aliens don't exist

[zaangalewa]

That's my point.
.you pretend to know the number is vanishingly small. You do not know this.

I said the hypothese "self organisation of matter" is wrong in sense of a kind of a "must lead to intelligent life" (or to life at all). Nearly the only thing we see all around us is dead matter and not living matter.

I love science fiction (as long as it is not only a western) - but I fear specially all science fiction ideas in this context are only the same as for example the illusions of the ancient Greeks about their very "human" gods and their very "human" superheroes. And the belief in science is anything else than science on its own. A thinking machine like for example "Commander Data" is perhaps nothing else than an impossibility and what we call today "artificial intelligence" we could perhaps also call "artificial stupidity" or "our own natural stupidity". Even so called "quantum computers" are perhaps only a new form of an intellectual perpetuum mobile.

 

[Batcat]

Three possibilities …

1) Space aliens.

2) Future time travelers.

3) Visitors from another dimension.

 

[zaangalewa]

ChemEngineer para bellum

The "anthropic principle" says for example if I have an idea about the creation of the [dead] cosmos and the [living] chaos which leads automatically to the impossibility that I exist on my own then something is wrong with this hypothese because I exist. The anthropic principle is only a form of economy in the thoughts.

 

[zaangalewa]

Three possibilities …

1) Space aliens.

2) Future time travelers.

3) Visitors from another dimension.

I guess you thought in 3) about another universe and not about another dimension.

And I fear 2 is impossible at all.

First reason: If someone invents a time machine and it will be used then this will with every use change something in the past ... until one of this changes will lead to a universe where no one invented a time machine. So universes with time machines seem not to be stable.

Second reason: When I will travel to yesterday then yesterday I will exist twice. I guess in quantum mechanics this is possible - but I never met me on my own. If I would do so then I would live in this case in a universe which has too much energy: the energy of my body twice. And somewhere in another time must exist my universe which suffers a lack of energy because my body is not there. A trick could be to transport also always the same amount of "negative" energy together with the "positive" energy of a body so the sum of this energies is 0. But how to realize such a mechanism - if this is possible at all - is very very far from our abilities.

 

[Batcat]

I guess you thought in 3) about another universe and not about another dimension.

And I fear 2 is impossible at all.

First reason: If someone invents a time machine and it will be used then this will with every use change something in the past ... until one of this changes will lead to a universe where no one invented a time machine. So universes with time machines seem not to be stable.

Second reason: When I will travel to yesterday then yesterday I will exist twice. I guess in quantum mechanics this is possible - but I never met me on my own. If I would do so then I would live in this case in a universe which has too much energy: the energy of my body twice. And somewhere in another time must exist my universe which suffers a lack of energy because my body is not there. A trick could be to transport also always the same amount of "negative" energy together with the "positive" energy of a body so the sum of this energies is 0. But how to realize such a mechanism - if this is possible at all - is very very far from our abilities.

No, I meant from another dimension but from another universe is entirely another possibility I failed to list.

Interdimensional UFO hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The interdimensional hypothesis (IDH or IH) is a hypothesis advanced by ufologists such as Jacques Vallée,[1] which states that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and related events involve visitations from other "realities" or "dimensions" that coexist separately alongside our own. It is not necessarily an alternative to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), since the two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive so both could be true simultaneously. IDH also holds that UFOs are a modern manifestation of a phenomenon that has occurred throughout recorded human history, which in prior ages were ascribed to mythological or supernatural creatures.[2]

 

[zaangalewa]

No, I meant from another dimension but from another universe is entirely another possibility I failed to list.

Interdimensional UFO hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The interdimensional hypothesis (IDH or IH) is a hypothesis advanced by ufologists such as Jacques Vallée,[1] which states that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and related events involve visitations from other "realities" or "dimensions" that coexist separately alongside our own. It is not necessarily an alternative to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), since the two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive so both could be true simultaneously. IDH also holds that UFOs are a modern manifestation of a phenomenon that has occurred throughout recorded human history, which in prior ages were ascribed to mythological or supernatural creatures.[2]

A point has 0 dimension, a line 1 dimension, a square 2 dimensions, a sphere three dimensions, a hpyer cube 4 dimensions and so on and so on. An Hilbert space is a space with infinite dimension. And Inter-dimension could be a fractal structure. The coast line of Great Britain has for example a fractal dimension of 1.25.

First of all: I do not believe in UFOs and ETs - although I love many of the stories about such things - as long as it is clear that this are fantasy stories or science fiction stories. That's for me "only" a form of fairy tales in our world today.

Second: We live in an universe with three dimensions - and in the theory of relativity we tranform the time also into a dimension of the space, what we call "the spacetime" or Minkowski space. So between which dimensions live your aliens?

Here something about inter-dimensions:

 

[james bond]

Evolution isn't true so no aliens. The evidence shows this. Not even a microbe.

 

[Batcat]

A point has 0 dimension, a line 1 dimension, a square 2 dimensions, a sphere three dimensions, a hpyer cube 4 dimensions and so on and so on. An Hilbert space is a space with infinite dimension. And Inter-dimension could be a fractal structure. The coast line of Great Britain has for example a fractal dimension of 1.25.

First of all: I do not believe in UFOs and ETs - although I love many of the stories about such things - as long as it is clear that this are fantasy stories or science fiction stories. That's for me "only" a form of fairy tales in our world today.

Second: We live in an universe with three dimensions - and in the theory of relativity we tranform the time also into a dimension of the space, what we call "the spacetime" or Minkowski space. So between which dimensions live your aliens?

Here something about inter-dimensions:

I have never observed a UFO or a UAP but have known people who did.

I am merely mentioning possibilities for what others report they witnessed. The other dimension possibility was another person‘s idea that I personally haven’t researched.

I personally like the time traveler theory but also do believe that an advanced civilization from another planet might be visiting us.

 

[zaangalewa]

Evolution isn't true so no aliens. The evidence shows this. Not even a microbe.

Extremly shortest way: "Evolution" means sane biological structures let survive an organisms. Who is sick is in a greater danger to die. What is now astonishing? But I guess you will also deny this as you deny to compare your forepaw with the hand of a gorilla - what could show to you intuitivelly that this biological structures are more near to each other while other structures of the same "object" - like the wings of a bird for example - are more far from each other. The reason for this is noticed in a phylogenetic "memorial structure" (an individual construction plan) which we often call "DNA". All living structures on our planet use DNA - which is itselve a process of evolution.

(And No! No! No! - this means not that evolution and creation are the same processes and idiots have only to decide in a stupid political fight what's true or false in this context because they like to vote for republicans or democtarts in the USA. Creation and evolution are in principle totally different things and the whole discussion "creation vs evolution" is one of the very most superstupid never ending discussions in the English speaking world. Example: in a million years a species will evolve "tatskliddels" - which are very important for this species. But this "tatskliddels" will not be created in a million years - they had been created about 13.8 billion years + "some days" ago; where they also had been created when this species never will evolve and will not need this "tatskliddels" which I invented here just a moment ago to tell you something about your philosophical problems.)

Oha ... now I did forgot what I liked to say to you. No wonder when I have always to start again from Adam and Eve when I try to speak with you. Why do you think this aliens evolved DNA and not a totally other structure for their phylogenetic memory of their ¿biological? ¿bodies??

Video will start in 9 seconds after you click it. Then you will hear two not-aliens speak with each other. What will you understand from their words? And how important could it be for you to understand this few lines? Unimportant because you don't understand?

 

[james bond]

Extremly shortest way: "Evolution" means sane biological structures let survive an organisms. Who is sick is in a greater danger to die. What is now astonishing? But I guess you will also deny this as you deny to compare your forepaw with the hand of a gorilla - what could show to you intuitivelLy that this biological structures are more near to each other while other structures of the same "object" - like the wings of a bird for example - are more far from each other. The reason for this is noticed in a phylogenetic "memorial structure" (an individual construction plan) which we often call "DNA". All living structures on our planet use DNA - which is itselve a process of evolution.

(And No! No! No! - this means not that evolution and creation are the same processes and idiots have only to decide in a stupid political fight what's true or false in this context because they like to vote for republicans or democtarts in the USA. Creation and evolution are in principle totally different things and the whole discussion "creation vs evolution" is one of the very most superstupid never ending discussions in the English speaking world. Example: in a million years a species will evolve "tatskliddels" - which are very important for this species. But this "tatskliddels" will not be created in a million years - they had been created about 13.8 billion years + "some days" ago; where they also had been created when this species never will evolve and will not need this "tatskliddels" which I invented here just a moment ago to tell you something about your philosophical problems.)

Oha ... now I did forgot what I liked to say to you. No wonder when I have always to start again from Adam and Eve when I try to speak with you. Why do you think this aliens evolved DNA and not a totally other structure for their phylogenetic memory of their ¿biological? ¿bodies??

Video will start in 9 seconds after you click it. Then you will hear two not-aliens speak with each other. What will you understand from their words? And how important could it be for you to understand this few lines? Unimportant because you don't understand?

. We've had sci-fi for soooooooooo long. How many billions of years have I been right?

Evolution isn't true so no aliens. The evidence shows this. Not even a microbe

 

[zaangalewa]

. We've had sci-fi for soooooooooo long. How many billions of years have I been right?

Evolution isn't true so no aliens. The evidence shows this. Not even a microbe

And again you did not read what someone else said to you because you are allknowing, god.

I would by the way suggest to all Christians to throw you out of every Christian church - if this would be possible.

 

[james bond]

And again you did not read what someone else said to you because you are allknowing, god.

I would by the way suggest to all Christians to throw you out of every Christian church - if this would be possible.

How can anyone understand what you were babbling about Mr. Babbling Brook? Can you provide any links to back it?

At least, I can go to sleep with my sleep sounds of it.

 

[zaangalewa]

How can anyone understand what you were babbling about Mr. Babbling Brook?

Very easy: Take a look to your forepaw - take a look at the hand of a gorilla - and ask yourselve "How came this similarity?" - and you will find answers. What did you not [like to] understand now? And why?

 

[james bond]

Very easy: Take a look to your forepaw - take a look at the hand of a gorilla - and ask yourselve "How came this similarity?" - and you will find answers. What did you not [like to] understand now? And why?

While a gorilla's hands and human's hands have similarities, they are different is size and how they are used. Gorillas use them for walking. Thus, they are different species and did not evolve. Besides, they both exist today.

I'll assume you gave up on aliens as you're back to monkey stories.

 

[james bond]

Let us look at the overwhelming evidence for NO aliens:

"1. Men have sent spacecraft to nearly every planet in our solar system. After observing these planets, we have ruled out all but Mars and possibly a moon of Jupiter as being able to support life.

2. In 1976, the U.S.A. sent two landers to Mars. Each had instruments that could dig into the Martian sand and analyze it for any sign of life. They found absolutely nothing. In contrast, if you analyzed soil from the most barren desert on earth or the most frozen dirt in Antarctica, you would find it teeming with micro-organisms. In 1997, the U.S.A. sent Pathfinder to the surface of Mars. This rover took more samples and conducted many more experiments. It also found absolutely no sign of life. Since that time, several more missions to Mars have been launched. The results have always been the same.

3. Astronomers are constantly finding new planets in distant solar systems. Some propose that the existence of so many planets proves that there must be life somewhere else in the universe. The fact is that none of these has ever been proven to be anything close to a life-supporting planet. The tremendous distance between Earth and these planets makes it impossible to make any judgments regarding their ability to sustain life. Knowing that Earth alone supports life in our solar system, evolutionists want very badly to find another planet in another solar system to support the notion that life must have evolved. There are many other planets out there, but we certainly do not know enough about them to verify that they could support life.

So, what does the Bible say? The earth and mankind are unique in God’s creation. Genesis 1 teaches that God created the earth before He even created the sun, the moon, or the stars. Acts 17:24-26 states that “the God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands…he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.”

Originally, mankind was without sin, and everything in the world was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). When the first man sinned (Genesis 3), the result was problems of all sorts, including sickness and death. Even though animals have no personal sin before God (they are not moral beings), they still suffer and die (Romans 8:19-22). Jesus Christ died to remove the punishment that we deserve for our sin. When He returns, He will undo the curse that has existed since Adam (Revelation 21–22). Note that Romans 8:19-22 states that all of creation eagerly waits for this time. It is important to also note that Christ came to die for mankind and that He died only once (Hebrews 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10).

If all of creation now suffers under the curse, any life apart from the earth would also suffer. If, for the sake of argument, moral beings do exist on other planets, then they also suffer; and if not now, then someday they will surely suffer when everything passes away with a great noise and the elements melt with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10). If they had never sinned, then God would be unjust in punishing them. But if they had sinned, and Christ could die only once (which He did on earth), then they are left in their sin, which would also be contrary to the character of God (2 Peter 3:9). This leaves us with an unsolvable paradox—unless, of course, there are no moral beings outside of the earth.

What about non-moral and non-sentient life forms on other planets? Could algae or even dogs and cats be present on an unknown planet? Presumably so, and it would not do any real harm to any biblical text. But it would certainly prove problematic when trying answer questions like “Since all of creation suffers, what purpose would God have in creating non-moral and non-sentient creatures to suffer on distant planets?”

In conclusion, the Bible gives us no reason to believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe. In fact, the Bible gives us several key reasons why there cannot be. Yes, there are many strange and unexplainable things that take place. There is no reason, though, to attribute these phenomena to aliens or UFOs. If there is a discernable cause to these supposed events, it is likely to be spiritual, and more specifically, demonic, in origin."

Are there such things as aliens or UFOs? | GotQuestions.org

Are there such things as aliens, extraterrestrials, or UFOs? Does the Bible say whether or not there is life on other planets (extraterrestrial)?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[james bond]

Very easy: Take a look to your forepaw - take a look at the hand of a gorilla - and ask yourselve "How came this similarity?" - and you will find answers. What did you not [like to] understand now? And why?

People who believe in wacko science such as evolution believe in wacko science of aliens.

 

[james bond]

We've sent more probes to Mars in 2021 and still no aliens.

'Mars has never been home to anything that we consider life, a new study claims. About half the size of Earth, the Red Planet is the second smallest planet in the solar system. Scientists from the Washington University in St. Louis say it is so tiny, there would never have been enough water to start and sustain life.
“Mars’ fate was decided from the beginning,” says Kun Wang, assistant professor of earth and planetary sciences in Arts & Sciences in a university release. “There is likely a threshold on the size requirements of rocky planets to retain enough water to enable habitability and plate tectonics, with mass exceeding that of Mars.”

The findings are a setback for alien hunters. However, it could help identify planets outside the solar system that may actually host life. Some theories suggest Mars had more water than Earth billions of years ago, but the new study argues that this is unlikely.

Where did all the water go?​

There certainly was some water at one point on Mars, with the Viking orbiter, Curiosity, and Perseverance ground probes returning dramatic images of river valleys and flood channels. Today, Mars is a barren desert, while Earth is a “blue marble.” Previous theories blame solar radiation, or Mars’ magnetic field stripping the thick atmosphere. Dr. Wang and colleagues say the explanation for its drastic inhospitality is much more simple.
The team used stable isotopes of potassium (K) as a tracer to estimate volatile elements and compounds — including water — on planets. The analysis revealed that Mars lost more volatile substances than Earth during its formation, but not as much as smaller and drier bodies like the Moon and asteroids. Study authors also discovered the size of a planet and volatile substances have a strong connection to each other.

“The reason for far lower abundances of volatile elements and their compounds in differentiated planets than in primitive undifferentiated meteorites has been a longstanding question,” explains Katharina Lodders, research professor of earth and planetary sciences. “The finding of the correlation of K isotopic compositions with planet gravity is a novel discovery with important quantitative implications for when and how the differentiated planets received and lost their volatiles.”

Rewriting the history of Mars​

Dr. Wang adds that Martian meteorites shed light on the chemical make-up of Mars.
“Those Martian meteorites have ages varying from several hundred millions to 4 billion years and recorded Mars’ volatile evolution history. Through measuring the isotopes of moderately volatile elements, such as potassium, we can infer the degree of volatile depletion of bulk planets and make comparisons between different solar system bodies.”

“It’s indisputable that there used to be liquid water on the surface of Mars, but how much water in total Mars once had is hard to quantify through remote sensing and rover studies alone,” Wang continues. “There are many models out there for the bulk water content of Mars. In some of them, early Mars was even wetter than the Earth. We don’t believe that was the case.”

Refining the search for alien life​

The study has implications for the search for extraterrestrial life. Being too close to stars affects the amount of volatiles a planet or moon can retain. The measurement is factored into indexes of habitable — or “Goldilocks” — zones.
“This study emphasizes that there is a very limited size range for planets to have just enough but not too much water to develop a habitable surface environment,” says study co-author Klaus Mezger of the Center for Space and Habitability at the University of Bern in Switzerland. “These results will guide astronomers in their search for habitable exoplanets in other solar systems.”

The team believes size should be a key consideration when thinking about whether an exoplanet could support life.
“The size of an exoplanet is one of the parameters that is easiest to determine,” Wang concludes. “Based on size and mass, we now know whether an exoplanet is a candidate for life, because a first-order determining factor for volatile retention is size.”
The study appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
South West News Service writer Mark Waghorn contributed to this report.'

No aliens on Mars? Planet may have been too small to sustain life

Scientists say Mars is so tiny, there would never have been enough water to start and sustain life.

www.studyfinds.org

 

[zaangalewa]

. We've had sci-fi for soooooooooo long. How many billions of years have I been right?

With "your" idea the natural law "evolution" is not existing? Never! Natural laws started immediatelly to exist together with the big bang about 13.8 billion years ago (current approximation).

Evolution isn't true so no aliens.

What's a nonsensic sentence because you know nothing about aliens except human ideas about aliens. This belief has the same structure as the belief of the ancient Greeks in their gods.

The evidence shows this.

Which concrete evidence for what?

Not even a microbe

Strange. Aliens came from quastles not from microorganisms. Everyone knows this because this is evident.

Again: Takle a look at the hand of a gorilla and ask yourselve why your forepaw is not far from this very beautiful biological structure. And do not forget what's the main concept of evolution which I would describe with the words: "All living structures have a common root - except they are created." The whole racist nonsense of Darwinism stops immediatelly when you compare yourselve with Hugo, the concrete tree who you gave this or another name. Hugo and you have a common ancestor. Ask Saint Francis! Hugo is by the way very proud that "they" made a piano out of his grandfather. Often he tells this vision to the other trees.

 

[zaangalewa]

While a gorilla's hands and human's hands have similarities, they are different is size and how they are used. Gorillas use them for walking. Thus, they are different species and did not evolve. Besides, they both exist today.

I'll assume you gave up on aliens as you're back to monkey stories.

You try to tell yourselve nonsense and to believe this nonsense - what's impossible. No human being alone is able to be so stupid. This needs organiced stupidity.

 

[james bond]

You try to tell yourselve nonsense and to believe this nonsense - what's impossible. No human being alone is able to be so stupid. This needs organiced stupidity.

zanngalewa: Soy un perdedor.

You have no evidence for what you believe happens. There are no transitional fossils (millions of years) nor skeletons. Besides, we still have both humans and gorillas today. Thus, no macroevolution happened.

I'm tired of the evos. You can't show macroevolution and have no evidence of aliens, so it's not science. It's wacko science. You should be upset and angry like Colin norris . No one likes to be wrong all the time like him lol.

I even presented my UC Berkeley website on evolution. In it, it does not state humans from monkeys, but presents a hypothesis. It's based on those papers I told you atheist scientists wrote. OTOH, God and the Bible explained what happened correctly. It's not a hypothesis nor theory. It's fact.