Thread: Aliens created us!

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

What's wrong with that? Why does the world need to be simplified? Look, I'm not saying that every possibility should be treated equally, but that each should be at least regarded and considered, due to our limited knowledge.

Such arguments cannot even be used in court, otherwise you'd be able to convict someone over something such as hearsay!

I did consider the possibility, I did analyse it, but from what I know of astronomy and physics, along with biology and a bit of chemistry, there is no need to complicate things with "Aliens" or whatever... because the actual details of evolutionary biology and biochemistry is complicated enough! Also, when you actually try to comprehend the size of our galaxy, you'd realise how silly such statements such as "We were created from Aliens!" are. Space is not something that is so easily traversed, considering the amount of high-energy radiation present in space, not just from our own sun. There are micrometeorites that travel at insanely high speeds, being no bigger than a grain of sand, and yet if one of these were to collide with any spacecraft, it would be disastrous (considering the extremely high kinetic energy these objects have).

So much for possibilities....

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Such arguments cannot even be used in court, otherwise you'd be able to convict someone over something such as hearsay!

I did consider the possibility, I did analyse it, but from what I know of astronomy and physics, along with biology and a bit of chemistry, there is no need to complicate things with "Aliens" or whatever... because the actual details of evolutionary biology and biochemistry is complicated enough! Also, when you actually try to comprehend the size of our galaxy, you'd realise how silly such statements such as "We were created from Aliens!" are. Space is not something that is so easily traversed, considering the amount of high-energy radiation present in space, not just from our own sun. There are micrometeorites that travel at insanely high speeds, being no bigger than a grain of sand, and yet if one of these were to collide with any spacecraft, it would be disastrous (considering the extremely high kinetic energy these objects have).

So much for possibilities....

OK. Still, I personally think nothing is impossible. Since this boils down to belief, I think continuing would be pointless.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

OK. Still, I personally think nothing is impossible. Since this boils down to belief, I think continuing would be pointless.

I wouldn't say impossible (no such thing as absolutes), just highly improbable, because so far, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. That is what my argument is about.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I wouldn't say impossible (no such thing as absolutes), just highly improbable, because so far, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. That is what my argument is about.

Why make assumptions on a lack of evidence? I just don't understand. I totally understand making assumptions based on known evidence, but just because there is a gap in evidence doesn't mean you can make an assumption about it. People didn't know about any evidence that the Earth was round a while ago, yet that is true.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

There are micrometeorites that travel at insanely high speeds, being no bigger than a grain of sand, and yet if one of these were to collide with any spacecraft, it would be disastrous (considering the extremely high kinetic energy these objects have).

My God, you make it sound like Star Wars. Tell me more.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Why make assumptions on a lack of evidence? I just don't understand. I totally understand making assumptions based on known evidence, but just because there is a gap in evidence doesn't mean you can make an assumption about it. People didn't know about any evidence that the Earth was round a while ago, yet that is true.

What gap of evidence? Where is this supposed gap? As for that last bit, people knew that the earth was round for a long time. The whole idea of being able to deduce your latitude from the position of the North Star in the sky was testament to that. It was only the church that promoted the idea of flat earth for a while. If anything, the better example to use was geocentricism. It was only until Copernicus and Galileo that such views were contested.

As for these gaps of knowledge, care to point out to me what they are? I'm curious to find out.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

What gap of evidence? Where is this supposed gap? As for that last bit, people knew that the earth was round for a long time. The whole idea of being able to deduce your latitude from the position of the North Star in the sky was testament to that. It was only the church that promoted the idea of flat earth for a while. If anything, the better example to use was geocentricism. It was only until Copernicus and Galileo that such views were contested.

As for these gaps of knowledge, care to point out to me what they are? I'm curious to find out.

My point is, there are things we don't know. Evidence that has not yet come to light. To make an assumption based on a lack of evidence is also assuming that evidence will never appear in favour of the counter-assumption; however evidence may very well appear at some point in the future as our knowledge increases.

Originally Posted by psychology student

My God, you make it sound like Star Wars. Tell me more.

Well, the reason why scientists have a very healthy respect for cosmic objects like meteorites and micrometeorites is that they travel at huge speeds. We're not talking about speed of sound here, we are talking at velocities greater than the escape velocity required to be able to exit the Earth's gravitational field (speeds over 10km per second. That's right, per second). When something is travelling at those speeds, even a grain of sand has far more energy than a .50 cal armour piercing round. The double aluminium sheet hull for the Space shuttle and the ISS would prove to be as effective as stopping these objects has wet tissue paper trying to stop a bullet. Hell, even a simple bolt travelling at orbital speeds would be capable of taking the shuttle out.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

My point is, there are things we don't know. Evidence that has not yet come to light. To make an assumption based on a lack of evidence is also assuming that evidence will never appear in favour of the counter-assumption; however evidence may very well appear at some point in the future as our knowledge increases.

I asked for where these gaps in our knowledge are, not for the evidence to prove me wrong. What does science not currently know at this moment in time to suggest an open interpretation that could remotely lead to the possibility of "Aliens did it"? Perhaps if you'd care to explain, I might try to see if there is actually something already here to explain such gaps.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I asked for where these gaps in our knowledge are, not for the evidence to prove me wrong. What does science not currently know at this moment in time to suggest an open interpretation that could remotely lead to the possibility of "Aliens did it"? Perhaps if you'd care to explain, I might try to see if there is actually something already here to explain such gaps.

Well... how am I supposed to know what humankind doesn't know yet... that's my point. We're constantly learning new things. New evidence may appear.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Well... how am I supposed to know what humankind doesn't know yet... that's my point. We're constantly learning new things. New evidence may appear.

If you don't know where these gaps are, then what is the point of all this speculation on "Aliens did it"? If you are going to argue on such things, you might as well have at least the proper basis to form such arguments, otherwise they carry absolutely no weight.

Not all ideas are created equal, and therefore to weed the bad ideas from the good, you go through the process of the Scientific Method. And to even have a good idea in the first place, you must do the research on whatever problem is currently troubling the scientific community. After doing such research, you come up with an idea and go on to test it rigorously and meticulously for years. Afterwards, you see if the tests support the predictions made by your hypothesis, and if so, you write a report and submit it to peer-review. This is when an idea is good enough to be taken seriously and to be analysed ruthlessly. It may turn out to be good enough to be published, or most of the time, it is thrown out (due to errors, inconsistencies, etc).

Anything which can't be tested and falsified is not even a hypothesis. It is speculation. It isn't even a valid possibility. If you understand that, then we should leave it at this, because how can one test for the claim "Aliens did it"? However, what we do know already suggests pretty conclusively that we originated via naturalistic means. There is nothing to suggest genetic engineering of any sort in the genome. Evolution has come to the point where we are filling in the fine-details of the process, as we have already proved conclusively that the process does occur in nature and can be replicated in labs.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Well, the reason why scientists have a very healthy respect for cosmic objects like meteorites and micrometeorites is that they travel at huge speeds. We're not talking about speed of sound here, we are talking at velocities greater than the escape velocity required to be able to exit the Earth's gravitational field (speeds over 10km per second. That's right, per second). When something is travelling at those speeds, even a grain of sand has far more energy than a .50 cal armour piercing round. The double aluminium sheet hull for the Space shuttle and the ISS would prove to be as effective as stopping these objects has wet tissue paper trying to stop a bullet. Hell, even a simple bolt travelling at orbital speeds would be capable of taking the shuttle out.

This must be such fun for NASA.

Originally Posted by psychology student

This must be such fun for NASA.

If it NASA thought this was fun, they would be the most hardcore of sadists. Also, it is why spacewalks are one of the most stressful jobs an astronaut can do. Lose a bolt, nut or FSM forbid, a whole spanner, that's an extra bit of debris in orbit that can take out a satellite. And if a satellite is destroyed, that's even MORE debris that can take out other shit.

Read up on the Kessler Syndrome... not pleasant stuff. In other words, Space... it's fucking serious business.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

If it NASA thought this was fun, they would be the most hardcore of sadists. Also, it is why spacewalks are one of the most stressful jobs an astronaut can do. Lose a bolt, nut or FSM forbid, a whole spanner, that's an extra bit of debris in orbit that can take out a satellite. And if a satellite is destroyed, that's even MORE debris that can take out other shit.

Read up on the Kessler Syndrome... not pleasant stuff. In other words, Space... it's fucking serious business.

yeah I was being ironic.

Originally Posted by psychology student

yeah I was being ironic.

I know... but I couldn't help but throw some more info out there...

At Patrick; the point is this: you can claim virtually anything is possible and nobody can prove you wrong. But if there is absolutely no evidence for it then discussing it is as pointless as discussing why the flying spaghetti monster gave us ten toes. If there is no evidence for something then you must accept that it does not exist. That is the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Xei

At Patrick; the point is this: you can claim virtually anything is possible and nobody can prove you wrong. But if there is absolutely no evidence for it then discussing it is as pointless as discussing why the flying spaghetti monster gave us ten toes. If there is no evidence for something then you must accept that it does not exist. That is the scientific method.

I completely understand; I myself am a scientist in my first year of Neuroscience at university, but why say something doesn't exist when it's still possible, just because we lack evidence? The evidence just may not be apparent.

Bluefinger; I mean evidence like, a method of travelling through space faster than the speed of light (i.e. entanglement). If we discover things like that, the likelihood of alien contact (although still unlikely) increases.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Bluefinger; I mean evidence like, a method of travelling through space faster than the speed of light (i.e. entanglement). If we discover things like that, the likelihood of alien contact (although still unlikely) increases.

First of all, entanglement has a finite speed, but as one of my friends who does physics at university explained, quantum entanglement is a very fragile state between two particles. It can't really be used for communication, as mere observations are enough to disturb and destroy the entangled state. Also, it can't be used for propulsion, so immediately it is pointless to speculate that entanglement would allow for faster-than-light travel.

Read up on general relativity before thinking about how to go faster than light. Understand the physical implications of just trying to accelerate a kilogram weight to near C speeds (99%). When you approach relativistic speeds, it becomes increasingly difficult to accelerate an object further. You require more and more energy in just to maintain a constant rate of acceleration, not just a steady rate of energy.

So please do your research in what we currently know about these things before speculating. It really helps to make better, more coherent arguments.

Wormholes, time travel? Bending the fabric of space and time. Perhaps there are advanced species who have mastered this..

Off topic, but, does anyone know when CERN is going to turn on and make particles collide?

Originally Posted by Wattage

Wormholes, time travel? Bending the fabric of space and time. Perhaps there are advanced species who have mastered this..

Oh dear again. Wormholes are at the moment only hypothetical features of spacetime, and not only have they yet to be observed, but whether it is even feasible to travel through them is disputed. Also, the issue of time travel is very hot ground, due to all the implications that time travel would incur.

Also, for a species to become THAT advanced would be very few and far between, maybe not even in this galaxy. If there isn't such a civilisation in OUR galaxy, the chances of them ever detecting us (let alone travelling here) would be extremely improbable. Also, such travelling methods would still require a lot of resources and energy to achieve, so they wouldn't come here just for a few shit's and giggles.

Bluefinger, thanks, I understand the science. I really do. The thing is, our knowledge is not infinite. There are things we don't know. We may be wrong in some aspects of our knowledge. You must accept that, at least! Therefore, there may be some knowledge we lack that, if known, would increase the probability of alien contact.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Bluefinger, thanks, I understand the science. I really do. The thing is, our knowledge is not infinite. There are things we don't know. We may be wrong in some aspects of our knowledge. You must accept that, at least! Therefore, there may be some knowledge we lack that, if known, would increase the probability of alien contact.

Lack of evidence doesn't increase the probability of an already improbable proposition. Also, if we found aspects of our knowledge to be wrong, I think I'll let the scientific community correct what needs to be corrected rather than jump to the "Aliens did it" side of things. For something to be proven wrong, it has to be shown to be wrong through a solid hypothesis that meets the burden of proof with plenty of observational and experimental data, and also be consistent with all the other areas of science that the hypothesis relates to. Hell, if something makes it through peer-review, but fails to show conclusive results by third-parties and doesn't fit in with other related publications and research, it will eventually be disregarded anyway. The Scientific Method is a self-correcting system.

By the criteria I have set out, I can't accept the assumptions made here about Aliens doing whatever. Going for the gaps in knowledge is not a valid argument, as that can be used for justifying anything.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dGYx_U16Cjk

Watch that it gives a bigger insight into this theory

Originally Posted by Dreamhope11

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dGYx_U16Cjk

Watch that it gives a bigger insight into this theory

Oh... dear... you think that's credible? It doesn't take a genius to figure out most of that is speculative bullshit. The video description gives it all away...

I'll say this, Proof or GTFO. Meet the burden of proof.... seriously.