Do you believe in "aliens"

[Death45]

well there could be more than single-celled organisms in the universe. and if "aliens" ever visited earth i highly doubt that they will take out laser guns and start rampaging. they most likely would be creatures like us except with different colored skin or different skin (scales, leather, metal[ doubt that it'll be metal]). and they will be different than us meaning they could probably survive in temperatures that are either to hot or too cold to support human life so i disagree that the planet would have to be the exact distance as earth is from the sun in order to support intelligent life. i feel like i'm forgetting something, if any1 sees what then please point that out.

[Korskin]

Guys, I appreciate some of this debate is someway relevant to aliens (abiogenesis etc.), but can we please leave the validity of evolution out of it?

 

I'd say that it's relevant to the alien debate:

 

I like to tell the story of Francis Crick, who of course is the Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the double-helical shape of DNA. Crick has written several times that problems with an undirected origin of life on earth are so great that we should consider the idea that space aliens sent a rocket ship to the earth to seed it with spores to begin life.

[warri0r45]

Guys, I appreciate some of this debate is someway relevant to aliens (abiogenesis etc.), but can we please leave the validity of evolution out of it?

 

I'd say that it's relevant to the alien debate:

 

I like to tell the story of Francis Crick, who of course is the Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the double-helical shape of DNA. Crick has written several times that problems with an undirected origin of life on earth are so great that we should consider the idea that space aliens sent a rocket ship to the earth to seed it with spores to begin life.

 

 

 

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution deals with change in life over time.

[Korskin]

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution deals with change in life over time.

 

So are you saying that evolution is irrelevant in an abiogenesis debate? Sure, abiogenesis is not the same thing as evolution but they kind of go hand in hand. I don't see why we need or even should exclude evolution from the debate.

[warri0r45]

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution deals with change in life over time.

 

So are you saying that evolution is irrelevant in an abiogenesis debate? Sure, abiogenesis is not the same thing as evolution but they kind of go hand in hand. I don't see why we need or even should exclude evolution from the debate.

 

 

 

If you want to debate it, suggest something to debate. As I said, abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. You can have evolution without even considering abiogenesis and we have evidence of that. You can have a group of organisms and suggest that the evidence tells us that they share some sort of common ancestry relationship. The theory of evolution has merely incorporated all the evidence and concluded all life shares common ancestry.

 

 

 

And yes, I'm suggesting evolution is irrelevant in an abiogenesis debate because abiogenesis dosen't depend on evolution to be true, nor does evolution depend on abiogenesis; it depends on there being life and it's ability to change over time. Our conclusions of the extent of evolution's occurance in the past are merely a logical outworking of these two premises.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

The Bible isn't scientific literature so it's difficult to compare creation stories and scientific stories. However, I still think that there are some things in the book genesis that are difficult to fit in with the theory of evolution. Evolution offers no clear distinction between animals and humans. The Bible says that we're the image of God, put on earth to rule all other species and animals are basically our food. The idea that all animals are equal is to me absurd but if we're just another animal it actually seems to make sense.

 

The library does not make distinctions between a good book and a bad book, but you would make the distinction of borrowing the good book. Does that mean you contradict the library?

[Evil_Sabre]

of course there is, im willing to bet there a hundreds of thousands of civilaztions scattered across our infinitly expanding universe, what possible logic could go against odds this big

[i_trollz_u]

of course there is, im willing to bet there a hundreds of thousands of civilaztions scattered across our infinitly expanding universe, what possible logic could go against odds this big

 

 

 

You know, some scientists are predicting that the universe will start to shrink after it's done expanding. A few actually say it's already starting to shrink.

[Screams]

aleins no

 

Another lifeform from another galaxy

 

I always beleived that finger monkeys were aleins :oops:

[Rebdragon]

of course there is, im willing to bet there a hundreds of thousands of civilaztions scattered across our infinitly expanding universe, what possible logic could go against odds this big

 

 

 

You know, some scientists are predicting that the universe will start to shrink after it's done expanding. A few actually say it's already starting to shrink.

 

Emphasis on "few". Iz still gettin' bigga.

[Korskin]

If you want to debate it, suggest something to debate. As I said, abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. You can have evolution without even considering abiogenesis and we have evidence of that. You can have a group of organisms and suggest that the evidence tells us that they share some sort of common ancestry relationship. The theory of evolution has merely incorporated all the evidence and concluded all life shares common ancestry.

 

 

 

And yes, I'm suggesting evolution is irrelevant in an abiogenesis debate because abiogenesis dosen't depend on evolution to be true, nor does evolution depend on abiogenesis; it depends on there being life and it's ability to change over time. Our conclusions of the extent of evolution's occurance in the past are merely a logical outworking of these two premises.

 

All I'm saying is that it's not necessary to separate abiogenesis and evolution so that we can't talk about evolution (which is the next step after abiogenesis) on this thread.

 

 

 

The problem with abiogenesis is that it's highly improbable and we don't really know much about it. Abiogenesis and alien life almost falls under the category of faith, with the exception that it's natural theories and not supernatural. To me abiogenesis seems like an assumption based on the theory of evolution and that life obviously exists today. I also find it strange that a guy like Francis Crick would consider directed panspermia as a better alternative than abiogenesis.

 

 

 

If there's anything that doesn't belong on this thread it's this question:

 

The library does not make distinctions between a good book and a bad book, but you would make the distinction of borrowing the good book. Does that mean you contradict the library?

[I_Dragonov_I]

I predict everyone will believe in aliens in 2012 :wink:

 

 

 

Me too lol

[Alex_Ewan_1]

Aliens do not exist. There is some device which is meant to detect certain waves.

 

In all the years they have never detected anything using the device, thus proving aliense do not exist, at least we don't think so..

[warri0r45]

If you want to debate it, suggest something to debate. As I said, abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. You can have evolution without even considering abiogenesis and we have evidence of that. You can have a group of organisms and suggest that the evidence tells us that they share some sort of common ancestry relationship. The theory of evolution has merely incorporated all the evidence and concluded all life shares common ancestry.

 

 

 

And yes, I'm suggesting evolution is irrelevant in an abiogenesis debate because abiogenesis dosen't depend on evolution to be true, nor does evolution depend on abiogenesis; it depends on there being life and it's ability to change over time. Our conclusions of the extent of evolution's occurance in the past are merely a logical outworking of these two premises.

 

(1) All I'm saying is that it's not necessary to separate abiogenesis and evolution so that we can't talk about evolution (which is the next step after abiogenesis) on this thread.

 

 

 

The problem with abiogenesis is that it's highly improbable and we don't really know much about it. Abiogenesis and alien life almost falls under the category of faith, with the exception that it's natural theories and not supernatural. To me abiogenesis seems like an assumption based on the theory of evolution and that life obviously exists today. I also find it strange that a guy like Francis Crick would consider directed panspermia as a better alternative than abiogenesis.

 

 

 

If there's anything that doesn't belong on this thread it's this question:

 

The library does not make distinctions between a good book and a bad book, but you would make the distinction of borrowing the good book. Does that mean you contradict the library?

 

 

 

(1) You mean so you can attack an obviously hypothetically based and less robust abiogenesis to make you feel like you've obliterated evolution? I see this kind of psychology all the time. The telling part of your post is the fact that you said nothing about evolution, when I invited you to suggest a point to debate and when you gestured not to separate the two thus removing evolution from the debate. So on that point I'm still waiting.

 

 

 

Yes, abiogenesis is quite obviously hypothetical and highly improbable (in my ignorant opinion) but improbabale is not impossible and science is not based on the authority of names, however great they are, like Crick, or even Darwin. I hear people all the time quoting Darwin as if his Origin of Species is still highly relevant and the judge's mallet when it comes to evolution as if to say science dosen't go anywhere in 150 years and as if Darwin has some sort of ownership over an entire field of science. The same goes for Crick. If you want to woo me with names, make them names like science or nature.

 

 

 

As for the language like 'assumption' and 'faith', it's called a (somewhat) untested hypothesis and I treat it as such. Not quite the same zing but you get that.

[Lenin64]

(I only read up to page 2 before posting this, so hoefully it has not been said). Our universe is about 13billion years old. A gew million years in, stars and galaxies started forming. Seeing as a star has to go through its entire life cycle at least once before it has the necessary heavy elements to create planets, and the average sized main sequence star takes about 10 billioj years at least to go trhough it's life cycle, and eveolutionary rates being as slow as they are, I think it's safe to say that we are as advanced as is possible in the universe. And even if we weren;t the nearest star is about 4 light years away, and it is part of a triple star system so it can;t have planets, and a good deal of other nearby stars can;t have planets (size and heat factors), then the nearest life-forms might be about 10 ly away. that means that, travelling at the speed of light (which is impossible), it would take the nearest life-forms about 10 years to get here. If the nearest life is at the other edge of the galaxy, or in a different galaxy, and galaxies have millions of light years between them and in diameter, at an impossible speed it would take them hundreds of millions of years to get here. the universe definetely wasn;t around long enough for these life forms to evolve to spacecraft and reach us. Therefore, aliens could not have possibly visited earth. However, the universe contains over 500 billion galaxies, so it is almost 0% chance of us being completely alone.

[Calvin200669]

Yes I do believe in aliens. There is a lot of planets in the universe that hasn't been discovered yet. Maybe one of those planets have aliens living on them.

[Korskin]

(1) You mean so you can attack an obviously hypothetically based and less robust abiogenesis to make you feel like you've obliterated evolution? I see this kind of psychology all the time. The telling part of your post is the fact that you said nothing about evolution, when I invited you to suggest a point to debate and when you gestured not to separate the two thus removing evolution from the debate. So on that point I'm still waiting.

 

I think that science should try to deliver a more extensive model of the world. Instead it seems as if you want to separate theories so that they become independent of each other. Theories should be like pieces of a puzzle so that they fit in with the whole picture. It's like Newton versus Einstein. Newton's physics is correct if we're under normal scenarios. But it's not correct if we look at the big picture and different scenarios.

 

Yes, abiogenesis is quite obviously hypothetical and highly improbable (in my ignorant opinion) but improbabale is not impossible and science is not based on the authority of names, however great they are, like Crick, or even Darwin. I hear people all the time quoting Darwin as if his Origin of Species is still highly relevant and the judge's mallet when it comes to evolution as if to say science dosen't go anywhere in 150 years and as if Darwin has some sort of ownership over an entire field of science. The same goes for Crick. If you want to woo me with names, make them names like science or nature.

 

 

 

As for the language like 'assumption' and 'faith', it's called a (somewhat) untested hypothesis and I treat it as such. Not quite the same zing but you get that.

 

If there is no scientific consensus on how life began, then how do we decide which theories are the better ones? I'd say that the authority of certain highly acclaimed scientists must be significant when there is no general consensus.

[venomai]

I believe that there are many life-bearing planets in our universe. However, unless one of our neighbouring galaxies happens to hold a life-bearing planet (which is unlikely), we will probably never see or interact with extraterrestrials for many years to come.

 

 

 

Here's a good read about the subject.

 

http://www.krysstal.com/extrlife.html

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

If there's anything that doesn't belong on this thread it's this question:

 

The library does not make distinctions between a good book and a bad book, but you would make the distinction of borrowing the good book. Does that mean you contradict the library?

 

That question was asked in response to a paragraph you wrote in this thread. Please refer back to that post to see the paragraph that I quoted above my question: http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=533 ... t=#5337511

 

 

 

 

I think that science should try to deliver a more extensive model of the world. Instead it seems as if you want to separate theories so that they become independent of each other. Theories should be like pieces of a puzzle so that they fit in with the whole picture. It's like Newton versus Einstein. Newton's physics is correct if we're under normal scenarios. But it's not correct if we look at the big picture and different scenarios.

 

Abiogenesis and Evolution are not like Newton and Einstein. Newton and Einstein are parallel. Abiogenesis happens before Evolution.

[warri0r45]

(1) You mean so you can attack an obviously hypothetically based and less robust abiogenesis to make you feel like you've obliterated evolution? I see this kind of psychology all the time. The telling part of your post is the fact that you said nothing about evolution, when I invited you to suggest a point to debate and when you gestured not to separate the two thus removing evolution from the debate. So on that point I'm still waiting.

 

(1) I think that science should try to deliver a more extensive model of the world. (2) Instead it seems as if you want to separate theories so that they become independent of each other. (3) Theories should be like pieces of a puzzle so that they fit in with the whole picture. (4) It's like Newton versus Einstein. Newton's physics is correct if we're under normal scenarios. But it's not correct if we look at the big picture and different scenarios.

 

Yes, abiogenesis is quite obviously hypothetical and highly improbable (in my ignorant opinion) but improbabale is not impossible and science is not based on the authority of names, however great they are, like Crick, or even Darwin. I hear people all the time quoting Darwin as if his Origin of Species is still highly relevant and the judge's mallet when it comes to evolution as if to say science dosen't go anywhere in 150 years and as if Darwin has some sort of ownership over an entire field of science. The same goes for Crick. If you want to woo me with names, make them names like science or nature.

 

 

 

As for the language like 'assumption' and 'faith', it's called a (somewhat) untested hypothesis and I treat it as such. Not quite the same zing but you get that.

 

(5) If there is no scientific consensus on how life began, then how do we decide which theories are the better ones? I'd say that the authority of certain highly acclaimed scientists must be significant when there is no general consensus.

 

 

 

(1) That's the aim of the game.

 

 

 

(2) I want to seperate these theories? They are seperate. They came about independantly of each other and deal with different phenomena. You should read the way Darwin thought it up. He didn't say "well then, how did the matter turn into life and then how did it get to the way it is today?", he observed finches on the Galapagos and saw thier beaks were suited to the food they ate and postulated that they shared common ancestry. As I've already said, The theory of evolution deals with there being life and it's change over time and our conclusions of it's extent are a logical outworking of these two premises. The truth of evolution isn't reliant on abiogenesis because we've evidenced how far back life went and it's nature at each time period. It's like telling someone studying aerodynamics to tell you where air came from. You know it's there, and you know what makes it tick.

 

 

 

(3) And abiogenesis does. It's just lacking in experimental meat. The fact that evolution is seperate to abiogenesis dosen't stop us lining the two up, which seems to be what you want, for whatever reason. So what exactly is the problem here?

 

 

 

(4) It looks like we've got an insinuation... make the next step... how and under what circumstances does abiogenesis fail.

 

 

 

(5) I disagree. You should always go with literature, not scientific opinion and a fallacious appeal to authority. Here's some ideas lending support to abiogenesis:

 

 

 

TalkOrigins - [1]

 

 

 

Self Replication - [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

 

 

 

Symbiosis in self replicating systems - [7]

 

 

 

Self Polymerization - [8] [9] [10]

 

 

 

Now, for Crick's paper: [11]

 

 

 

Sorry, I'm going with option A for the time being. Crick's opinion, based on his prose in this abstract, has just gone down for me. An 'Intelligent Design' solution with no evidence is not a solution. It's untested, unevidenced and spits all over parsimony.

 

 

 

All this and still, no mention of evolution.

[warri0r45]

edit

[Korskin]

(2) I want to seperate these theories? They are seperate. They came about independantly of each other and deal with different phenomena. You should read the way Darwin thought it up. He didn't say "well then, how did the matter turn into life and then how did it get to the way it is today?", he observed finches on the Galapagos and saw thier beaks were suited to the food they ate and postulated that they shared common ancestry. As I've already said, The theory of evolution deals with there being life and it's change over time and our conclusions of it's extent are a logical outworking of these two premises. The truth of evolution isn't reliant on abiogenesis because we've evidenced how far back life went and it's nature at each time period. It's like telling someone studying aerodynamics to tell you where air came from. You know it's there, and you know what makes it tick.

 

Evolution and abiogenesis are separate theories, I'm not denying that. I also don't think that you undermine evolution just by saying that abiogenesis is improbable. The issue is whether you should always talk about theories as if they were isolated from the rest of science.

 

(3) And abiogenesis does. It's just lacking in experimental meat. The fact that evolution is seperate to abiogenesis dosen't stop us lining the two up, which seems to be what you want, for whatever reason. So what exactly is the problem here?

 

If you don't mind lining them up, then I'm not sure what we're debating anymore. I just don't see the point to prohibit all talk about evolution just because it's an alien thread.

 

 

 

(4) It looks like we've got an insinuation... make the next step... how and under what circumstances does abiogenesis fail.

 

That wasn't really my point. I'm saying that sometimes we discover that theories aren't true just because we look at the big picture.

 

(5) I disagree. You should always go with literature, not scientific opinion and a fallacious appeal to authority.

 

 

 

Sorry, I'm going with option A for the time being. Crick's opinion, based on his prose in this abstract, has just gone down for me. An 'Intelligent Design' solution with no evidence is not a solution. It's untested, unevidenced and spits all over parsimony.

 

I'd say that it's important to consider it as long as it's still rather uncertain how life began.

 

 

 

All this and still, no mention of evolution.

 

I never said that I wanted to say something about evolution, I just didn't want to be denied the possibility. It was PaperClipsYaaaar who first mentioned evolution on this thread.

 

 

 

That question was asked in response to a paragraph you wrote in this thread.

 

I know what you were addressing, I just didn't think it made too much sense.

 

If all books had common decent and were just more or less evolved, I would say that there is a contradiction when I claim that a specific book is supposed to rule all other books.

 

Abiogenesis and Evolution are not like Newton and Einstein. Newton and Einstein are parallel. Abiogenesis happens before Evolution.

 

Yes, that's true but that's not what I was saying. The point was that we should make sure that theories are compatible with each other. Evolution tells us how life evolved and abiogenesis tells us how life began. They complete each other. If there is an intelligence behind the origin of life, perhaps we need to reconsider the theory of evolution as well.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

I know what you were addressing, I just didn't think it made too much sense.

 

If all books had common decent and were just more or less evolved, I would say that there is a contradiction when I claim that a specific book is supposed to rule all other books.

 

Why is that a contradiction? Clearly, the most evolved and therefore best species is going to dominate all the other species.

 

 

 

 

Abiogenesis and Evolution are not like Newton and Einstein. Newton and Einstein are parallel. Abiogenesis happens before Evolution.

 

Yes, that's true but that's not what I was saying. The point was that we should make sure that theories are compatible with each other. Evolution tells us how life evolved and abiogenesis tells us how life began. They complete each other. If there is an intelligence behind the origin of life, perhaps we need to reconsider the theory of evolution as well.

 

Abiogenesis and Evolution occur on the same timeline, but their validity is not linked.

 

 

 

The Big Bang and the expansion of the universe occur on the same timeline, but if the Big Bang is proven false, that does not mean the expansion of the universe is also false.

 

 

 

I agree that intelligence behind the origin of life would also mean intelligence behind evolution. This is called theistic evolution.

[warri0r45]

(2) I want to seperate these theories? They are seperate. They came about independantly of each other and deal with different phenomena. You should read the way Darwin thought it up. He didn't say "well then, how did the matter turn into life and then how did it get to the way it is today?", he observed finches on the Galapagos and saw thier beaks were suited to the food they ate and postulated that they shared common ancestry. As I've already said, The theory of evolution deals with there being life and it's change over time and our conclusions of it's extent are a logical outworking of these two premises. The truth of evolution isn't reliant on abiogenesis because we've evidenced how far back life went and it's nature at each time period. It's like telling someone studying aerodynamics to tell you where air came from. You know it's there, and you know what makes it tick.

 

Evolution and abiogenesis are separate theories, I'm not denying that. I also don't think that you undermine evolution just by saying that abiogenesis is improbable. (A) The issue is whether you should always talk about theories as if they were isolated from the rest of science.

 

(3) And abiogenesis does. It's just lacking in experimental meat. The fact that evolution is seperate to abiogenesis dosen't stop us lining the two up, which seems to be what you want, for whatever reason. So what exactly is the problem here?

 

(B) If you don't mind lining them up, then I'm not sure what we're debating anymore. I just don't see the point to prohibit all talk about evolution just because it's an alien thread.

 

 

 

(4) It looks like we've got an insinuation... make the next step... how and under what circumstances does abiogenesis fail.

 

© That wasn't really my point. I'm saying that sometimes we discover that theories aren't true just because we look at the big picture.

 

(5) I disagree. You should always go with literature, not scientific opinion and a fallacious appeal to authority.

 

 

 

Sorry, I'm going with option A for the time being. Crick's opinion, based on his prose in this abstract, has just gone down for me. An 'Intelligent Design' solution with no evidence is not a solution. It's untested, unevidenced and spits all over parsimony.

 

(D) I'd say that it's important to consider it as long as it's still rather uncertain how life began.

 

 

 

All this and still, no mention of evolution.

 

(E) I never said that I wanted to say something about evolution, I just didn't want to be denied the possibility. It was PaperClipsYaaaar who first mentioned evolution on this thread.

 

 

 

That question was asked in response to a paragraph you wrote in this thread.

 

I know what you were addressing, I just didn't think it made too much sense.

 

If all books had common decent and were just more or less evolved, I would say that there is a contradiction when I claim that a specific book is supposed to rule all other books.

 

Abiogenesis and Evolution are not like Newton and Einstein. Newton and Einstein are parallel. Abiogenesis happens before Evolution.

 

Yes, that's true but that's not what I was saying. The point was that we should make sure that theories are compatible with each other. Evolution tells us how life evolved and abiogenesis tells us how life began. They complete each other. (F) If there is an intelligence behind the origin of life, perhaps we need to reconsider the theory of evolution as well.

 

 

 

(A) I think you should remain topical at all times. If that means talking about both, so be it. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mind.

 

 

 

(B) When did I prohibit talking about evolution? I've suggested time and again an invitation for something to debate yet we're still chatting about essentially nothing.

 

 

 

© What is this point relevant to?

 

 

 

(D) Right, so even after presenting mechanisms for self replication, symbiotic relationships and self polymerization of inanimate matter and the fact the Crick himself stated the ideas of non-intelligent panspermia weren't strong thus there is a need to invoke a non-evidenced intelligence you see it as fair to consider his opinion on par with what I cited? Science is not a democracy - it goes with the weight of evidence.

 

 

 

Claiming uncertainty doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make it any better either. There are always degrees of uncertainty in science yet we still go with the weight of evidence. The thing about science is that it can change, so any theory, no matter how weak it is seen to be at the time, can be favored based on the weight of evidence only to be overtaken by another theory in the future if necessary.

 

 

 

Sorry, on this point I just thoroughly disagree with you.

 

 

 

(E) See (B). I can't help but comment why on earth this is an issue for you if you have nothing to say about what it is you don't want to be 'restricted' from saying. Firstly, no one's going to stop you. Secondly, you've got nothing to say, so why are you talking about this? Sorry I just don't get it. If you've got something to say about it, make a topic, PM me if you want, anything. It's your perogative. You do realise most of what we're talking about on this point is meaningless jibber, don't you? If you had something in mind that's topical now would be the time to save this conversation.

 

 

 

(F) How would an intelligence change evolution?

[Death45]

It is highly likely that there are life supporting planets somewhere in the universe so "aliens" do exist. But I doubt that they go around in flying milk saucers destroying planets. And I also doubt that humans have seen extraterrestrials over buildings in fields and such. They are out there and don't forget they don't consider themselves aliens, to them we are the aliens. If they are in this galaxy then they would have to build a spaceship that goes close to the speed of light in order to reach us. So if you see a UFO in your backyard then it is likely that you are seeing a new plane that the government is testing out. To all of you that say that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, remember the size of the universe it would be illogical to just say that we are the only life in the universe besides germs. But it would be absurd to assume that there are aliens in UFOs are probing any humans who happen to see them.