CDZ What if we ARE alone?

[Flash]

It is foolish to conjure up science where science doesn't exist.

You obviously don't understand science.

In order to discover what is true, you are required to speculate what might be true. You speculations must match the observed data or, if they don't, you must discard or change your speculations.

It is a methodology for discovery that has brought us out of ignorance but, it requires both hard calculated logic as well as a great deal of speculation.

To speculate on anything you really need more than one data point.

We only have one data point on life in the universe.

We need to have at least one more data point or else anything that we speculate on is nothing more than wishful thinking. At least that is what I learned in my Engineering classes.

A TV show where Cpt Kirk is screwing a green Orion Slave Girl is not a data point.

Somebody saying "there just has to more life in the Universe because it is so large" is not a data point.

Statistics doesn't produce life.

I agree.

Just like saying that life is complex so there must be an intelligent design.

We have no evidence of life outside of Earth and we have no evidence of an God like beings- stating that either must be true is just a matter of faith.

I believe in Intelligent design.

The reason is because the alternative to there being some intelligent design to the universe is believing that the universe was created by magic.

A universe creating itself out of nothing is as magic as you can get. Especially when you understand that for the universe to be created that way it goes against all the laws of physics as we know them.

When somebody can show me how this enormous universe was created out of nothing then I will change my mind. Until then not so much so.

 

[Syriusly]

It is foolish to conjure up science where science doesn't exist.

You obviously don't understand science.

In order to discover what is true, you are required to speculate what might be true. You speculations must match the observed data or, if they don't, you must discard or change your speculations.

It is a methodology for discovery that has brought us out of ignorance but, it requires both hard calculated logic as well as a great deal of speculation.

To speculate on anything you really need more than one data point.

We only have one data point on life in the universe.

We need to have at least one more data point or else anything that we speculate on is nothing more than wishful thinking. At least that is what I learned in my Engineering classes.

A TV show where Cpt Kirk is screwing a green Orion Slave Girl is not a data point.

Somebody saying "there just has to more life in the Universe because it is so large" is not a data point.

Statistics doesn't produce life.

I agree.

Just like saying that life is complex so there must be an intelligent design.

We have no evidence of life outside of Earth and we have no evidence of an God like beings- stating that either must be true is just a matter of faith.

I believe in Intelligent design.

The reason is because the alternative to there being some intelligent design to the universe is believing that the universe was created by magic.

A universe creating itself out of nothing is as magic as you can get. Especially when you understand that for the universe to be created that way it goes against all the laws of physics as we know them.

When somebody can show me how this enormous universe was created out of nothing then I will change my mind. Until then not so much so.

Hey- I don't care whatever magic you believe in. As long as you don't pretend it is science.

But if you are going to chastise people for believing that life exists outside of earth because there is no data to support that conclusion, then I will just point out that there is no data to support your conclusion that any 'intelligence' created the universe- it is as much a matter of faith as those who decide that there must be other life elsewhere in the vast universe.

 

[jwoodie]

if you are going to chastise people for believing that life exists outside of earth because there is no data to support that conclusion, then I will just point out that there is no data to support your conclusion that any 'intelligence' created the universe

There is no data to support life outside of Earth. There is plenty of data to support a "big bang" theory, which presupposes an initiating factor for the universe. If you don't like the term "intelligence," what would you call it?

 

[Flash]

It is foolish to conjure up science where science doesn't exist.

You obviously don't understand science.

In order to discover what is true, you are required to speculate what might be true. You speculations must match the observed data or, if they don't, you must discard or change your speculations.

It is a methodology for discovery that has brought us out of ignorance but, it requires both hard calculated logic as well as a great deal of speculation.

To speculate on anything you really need more than one data point.

We only have one data point on life in the universe.

We need to have at least one more data point or else anything that we speculate on is nothing more than wishful thinking. At least that is what I learned in my Engineering classes.

A TV show where Cpt Kirk is screwing a green Orion Slave Girl is not a data point.

Somebody saying "there just has to more life in the Universe because it is so large" is not a data point.

Statistics doesn't produce life.

I agree.

Just like saying that life is complex so there must be an intelligent design.

We have no evidence of life outside of Earth and we have no evidence of an God like beings- stating that either must be true is just a matter of faith.

I believe in Intelligent design.

The reason is because the alternative to there being some intelligent design to the universe is believing that the universe was created by magic.

A universe creating itself out of nothing is as magic as you can get. Especially when you understand that for the universe to be created that way it goes against all the laws of physics as we know them.

When somebody can show me how this enormous universe was created out of nothing then I will change my mind. Until then not so much so.

Hey- I don't care whatever magic you believe in. As long as you don't pretend it is science.

But if you are going to chastise people for believing that life exists outside of earth because there is no data to support that conclusion, then I will just point out that there is no data to support your conclusion that any 'intelligence' created the universe- it is as much a matter of faith as those who decide that there must be other life elsewhere in the vast universe.

I haven't chastised anybody. You can believe whatever you want. If you want to believe in magic then fine.

I am not an Astrophysicist but as an Engineer that is somewhat versed in science I can't comprehend the idea that this enormous universe created itself out of nothing. That goes against everything I was taught about physics.

My personal opinion is that human existence and the existence of everything else is not magical happenstance. There is something else there that we can't comprehend.

It is an opinion (or maybe even a little faith) because I have no facts to back it up. Just like the secularist has no proof that the universe created itself out of nothing.

 

[task0778]

a hypothesis can be created without a single data point

Yes, but you skipped the part where they can't be in disagreement with other known data points.

We know who created the pyramids. We know that human DNA evolved on this planet. Claiming an alien origin for human existence or human artifacts isn't science ... it's pop culture.

Whoa dude, we were talking about who might be responsible for human civilization, not the evolution of human DNA or the origin of human existence. Actually, current science cannot rule out alien intervention in either case. If so, maybe you could provide a link that shows how/why that is not possible? Until science can provably rule out a theory or hypothesis, it remains just that, an unproven idea. And science does not rule out anything that has not been disproved. It might not be accepted theory, pop culture if you will, I don't think a scientist should discard as not science something that may be very unlikely but nonetheless not impossible either.

I'm addressing the theories propagated by Von Daniken, Velikovsky and others concerning alien / cosmic intervention in Human History or the idea that an alien race might be seeding the galaxy with humanoid life.

We already know enough about the use of technology throughout history to make redundant the outrageous speculation that alien technology created our ancient monuments. I can't prove Elves or Fairies didn't built the pyramids, that doesn't make it a scientifically valid hypothesis because there are so many mundane observations that prove otherwise.

As for an alien race populating the galaxy, humans have so much DNA in common with all other forms of life on the planet that the idea that humanoids have an alien origin doesn't fit.

There is an idea, one to which I am partial, that all life on Earth, not just human life, could have come here an ancient asteroids. A very simple kind of microbe that evolved over Billions of years to adapt to our planet. The same microbes landing on a different planet would have evolved in a very different direction.

We know enough about OUR technology, that's a long way from saying that ETs don't exist and couldn't have superior technology that permits interstellar travel. We can't create wormholes, but who's to say they can't? We can't travel faster than the speed of light, but that doesn't mean an advanced civilization on another planet with a million years head start on us hasn't found a way(s).

As for alien technology creating ancient monuments, it is mind-boggling to see monumental structures exist in places where it is difficult to breathe, let alone build. How did ancient people fit stones so closely together that they have lasted thousands of years without mortar? How did they move stones that weigh several tons from miles away and then place them on top of each other? Modern architects and archaeologists are having trouble answering these questions. Tell me about the mundane observations that prove alien technology is not a scientifically valid hypothesis. Again, a scientific hypothesis need not have any data points, it's really just somebody's idea that offers some explanation or insight into a phenomenon.

 

[MarathonMike]

If our little blue spec is the ONLY place in the universe with biological life, you would have no choice but be down with the big guy in the sky. Know what I mean, Vern?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

a hypothesis can be created without a single data point

Yes, but you skipped the part where they can't be in disagreement with other known data points.

We know who created the pyramids. We know that human DNA evolved on this planet. Claiming an alien origin for human existence or human artifacts isn't science ... it's pop culture.

We assume we know who created the pyramids. There's been many times in the past that others have taken credit what someone else did. Another culture may have built the pyramids and what we call the Egyptians may have conquered them and decided to take the credit.

We assume that human DNA evolved on this planet. Even though we have no proof that life exists elsewhere and will be different, that does not mean that it is or will be significantly different, even at the DNA level. In which case if the lifeforms elsewhere have similar makeup, even at the cellular level, we wouldn't know if humans or the ancestor of the human form developed here or somewhere else.

Theories and conjectures are just that unless we can go back and observe the process from start to finish.

*****SMILE*****

 

[fncceo]

We assume we know who created the pyramids. There's been many times in the past that others have taken credit what someone else did. Another culture may have built the pyramids and what we call the Egyptians may have conquered them and decided to take the credit.

Perfectly possible. However, we know that the pyramids of Giza were started around 2550 BCE. Egyptian settlements along The Nile date back as far as 7000 BCE. Upper and Lower Kingdoms united around 3000 BCE. The idea that another competing culture might have built the pyramids and left no other artifacts of their culture is unlikely.

We know there have been Mastaba tombs in the region using similar building techniques since 5000 BCE. The first truly smooth faced angled pyramid dates back to 2575 at Saqqara ... which seems to have ignited a fad from rectangular tombs to the pyramid shape.

All these things we know support what is called a mundane theory that pyramids were built by Egyptians using existing technology. If we have a working mundane theory ... there is no need to introduce an exotic theory.

An exotic theory, one that consists of a radical departure from existing thinking, requires a higher standard of evidence than a mundane theory.

If I say aliens created the pyramids, that has a larger burden of proof than saying humans did it. Because we know humans were abundant in the region. We know humans of that time and place were capable of building such structures. We know they had built similar structures in the past.

The alien origin theory isn't as scientifically valid as the human origin theory until there is enough available evidence that makes the existing mundane theory less likely.

 

[candycorn]

I’m pretty sure we’re alone in the universe insofar as there will never be a sister species of advanced lifeforms that is there to interact with. So yes, we are alone.

 

[OldLady]

a hypothesis can be created without a single data point

Yes, but you skipped the part where they can't be in disagreement with other known data points.

We know who created the pyramids. We know that human DNA evolved on this planet. Claiming an alien origin for human existence or human artifacts isn't science ... it's pop culture.

Whoa dude, we were talking about who might be responsible for human civilization, not the evolution of human DNA or the origin of human existence. Actually, current science cannot rule out alien intervention in either case. If so, maybe you could provide a link that shows how/why that is not possible? Until science can provably rule out a theory or hypothesis, it remains just that, an unproven idea. And science does not rule out anything that has not been disproved. It might not be accepted theory, pop culture if you will, I don't think a scientist should discard as not science something that may be very unlikely but nonetheless not impossible either.

I'm addressing the theories propagated by Von Daniken, Velikovsky and others concerning alien / cosmic intervention in Human History or the idea that an alien race might be seeding the galaxy with humanoid life.

We already know enough about the use of technology throughout history to make redundant the outrageous speculation that alien technology created our ancient monuments. I can't prove Elves or Fairies didn't built the pyramids, that doesn't make it a scientifically valid hypothesis because there are so many mundane observations that prove otherwise.

As for an alien race populating the galaxy, humans have so much DNA in common with all other forms of life on the planet that the idea that humanoids have an alien origin doesn't fit.

There is an idea, one to which I am partial, that all life on Earth, not just human life, could have come here an ancient asteroids. A very simple kind of microbe that evolved over Billions of years to adapt to our planet. The same microbes landing on a different planet would have evolved in a very different direction.

We know enough about OUR technology, that's a long way from saying that ETs don't exist and couldn't have superior technology that permits interstellar travel. We can't create wormholes, but who's to say they can't? We can't travel faster than the speed of light, but that doesn't mean an advanced civilization on another planet with a million years head start on us hasn't found a way(s).

As for alien technology creating ancient monuments, it is mind-boggling to see monumental structures exist in places where it is difficult to breathe, let alone build. How did ancient people fit stones so closely together that they have lasted thousands of years without mortar? How did they move stones that weigh several tons from miles away and then place them on top of each other? Modern architects and archaeologists are having trouble answering these questions. Tell me about the mundane observations that prove alien technology is not a scientifically valid hypothesis. Again, a scientific hypothesis need not have any data points, it's really just somebody's idea that offers some explanation or insight into a phenomenon.

My guess is that there have been advanced civilizations with highly developed technology deep in our past, undiscovered and unremembered, except for the pieces that were remembered and passed down from generation to generation and when the people were able to come together again and rebuild, there was a shadow of what they once knew in their creations.
Pyramid structure is a simple enough solution for building a really tall temple when you haven't got steel girders, etc. What isn't so simple is how they moved all those vast stones and cut them so precisely with the tools of the day. Stonehenge, some of the temples in Peru--the advanced astronomy of the Maya. To me it makes sense that in our 200,000 history the civilizations that began to bloom in 4,000 bc were not the first, but that long before we had been there and done it before.
I could be totally wrong, but that's what I think. No Martians, just us in a better place at sometime in the distant past that is too old to even be discovered except from the stray bits of knowledge that managed to survive.

 

[pismoe]

How would that conclusion change your perception of the Earth, the universe and mankind? Would you still believe all of these were accidental? Would our uniqueness upset your belief in scientific certainty?

Or would you never accept the possibility that we might be alone?

---------------------------------------------- wouldn't matter to me though I do believe in a Creator but other than him and his Angels I have figured that the Human Race is alone these last few decades since my Birth . Course , I have also entertained that MAYBE we aren't alone but that thought soon passes due to no evidence that I have seen .

 

[MAGAman]

Doubt we're completely alone, but it may be very rare because the collision that created the moon was so important to the development of life.

There are 1000's of details that happened in a specific order just so life on Earth was possible.

They say the odds are like having 10,000 deck of cards all shuffled and drawing an Ace of Spades off of each deck.... Or like a tornado going through Detroit and putting a car together with the parts.

Life on Earth is a miracle.... It is clear proof that God exists.. Those that don't understand are either ignorant or stupid.

 

[MAGAman]

You get that Science Fiction is fiction, right?

No one really believes the immediate galaxy is filled with English-Speaking aliens who look like us except for bumps on their heads.

Science fiction is a way of using speculative science as a metaphor for a more mundane setting.

It's like "Global Warming" or "Compassionate Socialism".....

You broadcast it enough as fact and a number of people will believe it exists.

 

[candycorn]

a hypothesis can be created without a single data point

Yes, but you skipped the part where they can't be in disagreement with other known data points.

We know who created the pyramids. We know that human DNA evolved on this planet. Claiming an alien origin for human existence or human artifacts isn't science ... it's pop culture.

Whoa dude, we were talking about who might be responsible for human civilization, not the evolution of human DNA or the origin of human existence. Actually, current science cannot rule out alien intervention in either case. If so, maybe you could provide a link that shows how/why that is not possible? Until science can provably rule out a theory or hypothesis, it remains just that, an unproven idea. And science does not rule out anything that has not been disproved. It might not be accepted theory, pop culture if you will, I don't think a scientist should discard as not science something that may be very unlikely but nonetheless not impossible either.

I'm addressing the theories propagated by Von Daniken, Velikovsky and others concerning alien / cosmic intervention in Human History or the idea that an alien race might be seeding the galaxy with humanoid life.

We already know enough about the use of technology throughout history to make redundant the outrageous speculation that alien technology created our ancient monuments. I can't prove Elves or Fairies didn't built the pyramids, that doesn't make it a scientifically valid hypothesis because there are so many mundane observations that prove otherwise.

As for an alien race populating the galaxy, humans have so much DNA in common with all other forms of life on the planet that the idea that humanoids have an alien origin doesn't fit.

There is an idea, one to which I am partial, that all life on Earth, not just human life, could have come here an ancient asteroids. A very simple kind of microbe that evolved over Billions of years to adapt to our planet. The same microbes landing on a different planet would have evolved in a very different direction.

We know enough about OUR technology, that's a long way from saying that ETs don't exist and couldn't have superior technology that permits interstellar travel. We can't create wormholes, but who's to say they can't? We can't travel faster than the speed of light, but that doesn't mean an advanced civilization on another planet with a million years head start on us hasn't found a way(s).

As for alien technology creating ancient monuments, it is mind-boggling to see monumental structures exist in places where it is difficult to breathe, let alone build. How did ancient people fit stones so closely together that they have lasted thousands of years without mortar? How did they move stones that weigh several tons from miles away and then place them on top of each other? Modern architects and archaeologists are having trouble answering these questions. Tell me about the mundane observations that prove alien technology is not a scientifically valid hypothesis. Again, a scientific hypothesis need not have any data points, it's really just somebody's idea that offers some explanation or insight into a phenomenon.

My guess is that there have been advanced civilizations with highly developed technology deep in our past, undiscovered and unremembered, except for the pieces that were remembered and passed down from generation to generation and when the people were able to come together again and rebuild, there was a shadow of what they once knew in their creations.
Pyramid structure is a simple enough solution for building a really tall temple when you haven't got steel girders, etc. What isn't so simple is how they moved all those vast stones and cut them so precisely with the tools of the day. Stonehenge, some of the temples in Peru--the advanced astronomy of the Maya. To me it makes sense that in our 200,000 history the civilizations that began to bloom in 4,000 bc were not the first, but that long before we had been there and done it before.
I could be totally wrong, but that's what I think. No Martians, just us in a better place at sometime in the distant past that is too old to even be discovered except from the stray bits of knowledge that managed to survive.

I imagine you’re wrong just because our limited exploration of the universe reveals that water is unique. One would surmise that any interest the aliens have would start there...on the edges of Pangea, not in the middle where. But who knows?

 

[konradv]

Doubt we're completely alone, but it may be very rare because the collision that created the moon was so important to the development of life.

There are 1000's of details that happened in a specific order just so life on Earth was possible. They say the odds are like having 10,000 deck of cards all shuffled and drawing an Ace of Spades off of each deck.... Or like a tornado going through Detroit and putting a car together with the parts. Life on Earth is a miracle.... It is clear proof that God exists.. Those that don't understand are either ignorant or stupid.

Do you know how many stars and planets there are? Even at the odds you mention the likelihood of there being another planet with intelligent life is entirely possible and doesn't prove the existence of God.

BTW, calling people "ignorant and stupid" is against the spirit of this forum. Please clean up your act. This isn't 'Politics' where you can say just about anything you want.

 

[jwoodie]

Do you know how many stars and planets there are? Even at the odds you mention the likelihood of there being another planet with intelligent life is entirely possible and doesn't prove the existence of God.

This is the old mathematical argument that multiplying any value by infinity equals infinity. According to this logic, an exact replication of the Earth and everyone in it is not only a possibility, but a certainty. Do you really think that, somewhere in the universe, your exact body double is doing exactly the same thing you are doing at exactly the same time?

 

[sartre play]

IF they are out there and peace loving we will be avoided like the plague.

 

[konradv]

Do you know how many stars and planets there are? Even at the odds you mention the likelihood of there being another planet with intelligent life is entirely possible and doesn't prove the existence of God.

This is the old mathematical argument that multiplying any value by infinity equals infinity. According to this logic, an exact replication of the Earth and everyone in it is not only a possibility, but a certainty. Do you really think that, somewhere in the universe, your exact body double is doing exactly the same thing you are doing at exactly the same time?

No, I never said that and didn't mean to imply it. You're putting words in my mouth by implying a logic that's nowhere to be found in my post.

 

[MAGAman]

Doubt we're completely alone, but it may be very rare because the collision that created the moon was so important to the development of life.

There are 1000's of details that happened in a specific order just so life on Earth was possible. They say the odds are like having 10,000 deck of cards all shuffled and drawing an Ace of Spades off of each deck.... Or like a tornado going through Detroit and putting a car together with the parts. Life on Earth is a miracle.... It is clear proof that God exists.. Those that don't understand are either ignorant or stupid.

Do you know how many stars and planets there are? Even at the odds you mention the likelihood of there being another planet with intelligent life is entirely possible and doesn't prove the existence of God.

BTW, calling people "ignorant and stupid" is against the spirit of this forum. Please clean up your act. This isn't 'Politics' where you can say just about anything you want.

I never said life on another planet had anything to do with the reality of God's existence.

Calling people that can't see the obvious to be either stupid or ignorant (not 'and') is both accurate and clean. Perhaps I should DC have added 'dishonest' to the options.

 

[Syriusly]

if you are going to chastise people for believing that life exists outside of earth because there is no data to support that conclusion, then I will just point out that there is no data to support your conclusion that any 'intelligence' created the universe

There is no data to support life outside of Earth. There is plenty of data to support a "big bang" theory, which presupposes an initiating factor for the universe. If you don't like the term "intelligence," what would you call it?

How about 'initiating factor for the universe'?