Thread: Aliens created us!

Originally Posted by bluefinger

"We can't know for certain whether the sun really is fusing nuclei at it's core unless we go there ourselves and see the process happening!"

If you can't realise the absurdity of the above sentence, then seriously, don't talk to me about probabilities.

It may be absurd, but it's true! And if you can't realise that, then get out of your deluded little world!


Look, I'm sorry, I'll try and put this simply. If 90% of the evidence we know of points towards NO alien contact, and 10% of the evidence we know of points towards alien contact, then it is silly to say "because the majority of the evidence we know of points towards NO alien contact, that is what we must assume the truth is.". This is because, in a few years time, someone may discover a way of travelling through space which required less energy, and time, than the ways we know of at the moment. Then the percentage of evidence pointing towards alien contact increases, meaning the probability of alien contact increases aswell. So the statement people should be making is, "it is considerably more likely, to the extent of our knowledge at the moment, that aliens did not contact us in our past."

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

It may be absurd, but it's true! And if you can't realise that, then get out of your deluded little world!


Look, I'm sorry, I'll try and put this simply. If 90% of the evidence we know of points towards NO alien contact, and 10% of the evidence we know of points towards alien contact, then it is silly to say "because the majority of the evidence we know of points towards NO alien contact, that is what we must assume the truth is.". This is because, in a few years time, someone may discover a way of travelling through space which required less energy, and time, than the ways we know of at the moment. Then the percentage of evidence pointing towards alien contact increases, meaning the probability of alien contact increases aswell. So the statement people should be making is, "it is considerably more likely, to the extent of our knowledge at the moment, that aliens did not contact us in our past."

Oh... fucking... DEAR. What evidence for alien contact is there in the first place? Also, travelling through requiring less energy and time? Come on, think for a moment. Even if wormholes were discovered, it would take huge amounts of energy just to manipulate them.

You fail to realise that there are ways to deduce the process occurring in the centre of the sun via indirect means. Scientists have harnessed fusion for certain things already (as in for nuclear weapons) and are in the process of trying to harness it for power generation. The fact we can reproduce fusion to an extent lends credibility to the idea of whether the sun fuses atoms in it's centre.

HOWEVER, you can't apply a probability to a past event. In the past, it has either happened, or it hasn't. Probabilities are used to predict the likelihood of events occurring before they happen. For example, there's a 50% chance of me getting a tails when I flip a coin. However, the past events of me flipping coins show that I got 5 heads and 6 tails. If I try to apply probability on achieving that exact sequence, I'd have a very low probability of it happening. And yet the sequence occurred. However, I had achieved that sequence by flipping only one coin over and over, and therefore it really was only a 50% chance every time. Hence, probabilities do not have any bearing on things that have already occurred.

Also, discovering a method of travelling through space more efficiently does not make previous alien contact more likely, only the likelihood of encountering alien life in the future. If there is no evidence to show previous contact, then you have to take that as it is.

But if you don't know for sure what happened in the past, you can use probability, based on what you know.


I'm gonna stop this now, since our points of view are so drastically different. It's not that I believe that aliens contacted us - I honestly think they didn't - I just think that you can't completely disregard all the options at any point with only the knowledge you have at the moment. Anyway, you're not gonna see it my way, so there's no point.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

But if you don't know for sure what happened in the past, you can use probability, based on what you know.


I'm gonna stop this now, since our points of view are so drastically different. It's not that I believe that aliens contacted us - I honestly think they didn't - I just think that you can't completely disregard all the options at any point with only the knowledge you have at the moment. Anyway, you're not gonna see it my way, so there's no point.

I saw your reasoning, but it was flawed, for the reasons I've given. Past events do not follow probability, because a certain sequence of events (which may or may not have high chances of occurring) would be improbable because they happened in a certain way, in a certain sequence, etc. With past events, you look for evidence, not probability. For future events, you look for probability and evidence to validate such probability. Your whole argument relies on a false interpretation of what probability means. If you can't see why I disregard your arguments, then yeah, what's the point of continuing?

To use probability in the way you argued would be rather fallacious, because it wouldn't have any bearing on the evidence that is gathered to say otherwise. Us evolving via natural means is high improbable, but yet here we are. Crystals having near perfect lattices of molecules are highly improbable, and yet we have them. Probability applied to past events leads to false conclusions because probability applies to future events.

Your knowledge is borrowed! LoL

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I saw your reasoning, but it was flawed, for the reasons I've given. Past events do not follow probability, because a certain sequence of events (which may or may not have high chances of occurring) would be improbable because they happened in a certain way, in a certain sequence, etc. With past events, you look for evidence, not probability. For future events, you look for probability and evidence to validate such probability. Your whole argument relies on a false interpretation of what probability means. If you can't see why I disregard your arguments, then yeah, what's the point of continuing?

To use probability in the way you argued would be rather fallacious, because it wouldn't have any bearing on the evidence that is gathered to say otherwise. Us evolving via natural means is high improbable, but yet here we are. Crystals having near perfect lattices of molecules are highly improbable, and yet we have them. Probability applied to past events leads to false conclusions because probability applies to future events.

OK. I very much respect your argument, and I understand most of your points. For the ones I don't understand, it's probably due to my inferior intelligence

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

OK. I very much respect your argument, and I understand most of your points. For the ones I don't understand, it's probably due to my inferior intelligence

I don't it is a case of inferior intelligence, more of a case of misunderstanding certain concepts. Unlike Dreamhope11, you have been far more coherent and intelligent, but just a little misguided. Nothing that a bit of research and discussion can't fix.

Just to note though, I do think there is life out there in the universe. However, I just don't think there's anything concrete to show we have been visited in the past or present. We may speculate, but it'll remain speculation until it is shown otherwise, and so far, we haven't been. All I'm doing is doing my job as a sceptic to ensure when people start making claims, they do so with a grounding in reality whilst being able to meet the burden of proof.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Just to note though, I do think there is life out there in the universe. However, I just don't think there's anything concrete to show we have been visited in the past or present. We may speculate, but it'll remain speculation until it is shown otherwise, and so far, we haven't been.

Fair enough.

All I'm doing is doing my job as a sceptic

So how's the pay?

I know, shoot me. That was awful.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

So how's the pay?

I know, shoot me. That was awful.

I get paid in lulz...

As for shooting, I prefer stabbing... what kind of blade do you wish to be stabbed with? A stiletto type or something serrated?

Originally Posted by Dreamhope11

maybe in the past our civilisation was visited by extraterrestrial life.

Just in the past? I don't think so. Just maybe? I don't think so.

Here's a guest on david letterman that came on not long ago. People should check him out at the least, and people like him. That's if they weren't like 'bluefinger'.




I wouldn't bother arguing with people like bluefinger who enjoy disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. He talks about pobability as if he was being sensible but instead he seems very very ill informed incapable of examing evidence or just wanting to make his own reality about it.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Unlike Dreamhope11, you have been far more coherent and intelligent, but just a little misguided

Arrogance.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Just in the past? I don't think so. Just maybe? I don't think so.

Here's a guest on david letterman that came on not long ago. People should check him out at the least, and people like him. That's if they weren't like 'bluefinger'.

I wouldn't bother arguing with people like bluefinger who enjoy disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. He talks about pobability as if he was being sensible but instead he seems very very ill informed incapable of examing evidence or just wanting to make his own reality about it.

Arrogance.

Spiteful, much?

What I'm doing is a process called freethinking. Someone freely voices an opinion and I freely voice a criticism or analysis of said opinion. If I find certain parts of an opinion to be erroneous, I will point it out. If there is some flaw in the reasoning, I will highlight that flaw. And if I were to voice an opinion of my own, I fully expect to receive criticism, because I know how freethinking and freedom of speech work.

If you really want to show I'm wrong, well then, point it out directly to me. It's not hard. Or perhaps I've made some good points along with what Xei had to say and you can't refute them and thus get all pissy about it. Also, for the arrogant part, I was actually trying to compliment the guy. Is it arrogant to say to someone that they aren't inferior as they may want to believe? Sheesh...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I prefer stabbing... what kind of blade do you wish to be stabbed with? A stiletto type or something serrated?

A scythe would be quite interesting.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

A scythe would be quite interesting.

Done. As I'll have to procure a decent and sharp enough scythe, you'll have about two days before I come knocking at your door. I'll make sure everything is done as flashily as possible.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Done. As I'll have to procure a decent and sharp enough scythe, you'll have about two days before I come knocking at your door. I'll make sure everything is done as flashily as possible.

Film it as well. I'll live forever on the internets!

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Film it as well. I'll live forever on the internets!

Noted. I will come with a crowd of mobile-wielding chavs under the premise of doing an extreme happy-slap vid.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Noted. I will come with a crowd of mobile-wielding chavs under the premise of doing an extreme happy-slap vid.

Perfect.


Do you think we could take this thread any more off topic?

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Perfect.


Do you think we could take this thread any more off topic?

Do not doubt the challenge. A thread can always become more off-topic. It is just a matter of effort.

So, there is an interesting bit of history for you:

Back in the 15th century when some "open minded" people were saying that the world might be round, there was a bunch of people getting VERY angry and saying that "No! It can't be round" because something about God. People even got put to Death for saying the Earth was round. Plus, they were saying that "you can;t say that the Earth is round because there is NO EVIDENCE of the Earth being round."

Well if you already decided that the Earth is not round you aren't going to look for evidence. Christopher Colombus didn't KNOW for a fact that the Earth was round, but he had a hunch that he trusted. His crew almost mutinied thinking that they were going to sail of the edge of the Earth. If it wasn't for the fact that they saw a seagull and thus knew that they were close to land they would've tossed ol' Colombus overboard.

And the Funniest thing ever was: Most people throughout history already knew the Earth was round. Just not the "Status Quo" religious theologians.
Heck, a Greek Man proved the Earth was round and figured out mathematically the exact size of the Earth many years before Christ supposedly walked the Earth.

If you are looking for evidence, then first be willing to accept the possibility. Then the evidence will be shown to you. Don't decide.

However, I understand your arguements about space being so huge and the vast distances involved with space travel and what would be the motive of the aliens.

How can you understand the motives of aliens if you cannot even understand that they might exist. Or if you think that they might exist that they think like humans. What are human motives when they test deadly chemicals on animals?

Your understandings of space travel is very very Newtonian, like the rest of the human race. You have not discovered yet that size is relative and so is speed. The speed of light is the only constant... that you know of. And just because you cannot see anything faster than the speed of light doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. (Laugh!) In fact, there are other ways of knowing. But you would not know about those other ways.

There are deeper layers of science being discovered by humans now as we speak, and many deeper layers still unknown yet to be discovered. Space is not only a vast sheet of empty distance filled with radiation and freezing emptiness. It is like Jello. (Laugh)

There are energies that go faster than the speed of light, they are just not measurable by human instruments because unlike the energies that you know of, they are not the building blocks of matter. Do you know what the mind is made of? Do you know how fast the mind can travel? Hint: Mind does not equal brain. The theory that mind is in the brain is less than 100 years old and already discarded.

Sometimes the shortest distance and the path of least resistance is not a straight line, especially in Space Travel. The shortest distance is the parabolic curve. Does that tell you anything? Think? Hint: Proves that light is not the fastest speed and proves the existence of other dimensions.

It is funny when people who 'worship' science as the only truth scoff at 20th century science when they hear it. IT is funny when they use arguements learned from atheist websites and online atheist communities to argue against anything they aren't willing to accept. Anything that is left unanswered they refuse for lack of evidence. It is funny when they laugh at the notion of "other dimensions" as if many cutting edge (as far as humans go) scientists accept and take multiple dimensions for granted. In fact, the multiple dimension universe is accepted by the elite scientist humans as the only model of the universe that makes any sense LOGICALLY.

And it is funny watching people argue for logic on a dreaming website as if dreams are logical, as if life is logical, as if the universe is logical. I make a prediction that I know will be true for ever and ever: No matter what, no matter how long humans are around in this universe, nobody, no matter if they are advanced alien intelligences, nobody ever will make logical sense of this universe.

Because:

"A scientist will aquire the knowledge of the whole universe before he will discover himself."

It is funny watching humans argue over who has the knowledge to decide what is real in this universe and what isn't.

This thread makes me want to play Spore

On a serious note, I'm currently reading a book by Dean Koontz called "The Taking". It's an awsome story. So far in it, it seems as if aliens are invading and the people form groups and one has a logical theory of what's going on after finding a fungus-type thing that seems as much animal as plant. The aliens seem to be sucking up the oceans then processing it in ships above the atmosphere and seeding it with vegetation found on their own planet.

If I wasn't a Christian, it seems very logical that an alien species would be capable of producing life on other planets if their technology is vastly superior.
I too watched a show about the tribe that made gods out of the soldiers.
I once believed in aliens and life on other planets but my beliefs changed, yet I'm still fascinated by theories and beliefs about them.

Originally Posted by Dreamhope11

Creationist say that God or a "God" used intelligent design to create us right?

Wrong, actually. Intelligent design is in regards to the physics of the universe, not to the existence of humans.

In the end, the hypothesis doesn't really answer any quesitons at all. If for some strange reason aliens were involved in creating man then you're still stuck with trying to figure out who created the aliens.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

If for some strange reason aliens were involved in creating man then you're still stuck with trying to figure out who created the aliens.

God is alien to most people. That is saying a lot!

lol, wow there has been quite the trend of bringing up old threads.

So, I think it would be awesome if aliens had ever made contact with us. But I cant say they have until I see that ship landing on my car (actually, that would suck). Until then evolution FTW!