How would the discovery of Alien Intelligent affect you?

[Hyper99]

it is easier to destroy thing then to create one
just as it take 20 years for us to grow into an adult
there is no such thing as life instantly created in 6 day
that is bull
the earth took billion of years to form and the bible say it only been
here what? 5000 years?
or so whatever they think without proven facts
there is even the age before the dinosaur
called the beginning of simple life creature
that still existed today
they are small yet puny and are very simple as 1-2-3
same goes for plant as well
religious people should not stick their noses into life because they are somewhat right and somewhat wrong alot of guessing in that matter
they have misinterpreted everything including how life begin
and why we are here
we are a special breed for who know how long it took us to
become what we are today
could be million or billion years
we are not evolved from monkey, or insect etc
but rather a totally unique creature that is completely different
notice how all races has their own god
it because of that there is only 1 god
only in their mind thought because one cannot understand how they come to be and that the easy way to put it
speaking religiously...
god is what give life to this planet
is what created the universe
he/she did not make us he/she just made life possible
and that how we came to be today
why is space so dark and empty and so horrifying?
it tell us that life and has beed created before and was destroyed
continously
the debris from space that is.
matter cannot be destroyed but take a different form everytime
when a person dies he/she is forgotten but is not extinct
rather goes back to the soil to be recycled again
that is what make life so unique one doesn't
live forever because we are no different from animals
we come and go all the time
from looking at a zygote of a human being
and compared that to an animal zygote such as horse,
rats, dog and cat
they are very similar.
when one say that he/she will be reborn as a dogs or cats
he/she is somewhat right
truth is they will rest in peace forever then again life goes
on
NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN LIFE
I'M GOING NUTS JUST TRYING TO

 

[Hyper99]

it is easier to destroy thing then to create one
just as it take 20 years for us to grow into an adult
there is no such thing as life instantly created in 6 day
that is bull
the earth took billion of years to form and the bible say it only been
here what? 5000 years?
or so whatever they think without proven facts
there is even the age before the dinosaur
called the beginning of simple life creature
that still existed today
they are small yet puny and are very simple as 1-2-3
same goes for plant as well
religious people should not stick their noses into life because they are somewhat right and somewhat wrong alot of guessing in that matter
they have misinterpreted everything including how life begin
and why we are here
we are a special breed for who know how long it took us to
become what we are today
could be million or billion years
we are not evolved from monkey, or insect etc
but rather a totally unique creature that is completely different
notice how all races has their own god
it because of that there is only 1 god
only in their mind thought because one cannot understand how they come to be and that the easy way to put it
speaking religiously...
god is what give life to this planet
is what created the universe
he/she did not make us he/she just made life possible
and that how we came to be today
why is space so dark and empty and so horrifying?
it tell us that life and has beed created before and was destroyed
continously
the debris from space that is.
matter cannot be destroyed but take a different form everytime
when a person dies he/she is forgotten but is not extinct
rather goes back to the soil to be recycled again
that is what make life so unique one doesn't
live forever because we are no different from animals
we come and go all the time
from looking at a zygote of a human being
and compared that to an animal zygote such as horse,
rats, dog and cat
they are very similar.
when one say that he/she will be reborn as a dogs or cats
he/she is somewhat right
truth is they will rest in peace forever then again life goes
on
NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN LIFE
I'M GOING NUTS JUST TRYING TO

 

[OS]

Would aliens be superior technologically? Not necessarily. If an alien race built a large ship with approx the tech level we now have, they could still travel large distances. It may take generations to do so, but it is feasable

Although that is a possible scenario, it is also extremely unlikely. I don't think especially our current navigational technology, among other things, is good enough to guide a ship successfully to another specific planet. It is my personal belief that scifi media has made space flight seem far far too easy. It took the US almost a decade and billions of dollars just to put two men on the moon, a mere few thousand miles away, despite using already existing sciences and technologies. Try to imagine how much harder an interstellar flight would be. I'll help.

Due to the "slowness" of the speed of light the position at which we see a star right now is not where it actually is at this moment in time. It's quite possible that something changed since we are receiving old information. In fact, in the Apollo project, navigation was extremely dependent upon the successful application of the electronic computer, even though the moon seems like such a straight forward target. For an interstellar voyage to be successful, one would need to account for countless gravity fields, deep space radiation, solar flares from other much larger stars, the hazards are never ending. In fact, we have yet to send a probe to specifically analyze the region of deep space beyond the Sun's magnetic field, which is possibly giving us protection from deep space radiation, if it exists.

The engineering challenges would also be horrendous. Starting with just the math needed for such a voyage, who is going to sit down and derive all the differential equations needed to account for the gravity fields of hundreds of stars and account for unknown and unseen dark stars such as brown dwarfs? Not to mention the constantly changing mass of a ship burning fuel. Computers can't do this yet, since they can barely even simulate mere nuclear explosions. New computers would need to be developed, ones that are millions of times more powerful than the most powerful existing ones and compacted down to the size of a small room. And the world's best astrophycists and mathematicians can't account for what we can't see.

A generational starship also would require metals that could withstand the extreme thermal conditions of space (which varies by hundreds of kelvin depending upon the orientation towards space/nearby stars) for centuries, fuel and electricity sources and life support systems which would not degrade for the same period of time. Most importantly, how would you propel the space ship? Nuclear rockets are probably the only form of propulsion with enough power, but how well would generations of people live along side a giant nuclear reactor that sits only a few hundred feet away? Add more shielding you say? But that weighs more so you need a bigger nuke reactor, giving off more radiation. Quite the vicious cycle. Not to mention all the other supporting subsystems.

In fact, this is a puny list of the things needed to be accounted for before a mission could even be seriously considered. A successful interstellar voyage would tax basically every known branch of science and technology, including mechanical, electrical, chemical, nuclear, computer and materials engineering, physics, biology, medicine, environmental/ecological sciences and pyschology. Such a project easily be the most complex, most ambitious and expensive project in any earth level civilization's history. If an earth level civilization were to engage in such an undertaking, there would be many many failed attempts before one starship even made it to a nearby star. And by the time all these problems were solved, science and engineering probably would have made huge and unimaginable leaps, thus effectively making this hypothetical civilization more technologically advanced than us.

 

[jhu]

How would the discovery of Alien Intelligent affect you?

i'd be pissed off since i discovered them first, dammit!!

 

[Doomer]

You make some good points, Outersquare.
I believe that technology, as we know it, isn't capable of taking us to the stars. No matter how much more we refine what we currently have, it'll never work. What's needed is a discovery of some force or some method that would allow us to transend interstellar distances in time frames an individual human could deal with i.e. months and years instead of centuries.
If nature allows such a thing AND human civilization manages to survive long enough, maybe we'll discover it then the stars will be within reach.
The fact that there is no credible evidence for the existence of extraterestials seems to suggest that maybe nature doesn't allow space time to be trancended in what to us would be an unconventional way. Or maybe intelligence is always destined to self-distruct long before the stars are ever within it's reach. Who knows.

 

[Daedalus]

<<I must also give out apologies to Chad for the retard and the like comments, since they are inappropriate in the light of his last post.>>

Outersquare, the retard name calling is just plain inappropriate anywhere under any circumstances. imho

 

[OS]

Are we still on that? I've already given apologies to Chad and he seems to have accepted so I consider the issue to be moot. I have no desire to reopen hostilities so I won't comment on the situation any further.

Doomer, thanks. I didn't intend for the post to be so long, but it was like the snowball effect, so the trickle of thoughts turned into a flood.

 

[Daedalus]

Sorry Outersquare, I see that.....

 

[bluemax]

Hey OuterSquare, read the first message I'd posted back on page one. It gives a bit more background on why evolution is a farce. I agree that some evolution happens gradually as a species adapts to his surroundings, but not from one species into an entirely different one. &quot;Like poor Blinky, here...&quot; (Mr. Burns)
Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to devote to a full explaination, but I can at a later time.
For now, do some more research- you obviously have much work to do.
Bye for now!

 

[OS]

I think you mean your second post. Where you seem to be disagreeing with science as a whole and not just evolution. I've said this many times already, but biological evolution only says that genes will change over time and I don't see how your original post disproves it. I don't think you are really reading what I am posting, merely glancing over it and discarding what you don't like.


For now, do some more research- you obviously have much work to do

I have spent nearly all of my relatively short life studying sciences and engineering so I don't need to do anymore research. Research is always going to be merely taking someone else's word for something. Is this all you have done? Merely research and looking at books? Library research will never supercede experimentation, which to me seems like you haven't done any. Perhaps I should suggest to you that if you are truly interested in the truth, set up an experiment to test every point that you have issues with. For example

Again, if the earth is zillions of years old, it would have had to be so radioactive nothing could live, or those isotopes would have LONG since lost any radioactivity

If you don't believe that radioactive isotopes have extremely long half lifes, go test this yourself. Maybe you can ask your local community college for assitance, they will probably be more than happy to help.

To test this, all you have to do is find a small sample of radioactives, obtain a geiger counter and measure the difference in radioactivity over a specific set of time. Then, using only these three pieces of data, use the equation P=C*e^(r*t) and solve for (r), the rate of decay.

This is the equation used to calculate exponential growth and decay, you can use it to calculate compounded interest in case you think it's a crock equation. What you will find is that certain specific isotopes have very long half lifes, on the order of several millions of years. All it takes to disprove this heavily flawed viewpoint is a single piece of test equipment, some time and basic algebra. Have you done any of this? Some how, I don't think so.

 

[jhu]

How would the discovery of Alien Intelligent affect you?

i would be completely devastated, and i'd have to commit suicide

 

[DABANSHEE]

well seeing as the universe is virtually infinite then the odds are there are probably some aliens out there somewhere.

BTW, I'm agnostic rather than atheistic, because believing there is no god is just as much an article of faith &amp; arrogance as saying my god is the only true god. So seeing as it can't be proved one way or the other, why not have an open mind. Although I doubt any of Earth religions have got it right - The way mankind is fuking up this planet, definitly shows that we are not made in god/s image &amp; are supreme to all other animals. Actually the Jews only became monothestic about 600BC. IE, the beleif in only one true god, all the others being false gods. Before that time the Jews just beleived their god was just more powerful &amp; better than other peoples gods.

 

[apoppin]

I just hate to see misinformation like &quot;Evolution is a proven fact.&quot;

That is BS. It is still called the THEORY of evolution. Not all scientists believe it and the ones that do disagree among themselves.

Unfortunately, many textbooks treat it as a fact. The reason it is so popular is because the alternative appears so unthinkable.

 

[Doomer]

The altenative is superstition.

 

[apoppin]

Thank-you for your opinion, Doomer. So we have a theory full of holes on one hand and supersition on the other. Great choice.

 

[OS]

That is BS. It is still called the THEORY of evolution.

No, it is a fact. And it is proven. Very well proven I might add. In the scientific community, the word theory means that it is a description of a process, so it describes how something happens. Theory does not mean guess to scientists. By your logic, the kinetic molecular theory, Einstein's general theory of relativity would all be mere guesses and not valid, but they have all been proven and repeatedly verified by experimentation.

Not all scientists believe it and the ones that do disagree among themselves.

Actually all biologists know that evolution is a fact, and a natural law. Over 72 Nobel Laureates came out to support evolution when it was being challenged in the court room.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

Doesn't sound like a divided scientific community to me.In fact, go to your local community college and do a survey of all the biology profs and all of them will say that evolution is a fact. If there were any amount of significant disagreement that evolution was not valid, the biological sciences community would not accept it or teach it. This is why cold fusion is not taught in the classroom. There is no giant conspiracy in the biological community.

 

[apoppin]

Evolution is not a fact and it is not proven.

Opinion polls don't matter.

Much of what you have been describing as evolution is variety within a species, not something changing from one species into another: fish into birds or mammals. Your fossil record is missing all of your links. There has been much fraud perpetrated in the name of evolution.

Our science is still primitive and developing. You cannot PROVE evolution. You take it on faith much as a religious person has faith in a Creator.

 

[OS]

I'll cut through all the fluff then. What would it take to prove to YOU that evolution is in fact true?

 

[apoppin]

To prove evolution to ME. Certainly noting you have already written, - Let's take some examples:

<<Complexlife didn't just happen. Life began simply as a set of molecules that had the ability to self-replicate. Later chemical reactions with these already existing set of molecules provided different variations of these self-replicating molecules. Some molecules were faster and/or more efficient at self-replication and as these changes kept occuring, we began to have single celled organisms and so forth.&quot;

For starters, explain your above oversimplistic statements. What you have stated is about as ridiculous as how you view creation.

First of all, where did your Cosmic Soup and Self-replicating molecules come from?

How did these changes keep occuring - hitting the 1 chance in a zillion over and over again until we have organic life from inorganic molecules. Now, you have to explain (if I can accept this giantLEAP OF FAITH) how a single celled lifeform which still exists decided it need 2 sexes to replicate in its desire to evolve.

And why, even with &quot;ideal&quot; circumstances in the lab, has no one been unable to duplicate this?

This is how nature works???? Prove it.

 

[apoppin]

Laughable to you, Red Dawn. Evolution is unbelievable to me.

If you can't PROVE it is is your OPINION.

 

[jhu]

evolution is the best physical explanation for the development of life. it is a theory that best fits the available evidence. of course if you have a better theory, go ahead and tell us.

 

[OS]

You are more or less dodging the question and merely resorting to continued attacks on what I have written. You repeatedly label what I have written as &quot;fraud&quot;, &quot;ridiculous&quot;, &quot;misinformation&quot; and &quot;BS.&quot; You repeatedly make unfounded assertions without evidence while I do my best to support my statements with evidence and logic. Are your viewpoints so utterly weak that you feel the need to continually slander everything I have written? Is mudslinging the only way you can challenge what I have written? Perhaps you need to reexamine the reasons for your consistent hostility.

Somehow, I don't think you are genuinely interested in finding out the truth, just merely preserving your view of the world. I feel as if I am holding a dicussion with a stubborn, ill tempered child with a big vocabulary. This is becoming tiresome. Why I even bother with these conversations is beyond me. If you really aren't interested in holding a fair and mature discussion about evolution, why not just come out and say so instead of putting up this front? If this is the case, do me a favor and save your time and mine. In fact, if this your view, just don't reply to my posts anymore. I won't think any less of you.

Now, if you had paid attention to the posts I have written, you would have seen that the definition of evolution in it's simplest forms, merely says that gene pools will change over time.


First of all, where did your Cosmic Soup and Self-replicating molecules come from?

How did these changes keep occuring - hitting the 1 chance in a zillion over and over again until we have organic life from inorganic molecules.

And why, even with &quot;ideal&quot; circumstances in the lab, has no one been unable to duplicate this?


These questions are not related to biological evolution. Evolution says nothing about the beginning of life. Stop being sloppy. If you don't believe me, look here

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=evolution

As my patience is wearing thin, I will ask you one last time,

What would it take to prove to YOU that evolution is in fact true?

And one last thing, keep the question as short and simple if possible. I am not your personal tutor so I can't adequately answer half a dozen highly complex questions without dropping everything else I am doing in my life. The questions you asked above are akin to asking me to teach you a years worth of material covering bio, organic, inorganic chemistry, astronomy and cosmology. I obviously can't do anything like that.

 

[apoppin]

First of all, Outersquare, you did attempt to explain the origin of life in an oversimplistic way from an evolutionist point of view and I called you on it. Nothing more nothing less. You stated a weak theory as a fact:<<No, it is a fact. And it is proven. Very well proven I might add.&quot; I just called those statements as I see them - BS.

Secondly, I never said you are guilty of &quot;fraud&quot;; rather, &quot;There has been much fraud perpetrated in the name of evolution.&quot;

<<I feel as if I am holding a discussion with a stubborn, ill tempered child with a big vocabulary. This is becoming tiresome.>>
What arrogance on your part. And you accuse the creationists of the same things with their dogma. Evolution is YOUR dogma.

First you make wild assertions about the beginnings of life as fact then you are offended when you are called on it and drop back to &quot;gene pools will change over time.&quot; You are confusing VARIETY - change within a basic type of living thing - with evolution.

Correct me if I am wrong, but evolution means that life progressed from simple one celled organisms over time to its highest state - the human, so far - by a series of biological changes. I stand by my original statement that this is as ridiculous to me as creationism is to you. And it is absolutely unfounded except as a weak theory.

EDIT: Red Dawn, I am not telling Sunday School stories as fact or otherwise. I am also not saying there isn't other intellegent life in the universe. The way many literally interpret Creation stories IS ridiculous. I am simply saying that just as many religious people have their dogma, evolutionists have theirs. And neither can be PROVED.

 

[Hyper99]

the truth is that we didnt evolve from a single cell but
rather it was somehow created manipulated by someone
who is what you called GOD
from the dumbest creature to
the most developed... us
it make no sense for something like a frog to turn into human
or
from fish, to frog, to monkey, then to human
religious people cannot explain life because they don't know any better then you do.
I mean it seem like we evolved but we didn't
somehow we just appear out of nowhere
and it couldn't be explained
they know it has to be someone, something, maybe
the universe itself is alive!!!
Let look at the sun, and the earth
and see it was like a perfectly arranged structure
how the earth is so round and perfect like a sphere
human is unique, maybe it is infact an image of the alien
that gave life to us
the truth is we are quite lost as we have to learn everything
throught trial and error
war and many death
The first human were as intelligent as we are today
but they were like little children
who have little knowledge or even any at all.
The quickly learn and adapt to the environment
people of thousand of year ago compared that to today
are neither uglier or prettier
neither smarter or dummer
what I dont belive is in superstition such
as afterlife bullcrap etc
if you done good you go to heaven
if you done bad thing in life you go to hell
that sort of thing is just to scare people from lieing, stealing
and hurting other
as you can see on the bill of a dollar
it say &quot; In god we believe&quot;
the truth is we maybe god ourselve in the future
controlling life and even creating a more intelligent human being
true we are most developed creature but our mind is still
limited in a way it make mistake
forgetful and doesn't hold enought information.
remember the bigger the brain the better
maybe twice as big = twice as intelligent

 

[apoppin]

Is's Hyper-haiku.