well its no repeating things with no value,..Originally Posted by Cymru
since its ppl who we know, and we cant talk about the subject forever, while the ppl on other forums, and ppl who post their thoughts, cant be fully discussed, while here we can, and we know that because ppl here a ppl who post often, while also having a good brain on them
no. he's saying they're illogical. literally.
i myself said they aren't fact. i repeat myself now when i say it can't be proven unless we learn how to time travel. of course, you have to define "proof" then. do we have to be 100% certain (within the physical universe) to call it a proof? if so, then the theories of evolution are no proof. if 99% is enough, then they are. we simply can't deliver pictures of half-humans because it's more than 100000 years ago.
so, you choose to ignore that i tell you nobody serious would agree with you and instead you try to give it a last desperate shot by making me look ridiculous in order to not lose face. we're moving out of an area where grown up people can relate to each other and going back to the molding box.
This thread does offer something to the mounting evidence for atheism. That is: discussions on whether or not a given deity exists are so damn boring the deity couldn't possibly exist. Please talk about Civ Rev!
Zef, this is your fault! Nothing important at all here!
Showtek,
I thought I was wound up tight but you give new meaning to the phrase!
The joke illustrates the concept of multiple logical yet conflicting explanations/conclusions for the same observed data, in a funny manner.
My issue is not with your position but your declaration that:
<say with condescending tone for effect>
"It's the only possible explanation & anything else you'd be laughed at & laughing at someone is the most accurate means of determining validity of thought, etc...". Geez, what horse-rubbish!
There are multiple "logical" explanations for lots of things in the universe especially when you're talking about unobservable events. The issue is that many explanations are largely contradictory. I guess that really bothers you so you feel the need to attempt to intellectually intimidate someone into submission. Sorry, I guess I didn't comply like a "good little modern-day robot". After all, everything "true & good" has come about in the modern-age. Pleazzzz...
At the end of the day, I'm perfectly willing to go the distance with my beliefs as well as examine them if I find compelling data that isn't just religious rhetoric wrapped in a scientific sheep-skin. So far, Cymru has done a better job with his succinct & accurate comments than all your "logical" arguments because his statements are simply true while yours are just intellectual intimidation tactics.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-05-2010 at 07:46 AM.
The point of that posting is clear: There are multiple "logical" conclusions which can be arrived at which are typically in conflict.
I haven't stated a personal position on the topic. I was simply challenging Showtek's assertion of evolution as scientific fact. Evolution isn't like gravity or magnetism, both of which are immediately demonstrable & measurable using the scientific method. Acceptance of evolution requires belief. Acceptance of gravity & magnetism also requires belief. However, the difference in terms of the measure of belief is significant. The complexity argument you made earlier reinforces this because as you point out it is complex & non-trivial.
My position was/is philosophical in nature. I could take the same position on anything really. My salient point is life is unlivable without belief. You can apply that to any topic, from the mundane to the cosmic.
As far as taking the discussion elsewhere, I think HGB has responded more appropriately. This is our community. We talk about lots of things here. I trust the people here, even the ones I disagree with. It's most appropriate that we talk amongst ourselves, not amongst complete strangers.
I'll also offer this thought:
When I feel too wound up, I take a break. I understand about myself that if my emotions are too red-hot, at some point, my emotions are driving my perceptions more than the content of the discussion. That's the point I take a break rather than try to control the discussion of others. I had to do that on the Hitler thread. Just food for thought...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-05-2010 at 08:02 AM. Reason: formatting
dude, why do you continue this? you're way older than me and you still like leave in a huff. we both know that my position is the one currently held by the majority of the intellectuals in this society. i mean i'm reading "the thinking ape" right now, refresh, and see another such a comment of yours. i'll go back to the uni tomorrow where we'll debate these issues not even thinking about attacking the fundamentals of the theory. they're taken as natural basis. if in 50 years everybody will yell, "hey, guys! we were all wrong for 100 years! let's go back to adam and eva", i'll get back at you. you're entitled to your opinion and i leave you that right. just don't act like i'm trying to be a smartarse, trying to ridicule me, acting like you know better than millions of people. i find that insulting to me and my friends who invest a lot of time in this stuff. and i won't discuss this issue with you again. let's just close this topic and go back to civ and maybe philosophy.
*ice breaker* Anybody here believe in aliens? I do
I haven't left in a huff at all. Could you be projecting your own emotions onto me? BTW, thanks for "leave you that right." I didn't realize I was asking for your permission to have an opinion, glad you clarified.
No one is ridiculing you although I do understand that writing leaves out 85% of communication information so I can empathize with the misperception. I am challenging your assertion of evolution as indisputable & demonstrable scientific fact. I agree it is widely accepted in many intellectual circles. However, wide acceptance does not meet any reasonable sufficiency criteria to be defined as a fact. In my world view, it must be demonstrable/observable in real-time to be considered fact, not just plausible. Just look at global-warming & climatology. What I find most interesting is your position as an absurdist & yet the absolute certainty of your position on evolution. Seems contradictory. Have you observed evolution demonstrated in action like you have gravity, magnetism, & electricity?
At the end of the day, I can agree with what Cymru said earlier that evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life, nor can it. That's why many people believe in evolution and are theists of different varieties. So evolution is separate from Atheism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc....
But it's not in same class as gravity, magnetism, or electricity. I also hold quantum theory in higher regard because it's demonstrable in particle collider experiments although it's definitely more "fuzzy" & less concrete than the afore-mentioned. The fruit fly experiments are the good for demonstrating genetic adaptation within a species. I'm not an evolution expert (I've done some reading on the subject) but if species genetic adaptation was all it was about, I'm not sure any of us would get too hot & bothered about it. So presumably the concept of "evolving" involves something more than simply adaptation within a species. Have this been observed to occur similar to the forces of gravity, magnetism, electricity? I don't know but I think the answer is probably no, otherwise it wouldn't be in dispute, just as gravity, magnetism, & electricity aren't in dispute although it's true we must still accept them too with some belief as you pointed out earlier. They are easily demonstrable in real-time so it's not much belief that's required. Evolution, not so much. I agree that just because something isn't directly observable that doesn't make it false but it does put it in another class of investigation which is distinct from the "fact" class.
Anyhow, I'm really in no huff, just challenging your status quo. If that makes me an idiot, I'm perfectly comfortable with that. I do it all the time at work.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-05-2010 at 08:46 AM.
If so why are we comparing them.
To demand evolution provide gravity like proof is like demanding that gravity prove its cause (ie why it exists) before you beliefe it exists.
i said i won't discuss that issue any more so i will only comment on what is a false interpretation of my approach to the issue.
i started this debate by saying "if we assume the universe exists, then we have to assume evolution is real". i sometimes assume the universe exists for fun. and if this physical reality exists, then it's likely a deterministic reality due to its rules. the theory of evolution is also deterministic. however, i'm getting into discussing the issue again. the important thing is that i don't know if the universe exists, thus i don't know if evolution takes place. i don't see it as an absolute, neither have i said i do. within the imagination of a physicalistic reality, evolution is at least in its known core concepts an absolute, though. i do not doubt that. and in my opinion, you shouldn't either. nobody should. i find it obvious. but, as already mentioned, you're entitled to your opinion.
now that we get into your opinion, what is it? are you religious?
so do i. i'm assuming that the universe is pretty big. that makes it unlikely that nowhere else other life has evolved. maybe also intelligent life. if the universe is infinite spatially, it is mathematically impossible that there is anything that does not exist. so, yea, let's hope for the best.
If they exist they are highly likely to destroy us if they meet us. And we wont see them coming. But I dont think the universe is infinite in the standard 4 dimentions. So they may or may not exist and may or may not ever reach us if they do.
You've misinterpreted & misstated my point in a circular reasoning way.
I'm saying the scientific method has not been uniformly applied.
I fail to see how uniformly applying the scientific method to all scientific endeavors is demanding they "prove their cause". The idea is one of demonstrability through experimentation. I believe the idea of genetic adaptation has been demonstrated in experiments as Zso_Zso mentioned. However, as I mentioned, if that's all the theory of evolution comprises, what's all the hub-bub about on both sides of social discussion? I think it's because there's more to it than species genetic adaptation.
Fine. So just apply the scientific method to the rest of it & draw the conclusions. Seems to work for other areas of scientific endeavor. That's where the rub is. We can't because of the time periods involved. The same issues/controversy exists with climatology for similar reasons. So it ceases to be subject to the same scientific method. As a result, there is a gap in our understanding yet the positions held on evolution & climatology are sometimes quite dogmatic, despite this disparity with other scientific endeavors. This suggests to me that it's not a purely scientific endeavor.
People rarely argue about papers being blue or red or other such obvious things. The very existence of any argument implies the data isn't known, isn't complete, isn't understood, and/or isn't compelling or any combination. In any case, anything that's in that category certainly isn't seen as absolute fact by anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.
In fact, while I've been derided plenty, no one has produced anything even remotely data-driven & substantive other than Zso_Zso (although I agree with Cymru's philosophical comments). It's all been "this level of argument", "you're the only one", "it's as obvious as red & blue", "you'd be laughed at", etc.... By definition, these are all arguments of belief/opinion/derision, not scientific data & clearly observable/demonstrable facts. Gravity doesn't have this issue. It's easily demonstrable.
Fortunately, I am quite comfortable being ganged up on. Just try to follow Zso_Zso's example, maybe even provide a good layman's book on evolution,etc.... I've no issue reading differing perspective's so long as intellectual honesty, not dogma, is maintained. I really admired Carl Sagan that way. He made cosmological principles palatable to the masses & I found his writings to be intellectually honest. When he talked about one of the proposed explanations of the transient non-causal forces prior to Big-Bang, he didn't try to "gussy it up" as the "only explanation" & "indisputable fact". He, in fact, did the opposite. He pointed out the obvious that this was akin to the concept of "God", just put into physics terminology & that it was clearly unprovable. I respected that.
We all want to believe we are right. Fine. The issue I have is with people who claim either implicitly through their behavior or explicitly through their words, they have no belief. Absolute total intellectual dishonesty. Everyone has belief, everyone. No exceptions, no matter how smart, how educated, how old, etc.... It's typical that we get upset initially when challenged. That doesn't mean it's maliciously motivated though nor does it imply it's bad for us. Quite the opposite in my experience.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-05-2010 at 10:06 AM.
I'm indifferent mostly. Although I'd prefer not to meet any as I agree w/Hawkings. They aren't coming to sing "Kumbayah" & roast marshmellows around the campfire with us.*ice breaker* Anybody here believe in aliens? I do
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
There are various ways you can know things and we whould not dismiss the method by which we know history. In fact how do you know the scientific method (or any example of it)? surely not via the scientific method... We would seem to be well on the way to radical skeptisism
I hope i didnt give that impression. The very fact that you think about and are willing to debate such things raises not lowers my opinion of you. But I know that one can get carried away in a debate and it might LOOK like there is some sort of personal insult going on...
and it is more proven than evolution - no doubt there everything - including gravity gets a non 100% creedence level. I think it is more a matter of if that is a difference worth mentioning.
i agree with aliens, because stephen hawkings said so..
but he also said they might come to just get our resources and build more advanced ships, and become more powerful, and continue doing it forever,.. just how the spanish came over, like hernan cortez in search of gold, "it didnt go very well for the native americans"... but he also said they might be wayyy to far to reach us, unless they have the tchnology to open warps in space to instantly move all the way from one side to another in seconds
Haha!! Okay, I'll take the blame.
But actually, Cymru, I felt differently about the Alien/Frog story: I thought it was quite poetic in its simplicity. Anyone who has read some of the great Taoists, especially Chaung Tzu, will find all sorts of similar stories. Sometimes they're puzzling, and other times they're quite funny. But they always had a point of reminding us of the most immediate and simple truths of life.
Anyway, at least the philosophical quandaries and paradoxes are finally confined to one thread, whereas they used to infiltrate the others. And I finally get a long-lasting thread! Hopefully it'll challenge Morte's Archive or MD's FFA thread one day for most views...
i believe aliens exist and that theyve been here before, multiple times. its the jungle theory. we humans have no need to visit the densest of jungles and to interact with the animals therein, absolutely no need besides curisoity. so why would they come here? only options are resources, curiosity, or alliance. i see it as curiosity. theyre obviously farrrrrrrrrrrrrr more advanced than us just to be able to come here, as they probably live far away, Pleadis being the closest i can imagine. i just think they look at us and shake their heads, why would they want to interact with a species so hostile that it attacks, kills, murders, rapes, and steals from its own kind on a minute by minute basis.
ive generally been on your side throughout this, in fact it was me getting ganged up on initially, as i spoke against evolution. not exactly against it, but against it being stated as fact. i believe in micro evolution, macro im not so sure. that we evolved from a bacterial life form is far fetched, especially considering the extreme intelligence gap between us and any other lifeform on earth. possible that we have been 'modified', possible that we have just evolved out of bacteria. either way, we have no real way of knowing so noone can state superiority.
Remember the post months ago where I attributed a philosopher to all of the forum members? His was C.S. Lewis. I could have been wrong, but it made sense to me at the time. But I don't think Pedal ever read that one...
They dont have to all want to come here - just one of them. And one will be all it will take.to flatten us if they want. Not only that but even if they want the rest of them would have a hell of a time stopping him because it would be so easy..
ahh Im pretty pessimistic eh...
That aside curiosity could be pretty damn dangerous in itself. the old
"lets probe them and see what makes them tick..."
lol who might this be directed against. "claim implicitly", "dishonest", obviously you're referring to arrogance, "get upset when challenged". it is a least legitimate for me to find "dishonest" insulting and still not very classy to use in an argument, especially after me offering to stop it. but i'm trying to explain this politely once again.
i myself have said that the theory of evolution is uncertain about several things. however, the red/blue paper was concerning the evolution of men. i find it arguable if you want to be critical of some of the more precarious aspects of the theory but there is so much evidence for apes evolving into humans that it's really hard (at least for me) to accept another opinion. if someone represents such an opinion, it is usually out of ignorance in my experience, e.g. strange christians fundamentalists that i've seen on youtube.. it seemed to me that you, too, were ignoring what i wrote about fossils (i called them "skeletons" which probably is the wrong word), that in my opinion prove the bond between us and our animal relatives. yes, i think the evolutionary history of men is a red paper and that we have evidence to back that up.
that there is still no 100% proof that the evolutionary observations are true is a common example of criticism. it's also very legitimate since evolutionary scientists make mistakes all the time. i recently read that people for a long time thought that certain hominids went through a history of cave dwelling, simply because their fossils were found there. it was later found out, though, that these only were the booties of some cave dwelling predator. no, we won't get 100% proofs. because no neanderthaler is suddenly jumping out in front of us and saying, "hey, i am not able to use vowels to the same extent as you do because my larynx is significantly smaller". but the information we can derive from fossils, clearly indicate this suggestion.
basically this is what i agree with. now, that i am a radical skepticist but for once just accept that this physical reality is real, i believe in the most certain aspects of evolution due to its accordance with the laws of physical reality - which, in my opinion, can be centralized as "logic". meaning if a is the case, then b also has to be the case. i still find it hard to see how my comments should have been illogical. however, even the concept of logic probably is debatable.
well, i didn't hear about him until now but "christian apologetics" sound like something pedal might agree with. which would certainly amplify the gap between his and my opinion. from his comments, i wouldn't be surprised if he is religious. (which, btw, is totally okay with me)
it could be funny if your recommendations actually revealed themselves to somehow fit. even though i was compared to albert camus. i prefer the logical approach to absurdity, not the emotional (can you say that?) one. camus seems so pessimistic about it and i like to look at it from an optimistic way. in my opinion, it leaves us all the freedom we could ever dream of. and it's so compatible with social constructionism which is one of my favorite theories in sociology.
I certainly believe that alien life exists, but lets stop and think for a moment.
The Earth's been situated in a near-perfect location for the development of life for billions of years. And yet, technologically advanced humans have only been here for the last couple of thousand years.
This suggests to me that most alien life forms are very simple, probably single-celled organisms. Even if they evolved into animals, we can't be sure they'd even develop brains. I mean, ask a jellyfish, brains aren't necessary to be successful.
Then they'd have to develop language, abstract thought, a way to record information, etc. And all of this just to get where we were thousands of years ago. And we're not even close to interstellar travel at our current level of technology.
And those of you who think violent aliens are going to attack us.......why? 'Resources'? What resources do we have that they need?
Paranoia? CivRev players? Conversations that somehow are being had in real life when they were clearly meant to be had 'round the hash pipe?
The only possible resource I can think of is habitable living space. Nothing physical seems likely to be financially worth transporting interstellar distances, but who knows how aliens would think?
I don't know, I think Stephen Hawking was just trying to create hype and plug his show on Discovery. Maybe he does believe that if ETs did find us, they would likely destroy us, don't care. Hawking has been wrong before, he lost a few bets about black holes, and when I was five, I was like "what the heck is stevie thinking? he may be a genius, but he's out of his mind!"
.... annndddd, I'm done sounding like an idiot
OK, all you non-believers in evolution due to not enough "proof". Let's look at the alternative, the intelligent design of our consciousness:
There is a nice recent paper, titled "Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome":
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...07.short?rss=1
The author goes over a number of not-too-intelligent-looking kinks in our genes. Exons and introns, spliceosomes, disorders of gene transcription and regulation, the unreliability of mitochondrial DNA, duplicons, pseudogenes, mobile DNA elements - they're all here, and all (to my eyes) much better explained by random, nonsentient tinkering than by thoughtful design. I'd like to quote a part from his conclusions:
Evolution by natural causes in effect emancipates religion from the shackles of theodicy. No longer need we agonize about why a Creator God is the world’s leading abortionist and mass murderer. No longer need we query a Creator God’s motives for debilitating countless innocents with horrific genetic conditions. No longer must we anguish about the interventionist motives of a supreme intelligence that permits gross evil and suffering in the world. No longer need we be tempted to blaspheme an omnipotent Deity by charging Him directly responsible for human frailties and physical shortcomings (including those that we now understand to be commonplace at molecular and biochemical levels). No longer need we blame a Creator God’s direct hand for any of these disturbing empirical facts. Instead, we can put the blame squarely on the agency of insentient natural evolutionary causation. From this perspective, the evolutionary sciences can become a welcome partner (rather than the conventionally perceived adversary) of mainstream religion
It seems that I started a big debate here. I didnt read all of the comments but there seems to be a discussion about creation and god. I dont want to turn this into a preach(sp), but I come from an entirely different culture than you guys, and Im sure that none of you have heard about what I have to say, so atleast its worth a read. I enjoyed following the forums for 1 year and think of most of the regulars here as good guys. I also enjoyed reading posts from members like P2M and grayson about general life. Ill try to explain what I meant by scientefic proof of god as objectively as possible(or maybe not).
14 centuries ago there was a book written(should be a different word but I dont know it in english) and It was claimed to be the words of god himself. People who understand arabic know that no man can write a book in this perfection. This is the first and most important miracle of the quraan.
Now comes the science part. This book was meant to be the proove of god until the end of time, so it has to stand the test of time, unlike other heavenly books that got changed as time passed. Knowing that its proven that not a single letter have changed from the original quraan, it had scientefic facts that a man living in the middle of the desert 1400 years ago cant possibly know about it. There are many of these exambles that I cant post them here or that I dont have enough knowledge about, but Ill put the most important:
"It is Allah who has created the night and the day.
The sun and the moon. Each one travelling in an orbit with its own motion."
Now , modern science has confirmed the Quranic statement. The Arabic word used in the Quran is Yasbahoon, which describes the motion of a moving body. When it refers to a celestial body, it means it is rotating about its own axis. So Quran says the sun and the Moon, they revolve as well as rotate about their own axis. Today we have come to know that the Sun takes approximately 25 days to complete one rotation. It was Edvin Hubbel who discovered that the universe is expanding. The Quran says in Surah Dhariyat[ 51, 47], that
"We have created the expanding universe - The vastness of space."
Copied from here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9041234AAAJhOz
The most important scientefic fact that cant be said by anyone other than god 14 centuries ago is when he explains in great detail how a child is created inside of his mother womb(right word??).
Here you can find it: http://www.scienceislam.com/quran_hu...evelopment.php
I also recommend watching 2 series available online, it will disturb you for sure, but it may open your eyes on things you havent thought of before:http://www.wakeupproject.com/Videos.asp
The arrivals is a must see, but I think the second series is better to start with.
There is also great material you can find online if you are intrested, please feel free to PM me because I dont want this to turn into a fight between anyone.
well, some famous ancient greek guy had a pretty accurate conception about the construction of an atom. it lies within the power of people to be ingenious. i'm sure there's also a lot of dung in the koran as i know it's in the bible. arguing that Mohammad has talked to god because some pretty smart things are part of the koran is most likely not going to convince many people.
i won't even deny the existence of god, ever. how do i know? but i deny that what is literally written in the bible or koran is true.
this turned out to be a atheism/theism discussion which is quite boring as no one of us will provide an answer.
This may have been a valid criticism of Darwin's early evolutionary theories, but modern evolutionary science is equipped with much more than observation of species and fossils. The main proof is in the gene sequences which provides ample data when similarities and differences are studied for various species. That is the proof for macro-evolution as opposed to micro.
Did you know that rats and humans have 95% gene sequence identity ?
That's the primary reason why pharmaceuticals can use animal testing of new drugs before going into clinical trials for human testing. If the drug works on mice it has a very strong chance to work on humans too, because of the 95% identity. Gene are extracted and sequenced not only from living species but from fossils too, providing the proof for genetic linkages.
That's scientific method too. Not every science can afford to perform experiments, e.g. astro-physics is another good example. We cannot experiment with stars, black holes, quasar but we can still observe and collect data upon which we can work out the laws of nature.
BTW, I understand the reason why Americans have such hard time to accept evolution. I grew up and was educated in Europe, but my kids were born and are being educated in North America. I was completely shocked to find out that evolution is completely missing from the curriculum. They learn about biology, even classification of species without any mention of evolution -- at least up to grade 7 where my daughter is now.
"Common sense is based on what you learn from birth to 18 years of age" as some smart man once said (paraphrased, exact quote and author escapes my ageing mind right now).
Last edited by Zso_Zso; 05-06-2010 at 01:00 AM.
I dont think that would be the thing they were looking for when you first dscover them.
My theory is below
At some instants in time an alien species will decide it needs to scout the universe to protect itself etc - maybe all the possible reasons. At those points it builds self replicating probes that travel at about the speed of light to every reasonable target (because they are so cheap resource wise). They are probably not much more advaned than us at this stage but because of the speed of light limit the rest of the civilization will never overtake this wave. (certaily not with organic life onboard because it couldn't stand the acceleration).
Upon reaching those targets the probes stop check it out send info back replicate take enough resources to continue their process, collect whatever signals that catch up with them from the civilization while they are stopped, do anything else they want (maybe wipe out any competition or things that might waste the resources in the area) and then respawn and get up to the speed of light ASAP.
Have you read Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series ? Your idea sounds very similar to his
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendezvous_with_Rama
http://www.amazon.com/Arthur-C-Clark.../3T6KD05GJ04I3
i'm glad there's at least one agreeing with me.
yes, the usa is a very traditionalistic country compared to other countries in the western world. i don't know if this is specific for the us or if it is also a canadian phenomenon. anyway, religion still plays a large role in lots of people's life while western europe is basically a half christan/half atheist region. in scandinavian countries people identifying themselves as atheists are particularly many. and i don't have to talk about eastern europe. this is probably the most atheist piece of land in the world. maybe a relict of the communist time.
anyway, the results of this traditionalism is seen in many aspects of american life. the theory of evolution is highly criticized as many people feel it's a threat for their religion. that it is not teached in school very much doesn't surprise me at all. perhaps this is the reason for many people on this board to doubt the theory or simply to refuse to see its logic. yet, the theory doesn't threat religion at all but just irrational creationist theories that allege that the human being was created in one instant and hasn't changed for millions of years.
everyone seems to have avoided my main questions. evolution states that life evolves out of necessity, and a 'need' to survive. if bacteria was doing just fine, why did it evolve? and again, my other question, why do we humans have such a complex conscious and why and how did it develop at such a faster pace than any other life forms on earth? there is no necessity, which is what evolution is based on, necessity. theres no need for this mind, for this deep level of though, to survive. we were doing just fine as bacteria. we were doing just fine as fish. we were doing just fine as land mammals. there has been no necessity.
I dont think i have read that story - But I'll take having similar ideas to Arthur C. Clarke as massive complimentHave you read Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series ? Your idea sounds very similar to his
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendezvous_with_Rama
http://www.amazon.com/Arthur-C-Clark.../3T6KD05GJ04I3
regarding aliens..
there have been sightings since the Sumerians, aztecs, mayans, incans, Columbus, native americans, and now thousands of modern sightings. if any number of these are legit, than this means that they have been here for thousands of years. even if for some reason you guys want to discredit the pre-modern sightings, theyve still been here for at least a hundred years. they could have killed us thousands of times over and over. im not understanding the hostile point of view. they see us as so much lower than them, and my belief is that theyre waiting for us to stop being so animilistic before attempting any real communication.
theyve attempted communication plenty of times, with our governments controlling what we the people hear and what the aliens hear from our race.
ill give you all a laugh, as most people tend to reject something as profound as im about to show you. wiltshire, england has had 100's of crop circles at unprecedented rates. the one attached is of an 'alien' holding a binary code, that reads something along the lines of "Beware the bearers of false gifts and their broken promises. Much pain but still time. Believe there is good out there.We oppose deception. Conduit closing (BELL SOUND)".
http://img443.imageshack.us/i/sparsholt021ql6.jpg/
believe what you want, but i personally dont believe two guys with boards attached to strings can complete something this mathematically complicated in the darkest few hours of night.
Last edited by Aheadatime; 05-06-2010 at 03:29 AM.
I think thats a misunderstanding of evolution
1) bacteria still exist so they didnt need to evolve.
2) evolution doesn't think or need things, talking like that is jsut a way to make it a little easier to understand. In reality it is more complex than that like pretty much any theory. It doesnt dispove the theory to disprove the simplified version from the school text books.
and to directly adress the question
3) There was a niche available to certain bacteria to avoid the fearce competition of competing head to head with other bacteria.
1) we evolved in the context of having to reinvent the wheel all the time - (eg reinvent the boomerang etc) that is more demanding in many ways than being able to be taught those things.
2) it is like playing a game of civ. If i do jsut a few moves wrong in this weeks GOTW I couldnt get sub 2000BC scores but if I do them right it isnt a big problem.
Each thing you do right makes your victory faster as more things become possible with your extra power. Once we crossed a certain line in terms of intellegence, intelegence started to return more and more fantastic rewards and become more and more valuable. before that it was still useful but not so much more so than things like physical strength.
"theres no need for this mind, for this deep level of though, to survive. we were doing just fine as bacteria. we were doing just fine as fish. we were doing just fine as land mammals. there has been no necessity."
We were doing fine as bacteria. But we did better as fish. Better yet as reptiles. Better yet as mammals.
We adapted because it gave us an advantage, a longer life expectancy. You think you'd live longer if you didn't have a brain? Think about it!
Then how could a bacteria understand it would be 'better' to evolve? I just dont get the whole 'jist' of macro evolution. The questions are how and why. Saying it would be 'better' is a very easy answer. A bacteria knowing it would be better to have fins seems funny to me, and far from science. Anyway, as pedal said, believe what you want. Nothing here is fact, speculation and opinions cant run debates.
Focus on my alien post, much more interesting to me than evolution
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
