizes that a very large window exists around every star where one or more planets capable of supporting life can orbit. It is not merely a set distance from the host star which makes life possible. One also has to consider the size and relative temperature of said star combined with the size and mass of the planet in questions and it's chemistry. This therefore means many such planets can orbit the same star. The capability to support life dependent only on the chemistry of each of those planets.

In addition it is only some of the internal characteristics of Mars which makes it incapable of supporting life such as the lack of a magnetic field and an improperly balanced atmosphere. Those conditions are not exclusively rooted in the distance of Mars from the sun which means in other star systems a planet at such a distance from it's host star can support life if said conditions on and within that planet differ slightly. We already have confirmed from viewing other planets in other star systems that the the size of a planet is not conditional on it's distance from it's host star and therefore conditions can vary widely.

Any star in the 400 billion or so making up the milky way can feasibly and logically be the center of a system which includes multiple planets and planetary satellites capable of supporting life making the total possible number of such planets hundreds of billions.

[Gunny]

We have explored space and not any violence has been thought of, or aggressive actions. Once a society attaina a level of intelligence to bridge solar systems, you would think they would be smart enough to not prefer violence.
Plus, if they did reach us, it could be that it is particularly difficult and expensive, so using us as a colony wouldnt be productive for them.
And even if they did come to conquer, yea, they might have superior technology, but their numbers would be limited and probably not that many of them.

You mean like when Europeans bridged the Atlantic?

Your last two sentences both make assumptions based on our own limitations.

[LuvRPgrl]

You mean like when Europeans bridged the Atlantic?

Your last two sentences both make assumptions based on our own limitations.

If beings on another planet had wooden ships as their most advanced transportation, then at that stage I would consider them violent. If, however, they attained higher technology like the USA, (which is NOT a country that abuses it power), I would expect them to be peaceful.

The difference is, once technology reaches a certain point, real scientists have to be involved, and real scientists are almost always "peaceful"

[Missileman]

If beings on another planet had wooden ships as their most advanced transportation, then at that stage I would consider them violent. If, however, they attained higher technology like the USA, (which is NOT a country that abuses it power), I would expect them to be peaceful.

The difference is, once technology reaches a certain point, real scientists have to be involved, and real scientists are almost always "peaceful"

You've seen about three too many episodes of Star Trek. :laugh2:


Psst...btw, Star Trek is science fiction.

[soupnazi630]

If beings on another planet had wooden ships as their most advanced transportation, then at that stage I would consider them violent. If, however, they attained higher technology like the USA, (which is NOT a country that abuses it power), I would expect them to be peaceful.

The difference is, once technology reaches a certain point, real scientists have to be involved, and real scientists are almost always "peaceful"

You mean like the nazis?

Or like those geniuses and real scientists on the Manhattan project?

Our own history shows higher technology and " real scientists " does not mean more peaceful or benign intentions and real scientists and be just as hawkish or war like as anyone else.

Besides any Et species would be definition be different from us.

They may have different concepts of morality and right vs wrong. They may even have emotions we cannot comprehend.

The chances of any extra terrestrial intelligent species being hostile is 50/50

[Gunny]

If beings on another planet had wooden ships as their most advanced transportation, then at that stage I would consider them violent. If, however, they attained higher technology like the USA, (which is NOT a country that abuses it power), I would expect them to be peaceful.

The difference is, once technology reaches a certain point, real scientists have to be involved, and real scientists are almost always "peaceful"

You are STILL limiting your thinking to Man's technology. Human science is limited to man's intellect, as well as its scientists. The discussion is abstract and the possibilities limitless.


You mean like the nazis?

Or like those geniuses and real scientists on the Manhattan project?

Our own history shows higher technology and " real scientists " does not mean more peaceful or benign intentions and real scientists and be just as hawkish or war like as anyone else.

Besides any Et species would be definition be different from us.

They may have different concepts of morality and right vs wrong. They may even have emotions we cannot comprehend.

The chances of any extra terrestrial intelligent species being hostile is 50/50

Not to mention the near genocide of Native Americans when Europeans reached America and found an ethnicity different and not as technologically advanced as their own.

And yeah, the proverbial last words before the abomination begins is: " What's sacrificing a few lives when we might could possibly save millions?" We DID attain a LOT of useful medical data from Nazi experimentation. One just has to ask oneself if the price of one's soul is worth committing the atrocities the Nazi's did.

[LuvRPgrl]

You've seen about three too many episodes of Star Trek. :laugh2:


Psst...btw, Star Trek is science fiction.

I got a feeling you dont like me. Of course that happens alot when I kick someones ass (figuratively of course)

[fj1200]

Are we alone in the universe? Contact, starring Jodie Foster, says No.

There you have it.

[Missileman]

I got a feeling you dont like me. Of course that happens alot when I kick someones ass (figuratively of course)

I don't dislike you, I just have a hard time staying quiet when I read some of the ridiculous posts that issue from your keyboard. As for ass-kicking, I'd say you've see a few too many episodes of OCA. (Literally, of course)

[LuvRPgrl]

Not to mention the near genocide of Native Americans when Europeans reached America and found an ethnicity different and not as technologically advanced as their own.

And yeah, the proverbial last words before the abomination begins is: " What's sacrificing a few lives when we might could possibly save millions?" We DID attain a LOT of useful medical data from Nazi experimentation. One just has to ask oneself if the price of one's soul is worth committing the atrocities the Nazi's did.

Native Americans, irrelevant.
Proverbial last words, again irrelevant.

As for the Nazi's, I did say most scientists, not all. I could name thousands of scientists in the 40's who were not violent.


I don't dislike you, I just have a hard time staying quiet when I read some of the ridiculous posts that issue from your keyboard. As for ass-kicking, I'd say you've see a few too many episodes of OCA. (Literally, of course)

Well, they might seem ridiculous to you, but most others actually usually agree with me, plus, your arguements fold under extreme pressure, like plants dont use minerals to grow.

[soupnazi630]

Native Americans, irrelevant.
Proverbial last words, again irrelevant.

As for the Nazi's, I did say most scientists, not all. I could name thousands of scientists in the 40's who were not violent.

Not personally violent perhaps but lost helped build military machines which are quite violent.

History simply proves you wrong and applying human history lessons to another species is silly.


Well, they might seem ridiculous to you, but most others actually usually agree with me, plus, your arguements fold under extreme pressure, like plants dont use minerals to grow.

Actually most others do not agree with you. Even the most brilliant minds such as Hawking disagree.

The arguments have not folded at all and stand unchallenged by you.

[ConHog]

I believe there are other life forms out there. How arrogant of us to believe that we are it. I also believe that they are so far away that it is unlikely that we will ever encounter them. I happen to believe it was planned that way.

Well, there is of course an exception, SOME aliens are already here. We just happen to know them as women.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually most others do not agree with you. Even the most brilliant minds such as Hawking disagree.

The arguments have not folded at all and stand unchallenged by you.

This goes far beyond this thread


Not personally violent perhaps but lost helped build military machines which are quite violent.

History simply proves you wrong and applying human history lessons to another species is silly.

HISTORY? OK, tell me the history of any countries that have traveled to another moon or planet that is a militaristic aggresor, enslaving and killing people who had done no harm to them.

[soupnazi630]

This goes far beyond this thread

Yes and most still do not agree with you


HISTORY? OK, tell me the history of any countries that have traveled to another moon or planet that is a militaristic aggresor, enslaving and killing people who had done no harm to them.

Ok the United states went to the moon.

The United states practiced massive slavery against people who had done no harm to us.

We also wiped out tens of thousands ( at a minimum ) of Native Americans.

We launched a pre-emptive war against Iraq and also waged war in Somalia and Bosnia where no one had done any harm to us.

Even during the moon landings we were at war in Vietnam and while personally I think that war was a just cause the fact is the enemy had done no harm to us

There is no evidence that advanced technology and brilliant scientific genius means benign, peaceful intent.

And of course you keep ignoring that ET's would by definition be radically different from us in every respect to include psychologically and emotionally. Destroying an indigenous species could be quite AMORAL and not the least bit aggressive to them.

[PostmodernProphet]

Well, there is of course an exception, SOME aliens are already here. We just happen to know them as women.

I have it on good authority they are from Venus......

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes and most still do not agree with you

and yet you didnt answer my question even on this topic


Ok the United states went to the moon..


The United states practiced massive slavery against people who had done no harm to us..
OLD NEWS

We also wiped out tens of thousands ( at a minimum ) of Native Americans..
MORE OLD NEWS


We launched a pre-emptive war against Iraq and also waged war in Somalia and Bosnia where no one had done any harm to us..
SO, YOU THINK IF SPACE ALIENS SHOW UP, THAT MOST OF THEM WILL BE BEING TREATED HARSHLY BY A MINORITY OF THEM BECAUSE THE MINORITY HAS WEAPONRY THAT THE OPPRESSED DONT?
I DONT, JUST LIKE WHEN WE WENT TO THE MOON, WE DECLARED IT IS PROPERTY OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Try reading a little history, it also says in a plaque memorilizing the landing that we come in peace to all, no weapons were taken up there.


Even during the moon landings we were at war in Vietnam and while personally I think that war was a just cause the fact is the enemy had done no harm to us. SEE ANSWER ABOVE


There is no evidence that advanced technology and brilliant scientific genius means benign, peaceful intent. .
AHHH, JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO. NO MATTER WHAT SOMEONE PRESENTS YOU WILL SIMPLY SAY ITS NOT "EVIDENCE".
You do realize that the downfall of the nazis was their infelxable thinking. SOUND FAMILIAR??


And of course you keep ignoring that ET's would by definition be radically different from us in every respect to include psychologically and emotionally. Destroying an indigenous species could be quite AMORAL and not the least bit aggressive to them.


And yet, in the most civilized and advanced culture on earth, even the animals are attaining higher status then humans in other "less advanced" cultures.
"by definition" hahahahh, BY YOUR DEFINITION nobody elses, I dont see why aliens couldnt be exactly like us, similiar or so bizarre its beyond our imagination.
i dont limit the posssibilities like you do.


I have it on good authority they are from Venus......

Is that a Martian authority?:thumb:

[soupnazi630]

OLD NEWS

MORE OLD NEWS


SO, YOU THINK IF SPACE ALIENS SHOW UP, THAT MOST OF THEM WILL BE BEING TREATED HARSHLY BY A MINORITY OF THEM BECAUSE THE MINORITY HAS WEAPONRY THAT THE OPPRESSED DONT?
I DONT, JUST LIKE WHEN WE WENT TO THE MOON, WE DECLARED IT IS PROPERTY OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Try reading a little history, it also says in a plaque memorilizing the landing that we come in peace to all, no weapons were taken up there.

SEE ANSWER ABOVE


AHHH, JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO. NO MATTER WHAT SOMEONE PRESENTS YOU WILL SIMPLY SAY ITS NOT "EVIDENCE".
You do realize that the downfall of the nazis was their infelxable thinking. SOUND FAMILIAR??




And yet, in the most civilized and advanced culture on earth, even the animals are attaining higher status then humans in other "less advanced" cultures.
"by definition" hahahahh, BY YOUR DEFINITION nobody elses, I dont see why aliens couldnt be exactly like us, similiar or so bizarre its beyond our imagination.
i dont limit the posssibilities like you do.

If it is old news why did you ask for it assuming you already knew it.

It proves you wrong.

Higher technology and advanced science does not equal benign or peaceful intent as the my post proves. In addition rhetoric or a plaque about coming in peace does not mean that war has been left behind or aggression forgotten.

No I did not mean a minority of Ets would be mistreated by THEIR majority I meant what I said.

What I stated is that there is no evidence of such beings being peaceful and we should not assume they are and even our own history does not support your view.

Yes your view is limiting the possibilities by assumptions without evidence.

Another species could well be peaceful but there is simply no reason to assume they will be. We need to be aware that any possibility exists.

BTW animals have no higher status they are still animals.

[LuvRPgrl]

If it is old news why did you ask for it assuming you already knew it.. BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
YOU JUST WON THE "SPEAK BEFORE READING WHAT YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT" AWARD OF THE YEAR.
Go back and read post 33, I put a stipulation on it that technology of a certain level must be achieved.


It proves you wrong.

Higher technology and advanced science does not equal benign or peaceful intent as the my post proves. In addition rhetoric or a plaque about coming in peace does not mean that war has been left behind or aggression forgotten..
And yet there is an INTERNATI0NAL SPACE PROGRAM that is nothing but peaceful.


No I did not mean a minority of Ets would be mistreated by THEIR majority I meant what I said..You gave an example of a society where a more powerful minority maintained control and were violent against the majority.


What I stated is that there is no evidence of such beings being peaceful and we should not assume they are and even our own history does not support your view..
there is no evidence of any such being being violent either. History shows that those countries involved in active space exploration have cohabitatedd peacefully. Which also includes satellites that have been in orbit for decades.


Yes your view is limiting the possibilities by assumptions without evidence..Your definition of evidence sounds kinda muslm to me, its your opinion that you consider evidence.


Another species could well be peaceful but there is simply no reason to assume they will be. We need to be aware that any possibility exists..re read again. I didnt say they WOULD be peaceful, I was saying that those who claim they WOULD be violent might be wrong.

BTW animals have no higher status they are still animals.[/QUOTE]Again, your opinion. Millions of others disagree, ever hear of PETA.? Im not saying they are right, just....

[Little-Acorn]

To think our biological systems just sorta happened, is honestly just as stupid to think coffee beans, milk, vanilla beans and water, if left in their containers will magically 'given millions of years' somehow form into a delicious vanilla non-fat latte.

There are no delicious vanilla non-fat lattes. >:-O

Maybe life is out there, and we simply missed it.

Consider two factors: size and time.

SIZE

Is there a chance that the "life out there" is so small (compared to our own) among the vastness of the universe, that we are unlikely to see it even if we are looking right at it?

Brings to mind a cartoon (always a good reference :) ) on the subject that I once saw. Some guy is sitting at a table. On the floor beside him is a tiny space capsule the size of a pea, with a tiny door open on it. He's looking through a microscope, and a bunch of cells in the viewfinder are lining up to spell out the words, "Take us to your leader".

TIME

Some people say the Earth is maybe 4.5 billion years old, and the rest of the universe is much older. How long has Man existed on the planet? For that matter, how long has ANY "life as we know it" existed here, from single cells thru trilobites thru T-rexes thru man? Just a tiny fraction of the life of the planet. And if we start tossing nukes around or some other thing, that could all be gone in a thousand years or less.

"Life as we know it" has only existed HERE for a blink of an eye, in the history of the universe. Who's to say some other life form didn't develop or get created (insert your own favorite theory of origin here), half a universe-lifespan ago, grow, invent machines, spread through a galaxy or two, then goof and wipe themselves out like we might, all in their own relative blink of an eye, say ten billion years ago? Would there be ANY evidence of that left now? Even if there were, what are the chances of our finding it? We've been listening (and broadcasting) for less than a hundred years. And we've sent out what, a grand total of three spacecraft to exit our own SOLAR SYSTEM, and only in the last 20-30 years?

We have ZERO evidence that we are the only ones who are here, or have ever been. Course, there's zero evidence that we aren't, too. There's a very good chance that, if there was ever "life" in the universe, we (inevitably) missed it, and it's long gone now. If it ever existed.

What chances are there that, many billions of years in the future, other beings someplace will be saying the same thing... never knowing they are referring to US?

[LuvRPgrl]

Maybe life is out there, and we simply missed it.

Consider two factors: size and time.

SIZE

Is there a chance that the "life out there" is so small (compared to our own) among the vastness of the universe, that we are unlikely to see it even if we are looking right at it?

Brings to mind a cartoon (always a good reference :) ) on the subject that I once saw. Some guy is sitting at a table. On the floor beside him is a tiny space capsule the size of a pea, with a tiny door open on it. He's looking through a microscope, and a bunch of cells in the viewfinder are lining up to spell out the words, "Take us to your leader".

TIME

Some people say the Earth is maybe 4.5 billion years old, and the rest of the universe is much older. How long has Man existed on the planet? For that matter, how long has ANY "life as we know it" existed here, from single cells thru trilobites thru T-rexes thru man? Just a tiny fraction of the life of the planet. And if we start tossing nukes around or some other thing, that could all be gone in a thousand years or less.

"Life as we know it" has only existed HERE for a blink of an eye, in the history of the universe. Who's to say some other life form didn't develop or get created (insert your own favorite theory of origin here), half a universe-lifespan ago, grow, invent machines, spread through a galaxy or two, then goof and wipe themselves out like we might, all in their own relative blink of an eye, say ten billion years ago? Would there be ANY evidence of that left now? Even if there were, what are the chances of our finding it? We've been listening (and broadcasting) for less than a hundred years. And we've sent out what, a grand total of three spacecraft to exit our own SOLAR SYSTEM, and only in the last 20-30 years?

We have ZERO evidence that we are the only ones who are here, or have ever been. Course, there's zero evidence that we aren't, too. There's a very good chance that, if there was ever "life" in the universe, we (inevitably) missed it, and it's long gone now. If it ever existed.

What chances are there that, many billions of years in the future, other beings someplace will be saying the same thing... never knowing they are referring to US?

Good post.
Regarding size, I'm not sure if that can happen though, science has gotten bits of material down to smaller than an electron or proton or nucleus of an atom. I forget what they are called, but they can distinguish these things that are clinging together making up the nucleus. Im just not sure if anything can get much smaller, but then again, no matter how small of a particle you discover, there is always the question, what is that made of...:)

But in terms of missing others, not only possible, but more likely than not. That is, if you are running on the notion there is no creator. If there is a creator, either possiblity is just as likely, since its his choice.
It seems space travel to another solar system just isnt possible within our current realm. Wormholes, or something has to be discovered.

But I have also been contemplating the notion about something else being alive, could be right in front of us, and still we cant see them. Kinda like we cant see glass. Maybe they are comosed of something we just cant discern.
Not to mention, our body is composed of 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% space. It entirely possible that the old scientific addage that two things cant occupy the same space at the same time, might not be true. Suppose some other particles are capable of filliing in between the atoms whirling around, and they can be a part of a larger organism.
Its possible they could pass right through us, and we dont even know it, the molecules or atoms, or protons could be composed of a substance that makes it impossible for their atomic parts to collide with ours, kinda the opposite of gravity.
In fact, there might not be any gravity at all. Maybe everything is held together by some universal force that pushes things together.

Oh, and there is NOTHING that is Vanilla and delicous in the same sentence, CHOCOLATE BABY, CHOCOLATE !!

[Gaffer]

Good post.
Regarding size, I'm not sure if that can happen though, science has gotten bits of material down to smaller than an electron or proton or nucleus of an atom. I forget what they are called, but they can distinguish these things that are clinging together making up the nucleus. Im just not sure if anything can get much smaller, but then again, no matter how small of a particle you discover, there is always the question, what is that made of...:)

But in terms of missing others, not only possible, but more likely than not. That is, if you are running on the notion there is no creator. If there is a creator, either possiblity is just as likely, since its his choice.
It seems space travel to another solar system just isnt possible within our current realm. Wormholes, or something has to be discovered.

But I have also been contemplating the notion about something else being alive, could be right in front of us, and still we cant see them. Kinda like we cant see glass. Maybe they are comosed of something we just cant discern.
Not to mention, our body is composed of 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% space. It entirely possible that the old scientific addage that two things cant occupy the same space at the same time, might not be true. Suppose some other particles are capable of filliing in between the atoms whirling around, and they can be a part of a larger organism.
Its possible they could pass right through us, and we dont even know it, the molecules or atoms, or protons could be composed of a substance that makes it impossible for their atomic parts to collide with ours, kinda the opposite of gravity.
In fact, there might not be any gravity at all. Maybe everything is held together by some universal force that pushes things together.

Oh, and there is NOTHING that is Vanilla and delicous in the same sentence, CHOCOLATE BABY, CHOCOLATE !!

I think some of what your talking about is discussed in the theory of dark matter, which they haven't been able to prove yet. The speculations are endless. And everything we know is limited to human experience and understanding. That's why scifi is so cool. The thing about reality is that it's always different than we imagine it.

Cool posts from both of you.

[LuvRPgrl]

I think some of what your talking about is discussed in the theory of dark matter, which they haven't been able to prove yet. The speculations are endless. And everything we know is limited to human experience and understanding. That's why scifi is so cool. The thing about reality is that it's always different than we imagine it.

Cool posts from both of you.

I find it fascinating,,,,thanks

[Little-Acorn]

There is matter (which is us), there is dark matter (which is currently science fiction), and there is antimatter (which seems to be real but stay away from it).

Matter is made of protons, electrons, neutrons, and a bunch of teenyweenies we're still discovering, or at least postulating.
Antimatter is made, respectively, of antiprotons, positrons, and I'm not sure what the anti of a neutron is. An antiproton looks like a proton but has a negative charge, a positron looks like an electron but has a positive charge.

When matter meets antimatter, they annihilate, which I believe means they both change into pure energy. You don't want to be around when that happens. Even in an atomic bomb, only a very small fraction of the reacting matter is changed to energy... but that's enough to level a city. In a matter-antimatter annihiliation, ALL the mass is changed into energy, resulting in a bang that is orders of magnitude larger than the biggest atom bomb ever made (and we've made some big ones - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pipsqueaks).

Not sure if scientists have ever actually isolated and measured antimatter. The mathematical equations that describe real matter, indicate that antimatter should also exist. Can you see it? And, what do you keep it in?

And as I said, who wants to be within a thousand miles of the stuff?

[Gaffer]

There is matter (which is us), there is dark matter (which is currently science fiction), and there is antimatter (which seems to be real but stay away from it).

Matter is made of protons, electrons, neutrons, and a bunch of teenyweenies we're still discovering, or at least postulating.
Antimatter is made, respectively, of antiprotons, positrons, and I'm not sure what the anti of a neutron is. An antiproton looks like a proton but has a negative charge, a positron looks like an electron but has a positive charge.

When matter meets antimatter, they annihilate, which I believe means they both change into pure energy. You don't want to be around when that happens. Even in an atomic bomb, only a very small fraction of the reacting matter is changed to energy... but that's enough to level a city. In a matter-antimatter annihiliation, ALL the mass is changed into energy, resulting in a bang that is orders of magnitude larger than the biggest atom bomb ever made (and we've made some big ones - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pipsqueaks).

Not sure if scientists have ever actually isolated and measured antimatter. The mathematical equations that describe real matter, indicate that antimatter should also exist. Can you see it? And, what do you keep it in?

And as I said, who wants to be within a thousand miles of the stuff?

Yeah where would it be found since it can't exist around matter? I wonder if there's a neutral matter? Something that's friends with both.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yeah where would it be found since it can't exist around matter? I wonder if there's a neutral matter? Something that's friends with both.

that would be me. :)
Anti matter is Gabby, OCA....
Neutral matter would be Noir

Acorn, just wondering if you got any info on the mathematical equation.

[Little-Acorn]

Anti matter is Gabby,
Yes, I've noticed that.

Sometimes she inhabits a thread for a brief time. But as soon as somebody shows up and starts posting facts, and/or asks her to back up any of her statements, she vanishes and is not heard from again.

"Annihilation" to a tee...... ;)



Acorn, just wondering if you got any info on the mathematical equation.

Sorry, no, just read about the generalities in various books.

There's always the old standby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

[Gunny]

Native Americans, irrelevant.
Proverbial last words, again irrelevant.

As for the Nazi's, I did say most scientists, not all. I could name thousands of scientists in the 40's who were not violent.

Both comments are completely relevant to YOUR posts. I would have had no reason to make them otherwise. You are missing the entire point.

An infinite universe is not confined to the scientific laws of Man. Your stuck inside a box saying that something infinite and undefined MUST fall within the scientific laws of Man.

And sorry, most scientists are as unscrupulous as it gets when it comes to life of any sort. Nazi's were just an example. Medical science DID benefit greatly from some of the Nazi experimentation. Doesn't make it ethical.


If it is old news why did you ask for it assuming you already knew it.

It proves you wrong.

Higher technology and advanced science does not equal benign or peaceful intent as the my post proves. In addition rhetoric or a plaque about coming in peace does not mean that war has been left behind or aggression forgotten.

No I did not mean a minority of Ets would be mistreated by THEIR majority I meant what I said.

What I stated is that there is no evidence of such beings being peaceful and we should not assume they are and even our own history does not support your view.

Yes your view is limiting the possibilities by assumptions without evidence.

Another species could well be peaceful but there is simply no reason to assume they will be. We need to be aware that any possibility exists.

BTW animals have no higher status they are still animals.

Agreed. Why should any ET consider us anything more than we consider cattle? Grilled, medium-rare.:cow:


BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
YOU JUST WON THE "SPEAK BEFORE READING WHAT YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT" AWARD OF THE YEAR.
Go back and read post 33, I put a stipulation on it that technology of a certain level must be achieved.


And yet there is an INTERNATI0NAL SPACE PROGRAM that is nothing but peaceful.

You gave an example of a society where a more powerful minority maintained control and were violent against the majority.


there is no evidence of any such being being violent either. History shows that those countries involved in active space exploration have cohabitatedd peacefully. Which also includes satellites that have been in orbit for decades.

Your definition of evidence sounds kinda muslm to me, its your opinion that you consider evidence.

re read again. I didnt say they WOULD be peaceful, I was saying that those who claim they WOULD be violent might be wrong.

BTW animals have no higher status they are still animals.Again, your opinion. Millions of others disagree, ever hear of PETA.? Im not saying they are right, just....[/QUOTE]

That isn't what you said. Your argument has basically stated that an intellect superior enough to travel through space would be benevolent simply because of its superior intellect. Your revision of that statement in this post is a concession to your original argument.

[LuvRPgrl]

Both comments are completely relevant to YOUR posts. I would have had no reason to make them otherwise. You are missing the entire point..
Not missing anything. My statement was that societies of advanced technology......;Im so sorry, but stone arrowheads does not qualify as advanced technology


An infinite universe is not confined to the scientific laws of Man...

I never said it was.

Your stuck inside a box saying that something infinite and undefined MUST fall within the scientific laws of Man..
I'm stuck inside the box? hahha, thats hilarious. I destroy boxes. I know of no box I have not questioned, its in my DNA because of my most unusual upbrining. I question everything, my experience has alot of negative consequences, but thinking inside the box is not one of them.
In fact, you are stuck inside the box if you say the infinite universe is not confined to the scientific laws of Man (which actually is an oxymoron, which is it? laws of man, or laws of science?)
I say it may, or may not be. Is there any proof that there are laws of science that are not followed at any time or space of the universe.


And sorry, most scientists are as unscrupulous as it gets when it comes to life of any sort. Nazi's were just an example. Medical science DID benefit greatly from some of the Nazi experimentation. Doesn't make it ethical.
You say MOST, but you dont back it up. Nazi thing is a red herring.

AND, I also dont think the universe is infinite. And one thing is for sure, its IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE IT IS.

[Missileman]

Im so sorry, but stone arrowheads does not qualify as advanced technology

It's all a matter of relativity. Stone arrowheads ARE advanced technology if everyone else is using a plain stick.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's all a matter of relativity. Stone arrowheads ARE advanced technology if everyone else is using a plain stick.

It was my "base" that is being used to measure other societies with. Since I said a certain level, not a comparision, but a concrete level of technology which includes space travel, and excludes arrow making.

[Noir]

We must be alone, I mean look at how far our radio broadcasts have gone already, and no aliens have picked up our signals!

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/photo-197.jpg

:laugh:

As an aside, we are currently searching for alien radio frequencies in single bands, this is ridiculously stupid as it would be an extremely ineffiecent and unsecured way for aliens to communicate. We do the same on earth; when we send data (be it emails, phone calls etc) we do not send on a single band. We break up the data into packets with a "key" that are then "unlocked" and reassembled when they get to the other user. That is what lead the theorectical physicist Kaku to say "We could be in the middle of an intergalactic conversation, and we wouldn't even know."

[Gunny]

Not missing anything. My statement was that societies of advanced technology......;Im so sorry, but stone arrowheads does not qualify as advanced technology



I never said it was.

I'm stuck inside the box? hahha, thats hilarious. I destroy boxes. I know of no box I have not questioned, its in my DNA because of my most unusual upbrining. I question everything, my experience has alot of negative consequences, but thinking inside the box is not one of them.
In fact, you are stuck inside the box if you say the infinite universe is not confined to the scientific laws of Man (which actually is an oxymoron, which is it? laws of man, or laws of science?)
I say it may, or may not be. Is there any proof that there are laws of science that are not followed at any time or space of the universe.


You say MOST, but you dont back it up. Nazi thing is a red herring.

AND, I also dont think the universe is infinite. And one thing is for sure, its IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE IT IS.

You're missing the whole point. Of course arrows were advanced technology in their day.

So yeah, you're stuck inside a little box. You think the limitations of man's intellect NOW is all there is, and the most superior technology and that all the laws of that science apply to any-and-everything, universally.

Nazis aren't a red herring. Quit using phrases you don't understand. They were an example in response to YOUR post, and completely relevant and within the context of the discussion. Try again.

[LuvRPgrl]

We must be alone, I mean look at how far our radio broadcasts have gone already, and no aliens have picked up our signals!

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/photo-197.jpg

:laugh:

As an aside, we are currently searching for alien radio frequencies in single bands, this is ridiculously stupid as it would be an extremely ineffiecent and unsecured way for aliens to communicate. We do the same on earth; when we send data (be it emails, phone calls etc) we do not send on a single band. We break up the data into packets with a "key" that are then "unlocked" and reassembled when they get to the other user. That is what lead the theorectical physicist Kaku to say "We could be in the middle of an intergalactic conversation, and we wouldn't even know."

When did Kuku live?
Are you familiar with CDMA?
I dont think I have the experise to question the worlds top scientists about the technique they are using. It would certainly surprise me if that many top scientists havent figured out what you are talking about,,,,Im not attacking what you said, just questioning.

[Noir]

When did Kuku live?
Are you familiar with CDMA?
I dont think I have the experise to question the worlds top scientists about the technique they are using. It would certainly surprise me if that many top scientists havent figured out what you are talking about,,,,Im not attacking what you said, just questioning.

He lives today, the co-founder of String Field theory he is still an active theoretical physicist.

I am, and as a form of communication it is a dead end. That is why it will be phased out especially in mobile communications as GSM expands to LTE and 4G in which CDMA can't efficiently compete.

And I'm sure we would like to view a broader spectrum but getting the equipment that *can* do it just isnt feasible ATM.

As an aside, not only are we searching single bands, but we are looking in the hydrogen and helium spectrum. Again this is the easiest for us to view, but the worst that could be used as a method of communication.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't dislike you, I just have a hard time staying quiet when I read some of the ridiculous posts that issue from your keyboard. As for ass-kicking, I'd say you've see a few too many episodes of OCA. (Literally, of course)

Yea, so true. My ridiculous posts, like when I accused the starter of a thread of incompetence when he titled the thread and of coming up with conclusions not consistent with the article,,,,,opppssss, oh shoot, that was....wait for it,,,,,,,YOU :laugh2:


He lives today, the co-founder of String Field theory he is still an active theoretical physicist.

I am, and as a form of communication it is a dead end. That is why it will be phased out especially in mobile communications as GSM expands to LTE and 4G in which CDMA can't efficiently compete.

And I'm sure we would like to view a broader spectrum but getting the equipment that *can* do it just isnt feasible ATM.

As an aside, not only are we searching single bands, but we are looking in the hydrogen and helium spectrum. Again this is the easiest for us to view, but the worst that could be used as a method of communication.
If others were more advanced than us, I would think they MIGHT know about our limitations and try communicating in ways they know we ;would understand. Kinda like using sign language with someone who doesnt speak your language.

R U familiar with WiMAX?

OK, Im gonna start over on this cuz it is getting convoluted and going in circles.
I say higher technological societies will PROBABLY be prone to being non violent.

I also have NEVER said anything is impossible, hence I have constructed no boxes whatsoever. When attempting to refute something I posted, quoting me would be more efficient than responding to something I NEVER said.

The idiot who posted the following used OLD US history BEFORE we advanced technologically, which actually proves my point, we went from a conquering violent society, to one of more peaceful intent.

He also said "BY DEFINITION" aliens would be different than us. THAT IS CONFINING ONESELF TO A BOX. I dont do that, I say aliens could or might not be like us. I DUNNO.

His statement about Vietnam is just as stupid as any other. Even peace seekers have to get violent at times, think Jesus and the turning of the tables at the temple.
Violence being used as a defense, for ourselves or others, (Iraq invaded Kuwait, Taliban took control of Afghanastan, N viets were trying to take over S vietnam) is not proof that we would be violent if we found other life that wasnt threatening.

Soupface likes to claim "there is no evidence..." often, yet if evidence is provided, he claims it isnt credible, or he ignores it. He thinks just because he doesnt find the evidence credible, then it must not be.

I stand by my statement that the more technologically advanced societies of ours are exhibiting less aggresive (as opposed to defense violence) violence than ever before.



Ok the United states went to the moon.

The United states practiced massive slavery against people who had done no harm to us.

We also wiped out tens of thousands ( at a minimum ) of Native Americans.

We launched a pre-emptive war against Iraq and also waged war in Somalia and Bosnia where no one had done any harm to us.

Even during the moon landings we were at war in Vietnam and while personally I think that war was a just cause the fact is the enemy had done no harm to us

There is no evidence that advanced technology and brilliant scientific genius means benign, peaceful intent.

And of course you keep ignoring that ET's would by definition be radically different from us in every respect to include psychologically and emotionally. Destroying an indigenous species could be quite AMORAL and not the least bit aggressive to them.

And Im the one who made the claim about more technological societies being.... So, Im the one who gets to decide what level of technology Im talking about, and not a relative scale. I was talking about scientists, mathmeticians and physicists who are working on technologies that, at the least, involve things we have learned about under a microscope, in a telescope of modern abilities,,(after 1960) or having to do with computers and electronics.

SORRY IF THIS GOT A LITTLE LENGTHY BUT SOME HERE ARE NOT DEBATING/DISCUSSING WITHIN THE SPIRIT THAT WOULD BE MOST EFFECTIVE IN THIS TYPE OF PLATFORM.
THEY TRY TO PICK APART MEANINGLESS THINGS, ATTRIBUTE THINGS TO ANOTHER THAT THEY DIDNT SAY, ETC ETC, JUST SO THEY CAN "WIN", INSTEAD OF FINDING TRUTH, SOLUTIONS OR IDEAS.
BECAUSE OF THAT, I HAD TO , TO AN EXTENT, PREPARE FOR THE STUPIDITY THAT WOULD COME FROM THEM BY CUTTING THEM OFF THE PASS, EX. TELESCOPES AFTER 1960, TECHNOLOGY INVOLVING MICROSCOPES, TELESCOPES, ETC. WHICH THOSE WISHING TO USE THIS FORUM IN ITS TRUE SPIRIT "KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT" AND ARE NOT GOING TO BRING IN STUPID ARGUEMENTS LIKE STONE ARROWHEADS ARE TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED COMPARED TO THOSE STILL USING PRIMITIVE STICKS.

[Noir]

If others were more advanced than us, I would think they MIGHT know about our limitations and try communicating in ways they know we ;would understand. Kinda like using sign language with someone who doesnt speak your language.

R U familiar with WiMAX?

And why would they want to? To what extent do you go to to commicate with bacteria? And if there is a hyper-advanced civilisation out their I'm sure we would be little more than bacteria to them, this is where I think a lil bit of human conceit comes into play assuming they want to go out of their way to communicate with us.

[Missileman]

Yea, so true. My ridiculous posts, like when I accused the starter of a thread of incompetence when he titled the thread and of coming up with conclusions not consistent with the article,,,,,opppssss, oh shoot, that was....wait for it,,,,,,,YOU :laugh2:

If you check out the OP and follow the embedded link, you can see why I raised the question.

[LuvRPgrl]

If it is old news why did you ask for it assuming you already knew it.. I didnt ask for it. I was pointing out that the example of violence was from a time in our history that is now old. In fact, by using OLD examples proves you dont have much or anything at all in the way of NEW examples.


It proves you wrong..It only proves you are stupid, nothing else.


Higher technology and advanced science does not equal benign or peaceful intent as the my post proves...You proved nothing.


In addition rhetoric or a plaque about coming in peace does not mean that war has been left behind or aggression forgotten...but it is better than what the purpose of the invaders of America circa 15th century, were stating.


No I did not mean a minority of Ets would be mistreated by THEIR majority I meant what I said.....You cant even reference me accurately. I said, the MAJORITY mistreated by the MINORITY.


What I stated is that there is no evidence of such beings being peaceful and we should not assume they are and even our own history does not support your view...Yet I never claimed there is any evidence, and I didnt say we should assume anything. Please PROVIDE ONE QUOTE OF MINE THAT SAYS OTHERWISE.


Yes your view is limiting the possibilities by assumptions without evidence...AGAIN, QUOTE ME WHERE I STATED ANYTHING. If I say, more likely, or history shows, does not limit other possibilities.


Another species could well be peaceful but there is simply no reason to assume they will be. We need to be aware that any possibility exists...as I agree


BTW animals have no higher status they are still animals.according to whom?


Both comments are completely relevant to YOUR posts.. I would have had no reason to make them otherwise..


So you are saying that if you make a comment on something, it PROVES there is relevance? R U infallable?

[QUOTE=Gunny;487808]You are missing the entire point..Which is ????


An infinite universe is not confined to the scientific laws of Man.Never said it was. And I say you cant prove the universe is infinite. I think you would eventually hit a wall which would be the "end" of the universe4.

.
Your stuck inside a box saying that something infinite and undefined MUST fall within the scientific laws of Man. .Can you quote me where I said that?


And sorry, most scientists are as unscrupulous as it gets when it comes to life of any sort...Your statement, where is the proof?


Nazi's were just an example. Medical science DID benefit greatly from some of the Nazi experimentation. Doesn't make it ethical.EXACTLY !! Proves my point. Most scientists would use the experimental information for GOOD, while the Nazis, and other members of this board who will remain name Con less, would use it for evil or supporting a poliza state.

Pull over that flying saucer, we think you have been traveling while under the influence of rabid happiness.


If you check out the OP and follow the embedded link, you can see why I raised the question.

So you are saying your stupidity of clicking the wrong link led to your ridiculous statement, and therefore it wasnt your fault, but CP's?

So silly of me, I mean, I actually clicked the link he intended for us, you know, the one in a paragraph all by itself, the one that was sitting all alone and completely conspicuous at the very end of the post, the last sentence where he basically said "here is the link"

MY BAD


He lives today, the co-founder of String Field theory he is still an active theoretical physicist


And I'm sure we would like to view a broader spectrum but getting the equipment that *can* do it just isnt feasible ATM.

If so, then why do you opine that it is "ridiculously stupid?"

[Missileman]

So you are saying your stupidity of clicking the wrong link led to your ridiculous statement, and therefore it wasnt your fault, but CP's?

So silly of me, I mean, I actually clicked the link he intended for us, you know, the one in a paragraph all by itself, the one that was sitting all alone and completely conspicuous at the very end of the post, the last sentence where he basically said "here is the link"

MY BAD

Since it was included as part of his OP, please explain how it was the wrong link.

[Noir]

If so, then why do you opine that it is "ridiculously stupid?"

Just because we are doing the best we can do doesnt mean what we're doing isn't stupid.

Take a small analogy of a Forrest fire. What if all you have to put out the flames are water pistols? Does it matter how much you spend on water pistols? No. You could spend tens of millions on water pistols, you're just throwing your money away. Yes it's the best you can do, but it's stupid, and the more you spend on them, the more stupid you are.

Until we have the ability to make much broader frequency scans SETI are pissin their mo eh away.

[Missileman]

So you are saying your stupidity of clicking the wrong link led to your ridiculous statement, and therefore it wasnt your fault, but CP's?

So silly of me, I mean, I actually clicked the link he intended for us, you know, the one in a paragraph all by itself, the one that was sitting all alone and completely conspicuous at the very end of the post, the last sentence where he basically said "here is the link"

MY BAD

I've no idea what your fucking problem is other than trying to distract from a couple of your lulus like "micro-evolution" and "thou shalt not kill".

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32009-Are-We-Alone-In-the-Universe-New-Analysis-Says-Maybe&p=484795#post484795

[LuvRPgrl]

Since it was included as part of his OP, please explain how it was the wrong link.Already did, apparently you missed as much of my post as you did the original post.


I've no idea what your fucking problem is other than trying to distract from a couple of your lulus like "micro-evolution" and "thou shalt not kill".

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32009-Are-We-Alone-In-the-Universe-New-Analysis-Says-Maybe&p=484795#post484795

So you link me back to your own mistake?? Idiot.


Just because we are doing the best we can do doesnt mean what we're doing isn't stupid.

Take a small analogy of a Forrest fire. What if all you have to put out the flames are water pistols? Does it matter how much you spend on water pistols? No. You could spend tens of millions on water pistols, you're just throwing your money away. Yes it's the best you can do, but it's stupid, and the more you spend on them, the more stupid you are.

Until we have the ability to make much broader frequency scans SETI are pissin their mo eh away.

If an agency receives $250,000 for their budget, and they dont spend all of it, then the amount they receive the following year will be reduced.

[Missileman]

Already did, apparently you missed as much of my post as you did the original post.



So you link me back to your own mistake?? Idiot.

I admitted it weeks ago...so what? The problem for you is my mistake pales in comparison to the absolutely STUPID shit that you post.


If an agency receives $250,000 for their budget, and they dont spend all of it, then the amount they receive the following year will be reduced.

Unless of course their budget is increased...idiot!

[Gunny]

I didnt ask for it. I was pointing out that the example of violence was from a time in our history that is now old. In fact, by using OLD examples proves you dont have much or anything at all in the way of NEW examples.

It only proves you are stupid, nothing else.

You proved nothing.

but it is better than what the purpose of the invaders of America circa 15th century, were stating.

You cant even reference me accurately. I said, the MAJORITY mistreated by the MINORITY.

Yet I never claimed there is any evidence, and I didnt say we should assume anything. Please PROVIDE ONE QUOTE OF MINE THAT SAYS OTHERWISE.

AGAIN, QUOTE ME WHERE I STATED ANYTHING. If I say, more likely, or history shows, does not limit other possibilities.

as I agree

according to whom?



[QUOTE=Gunny;487808]So you are saying that if you make a comment on something, it PROVES there is relevance? R U infallable?

Which is ????

Never said it was. And I say you cant prove the universe is infinite. I think you would eventually hit a wall which would be the "end" of the universe4.

. Can you quote me where I said that?

Your statement, where is the proof?

EXACTLY !! Proves my point. Most scientists would use the experimental information for GOOD, while the Nazis, and other members of this board who will remain name Con less, would use it for evil or supporting a poliza state.

Pull over that flying saucer, we think you have been traveling while under the influence of rabid happiness.



So you are saying your stupidity of clicking the wrong link led to your ridiculous statement, and therefore it wasnt your fault, but CP's?

So silly of me, I mean, I actually clicked the link he intended for us, you know, the one in a paragraph all by itself, the one that was sitting all alone and completely conspicuous at the very end of the post, the last sentence where he basically said "here is the link"

MY BAD

If so, then why do you opine that it is "ridiculously stupid?"

You really ought to consider addressing individuals as individuals. I'm not reading through all this slop.

Suffice to say we disagree. Your thinking is too limited for an abstract discussion such as this one. I've run out of ways to say it, but this thread started out cool and has become something else.

Ciao.

[Noir]

If an agency receives $250,000 for their budget, and they dont spend all of it, then the amount they receive the following year will be reduced.

I see what you mean, and thus how 'wasting money' by SETI is a necessary evil, as it'll be easier to mintain their budget rather than doin what is actually better and having it cur now and raised later.

[Gunny]

I see what you mean, and thus how 'wasting money' by SETI is a necessary evil, as it'll be easier to mintain their budget rather than doin what is actually better and having it cur now and raised later.

The government is infamous for it. We'd go on spending sprees in Sept just to make sure our budget for the next fiscal year (FY is Oct - Oct) didn't decrease. If you make do with less, you get less next year. At every level from Congress down to the lowest recipient, someone's trying to figure a way to skim more for themselves. Reporting a surplus just screws you for the next year.

Not sure what that has to do with being alone in the universe, but there you have it.:laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=LuvRPgrl;490320]I didnt ask for it. I was pointing out that the example of violence was from a time in our history that is now old. In fact, by using OLD examples proves you dont have much or anything at all in the way of NEW examples.

It only proves you are stupid, nothing else.

You proved nothing.

but it is better than what the purpose of the invaders of America circa 15th century, were stating.

You cant even reference me accurately. I said, the MAJORITY mistreated by the MINORITY.

Yet I never claimed there is any evidence, and I didnt say we should assume anything. Please PROVIDE ONE QUOTE OF MINE THAT SAYS OTHERWISE.

AGAIN, QUOTE ME WHERE I STATED ANYTHING. If I say, more likely, or history shows, does not limit other possibilities.

as I agree

according to whom?





You really ought to consider addressing individuals as individuals. I'm not reading through all this slop.

Suffice to say we disagree. Your thinking is too limited for an abstract discussion such as this one. I've run out of ways to say it, but this thread started out cool and has become something else.

Ciao.

Your quoting is all messed up.
I have only been asking you one question, show where I said anything, anything about limitations on possibilities.


I see what you mean, and thus how 'wasting money' by SETI is a necessary evil, as it'll be easier to mintain their budget rather than doin what is actually better and having it cur now and raised later.men

I couldnt see reconciliation on your first two statements, no other choices, and ridiculously stupid, but your analogy was excellent.
I agree now, it is stupid.

[Gunny]

[QUOTE=Gunny;490443]

Your quoting is all messed up.
I have only been asking you one question, show where I said anything, anything about limitations on possibilities.

Really? I just hit reply with quote after your closing quote. Irrelevant.

Go back a page and read your own quotes. I don't play cut and paste, nor proving to you what you said. You posted a comment that basically relegated all life to the limits of human scientific knowledge. That's limiting EVERYTHING to human scientific understanding/law and leaves no room for possibilities outside its understanding.

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=LuvRPgrl;490453]

Really? I just hit reply with quote after your closing quote. Irrelevant.

Go back a page and read your own quotes. I don't play cut and paste, nor proving to you what you said. You posted a comment that basically relegated all life to the limits of human scientific knowledge. That's limiting EVERYTHING to human scientific understanding/law and leaves no room for possibilities outside its understanding.

I dont know whats showing up on your screen, but on mine, you are quoting yourself
It wasnt me who made such a statement, I have reviewed the posts, u musta got me confusede with someone else.
I dont think that, nor ever have, so I dont know how I culd post that

[pete311]

To think our biological systems just sorta happened, is honestly just as stupid to think coffee beans, milk, vanilla beans and water, if left in their containers will magically 'given millions of years' somehow form into a delicious vanilla non-fat latte.

It's truly amazing to me that you think the idea that there is a wizard in the sky magically creating worlds and listening to our thoughts is better. :lame2:

[Gunny]

It's truly amazing to me that you think the idea that there is a wizard in the sky magically creating worlds and listening to our thoughts is better. :lame2:

What's even MORE amazing that you think the universe lust "happened" from nothing. There are plenty of God-hating, anti-religious threads on this board. Feel free to find one and keep that crap out of this thread that's remained relatively free of such bull$hit.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's truly amazing to me that you think the idea that there is a wizard in the sky magically creating worlds and listening to our thoughts is better. :lame2:Well considering the last post was two days ago and this thread appears on the edge of death, I'lll have a go at it.
....Your option gives us a starting point, or at the least, a transition point. That creates limitations, whereas we who bow down to a greater power have no such limitations.
,,,,,You are inside a box, you need a method for non living, non organic material to somehow turn itself into self replicating autonamous organic, carebon based living material.BS
....And that living material has to one day advance to the point that it questions its own existence & can formulate either a BS idea of a "God" or a way for something to be created out of nothing, or at the least, transform into living organic organism(s).

.....If there is a God, YOU LOSE.

If there isnt a God, YOU LOSE cuz by your own idea, the organism has to "EVOVE" too a point that it questiosns it very creation. Since its impossible to prove that evolution DID IN FACT OCCUR, not just that it COULD'VE happened, & it's impossable for it to prove there is no God.Hence, your "being" will spend its eternity wondering "if there is a God. There will be no answer, therefor, you die and go into oblivion, nothingness. As we would also. But no harm no foul for both of us.
......On the other hand, if it turns out you are wrong, uh oh, better watch out....better not shout, guess who's cumming to dinner, tonight.

[pete311]

What's even MORE amazing that you think the universe lust "happened" from nothing. There are plenty of God-hating, anti-religious threads on this board. Feel free to find one and keep that crap out of this thread that's remained relatively free of such bull$hit.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree which is more amazing. An all powerful, but completely abstract being for which all we have are fantasies and bed time children stories for, or science which is making progress every year.


Well considering the last post was two days ago and this thread appears on the edge of death, I'lll have a go at it.
....Your option gives us a starting point, or at the least, a transition point. That creates limitations, whereas we who bow down to a greater power have no such limitations.
,,,,,You are inside a box, you need a method for non living, non organic material to somehow turn itself into self replicating autonamous organic, carebon based living material.BS
....And that living material has to one day advance to the point that it questions its own existence & can formulate either a BS idea of a "God" or a way for something to be created out of nothing, or at the least, transform into living organic organism(s).

.....If there is a God, YOU LOSE.

If there isnt a God, YOU LOSE cuz by your own idea, the organism has to "EVOVE" too a point that it questiosns it very creation. Since its impossible to prove that evolution DID IN FACT OCCUR, not just that it COULD'VE happened, & it's impossable for it to prove there is no God.Hence, your "being" will spend its eternity wondering "if there is a God. There will be no answer, therefor, you die and go into oblivion, nothingness. As we would also. But no harm no foul for both of us.
......On the other hand, if it turns out you are wrong, uh oh, better watch out....better not shout, guess who's cumming to dinner, tonight.

If god wants a brain dead slave that has to turn to a fear based logic of Pascal's Wager then I guess I do lose. I would hope god respects critical thinking. I would rather be in Pergatory with the Philosophers than a Heaven full of zombies.

[LuvRPgrl]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree which is more amazing. An all powerful, but completely abstract being for which all we have are fantasies and bed time children stories for, or science which is making progress every year.



If god wants a brain dead slave that has to turn to a fear based logic of Pascal's Wager then I guess I do lose. I would hope god respects critical thinking. I would rather be in Pergatory with the Philosophers than a Heaven full of zombies. wi

Me thinks 5 seconds of your hand meeting with my torch would surly change your mind.

You God hating people just contradict yourselfs over and over. You dont think humans being zombies is acceptable, but then when we discuss free will, you bitches can do nothing but moan and cry that God allows evil. So, which is it? If you were God, heaven forbid, what would we be, zombies or agents of free will. Dont dodge the question please.

[pete311]

You God hating people just contradict yourselfs over and over. You dont think humans being zombies is acceptable, but then when we discuss free will, you bitches can do nothing but moan and cry that God allows evil. So, which is it? If you were God, heaven forbid, what would we be, zombies or agents of free will. Dont dodge the question please.

Yes zombies are not acceptable. I do believe we have free will, even though in the future I believe we will be able to predict people's actions to a high probability. An omnibenevolent God that allows evil is a paradox which theists do not have a solution for. If I were a God then I'd want free willed people I suppose, but then I wouldn't be omnibenevolent. After all, I can boot up SimCity and play around. That makes me a God, sure, but even I can admit I wouldn't worship myself.

[Gunny]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree which is more amazing. An all powerful, but completely abstract being for which all we have are fantasies and bed time children stories for, or science which is making progress every year.







If god wants a brain dead slave that has to turn to a fear based logic of Pascal's Wager then I guess I do lose. I would hope god respects critical thinking. I would rather be in Pergatory with the Philosophers than a Heaven full of zombies.

We aren't agreeing to disagree about squat. Take your anti-religious message and disappear or I'll cut out your posts. This topic wasn't about religion. I get sick of every time someone tries to post anything, there's ALWAYS you anti-God nuts screwing up an otherwise perfectly good thread, deflecting your BS into it.

This thread is about trying to think beyond your own stupid little box, and YOU get an epic FAIL. I will repeat: there are plenty of God-hating, anti-religious threads. Go find one and roost. Otherwise, address the topic, not your insecurities.

[Gunny]

wi

Me thinks 5 seconds of your hand meeting with my torch would surly change your mind.

You God hating people just contradict yourselfs over and over. You dont think humans being zombies is acceptable, but then when we discuss free will, you bitches can do nothing but moan and cry that God allows evil. So, which is it? If you were God, heaven forbid, what would we be, zombies or agents of free will. Dont dodge the question please.

If you want to discuss religion, please take it wherever he goes. This thread isn't about religion.

[pete311]

We aren't agreeing to disagree about squat. Take your anti-religious message and disappear or I'll cut out your posts. This topic wasn't about religion. I get sick of every time someone tries to post anything, there's ALWAYS you anti-God nuts screwing up an otherwise perfectly good thread, deflecting your BS into it.

This thread is about trying to think beyond your own stupid little box, and YOU get an epic FAIL. I will repeat: there are plenty of God-hating, anti-religious threads. Go find one and roost. Otherwise, address the topic, not your insecurities.

Fair enough. My initial post however was in response to dmp's anti evolution post which was on the front page. I hope you don't have a double standard.

[darin]

Fair enough. My initial post however was in response to dmp's anti evolution post which was on the front page. I hope you don't have a double standard.

Anit-macro-evolution is NOT 'pro-religion'. Macro-evolution is supremely faith-based. Thinking macro-evolution is silly is simply 'pro-common sense' :) When I get the chance to travel through the universe in a space ship, and happen upon ANOTHER space-ship, or..a Buick...or another machine I'll rightly believe it was designed. Much the same with biology. I lack the massive amounts of blind faith and mysticism to believe all our biological systems happened magically, or by blind stupid luck.

[Gunny]

Fair enough. My initial post however was in response to dmp's anti evolution post which was on the front page. I hope you don't have a double standard.

Define evolution. You sound like one of those Darwin's Theory of Evolution types. Stupidity unbound. Evolution itself is just life adapting to its circumstances. I believe the latter. The former is ... stupid.

Either way, this thread's not about your anti-God BS. Or it wasn't. There's no double standard. I can read. I'll be more than happy to dress you down in an appropriate thread. This thread asks a question. From all appearances, I the Christian, have a FAR more open mind than you, the worshiper of junk science.

[Gunny]

Anit-macro-evolution is NOT 'pro-religion'. Macro-evolution is supremely faith-based. Thinking macro-evolution is silly is simply 'pro-common sense' :) When I get the chance to travel through the universe in a space ship, and happen upon ANOTHER space-ship, or..a Buick...or another machine I'll rightly believe it was designed. Much the same with biology. I lack the massive amounts of blind faith and mysticism to believe all our biological systems happened magically, or by blind stupid luck.

Buick? I want a 62 Studebaker to traverse the unknown. Complete with hand-crank windows and AM radio.:laugh:

[pete311]

I lack

What you lack is an education.


Define evolution. You sound like one of those Darwin's Theory of Evolution types. you, the worshiper of junk science.

No one uses Darwin's exact theory anymore. Your point? Here is a kindergarten read on evolution from a pretty prestigious university where people have studied this stuff for decades rather than troll on internet forums trying to be the tough guy.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01)My science is likely the reason you haven't died of a disease by now and the reason we are communicating in this method.

[fj1200]

My science is likely the reason you haven't died of a disease by now and the reason we are communicating in this method.

YOUR science? I didn't know it belonged to you and where is the requirement that believing in creation is disavowing science? I'm pretty sure there was science long before Darwin.

[KartRacerBoy]

From all appearances, I the Christian, have a FAR more open mind than you, the worshiper of junk science.

Funniest post on DP eVAr!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

I was watching a show about the universe, creation and all that. It had Steven Hawking talking his views. It actually says that the idea of life forming from some primordial soup of non life is extremely unlikely, that nobody really knows how life on earth started, and that he believes it came in on a comet, or meteor

So, apparently you know something Hawking doesn't?

How the universe, earth and life started is essential in trying to determine if there is other life out there. For example, if you believe a being created everything, then it is very easy to think he created more life in other places, otherwise, why make such a huge universe.

Which also brings up that we will never know how big the universe is, unless there is a God. Science on its own will never travel or view the end of the universe. It is a wall, you keep going until you hit a wall, then nothing exists beyond that. NOTHING. Not space, not vacuum, NOTHING. But science cant get that far.


What you lack is an education.



No one uses Darwin's exact theory anymore. Your point? Here is a kindergarten read on evolution from a pretty prestigious university where people have studied this stuff for decades rather than troll on internet forums trying to be the tough guy.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01)My science is likely the reason you haven't died of a disease by now and the reason we are communicating in this method.

[pete311]

I was watching a show about the universe, creation and all that. It had Steven Hawking talking his views. It actually says that the idea of life forming from some primordial soup of non life is extremely unlikely, that nobody really knows how life on earth started, and that he believes it came in on a comet, or meteor


Yes one idea is that some of the necessary ingredients for life was introduced by meteors. Scientists have found amino acids in meteors. and fyi, the the argument for the beginning of life is quite different than the argument for evolution. One is proven, the other admittedly is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg



Which also brings up that we will never know how big the universe is, unless there is a God. Science on its own will never travel or view the end of the universe. It is a wall, you keep going until you hit a wall, then nothing exists beyond that. NOTHING. Not space, not vacuum, NOTHING. But science cant get that far.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. There is no universe wall. You are making all this up from you head. We do have an idea how large the universe is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes one idea is that some of the necessary ingredients for life was introduced by meteors. Scientists have found amino acids in meteors. and fyi, the the argument for the beginning of life is quite different than the argument for evolution. One is proven, the other admittedly is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

SO, complete speciciaztion has been documented and witnessed?
Yes, they are different, neither proven.
FYI, if it came on a meteor, same problem, they have only moved the location of the problem




You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Well then, it should be easy for you to prove me wrong, which you are about to NOT do.


There is no universe wall. You are making all this up from you head. We do have an idea how large the universe is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

We know how large the universe is? BS. The known universe, maybe. Is there matter out there we havent been able to detect yet? Maybe.
The wall is real, nothing is beyond it. Do you have proof it doesnt exist, or is that just your opinion?

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't know about being alone in the universe, but the way this thread keeps popping up proves there's life after death.....

[Gunny]

What you lack is an education.



No one uses Darwin's exact theory anymore. Your point? Here is a kindergarten read on evolution from a pretty prestigious university where people have studied this stuff for decades rather than troll on internet forums trying to be the tough guy.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01)My science is likely the reason you haven't died of a disease by now and the reason we are communicating in this method.

My point is simple. One can't post "Jesus" without the God-hating crowd voicing their insecurities on the matter. Ad nauseum. The topic of this thread is self-explanatory, and has nothing to do specifically with religion. For once, it'd be nice if it wasn't turned into just another "I hate God" thread.

I got some gomer neg-repping me because I supposedly am insecure about my religion when in fact, quite the opposite is true. But it's typical of the God-hating crowd's insecurity. I try to keep a conversation on topic, but this dork has to be sure his God-hating message gets through even though it has nothing to do with the topic.

I have no problem with science. In its place. When science presumes to go outside its parameters and try to explain things it cannot, then it's just junk. When people try to misuse science to explain away their own issues in a completely illogical manner, THEN it's just junk. The fact is, people that believe science has all the answers even to the point of defying its own physical laws to explain something, just need an excuse to try and wish away the fact that Man's NOT God and you DO have to answer to a higher power.

If you're right, I won't know. If I'm right, you're fucked. End of story.