What's more believable; Aliens or God?

[darkendless]

How are you Darkendless, haven't seen you around lately, i hope all is good for you.

if scripture doesn't prove anything and doesn't count as evidence, what would count as evidence according to you? if i provide that evidence for you will you then accept it?

Good Eselam long time no speak.

I would suggest something tangible and yet I know there is no such thing.

 

[mr black]

can i see some of that information/evidence?

Surely that would be up to you to attempt to provide, since it's your contention?

 

[PolyHedral]

...they could make CLOAKING tech that would make them look like one of us, so they COULD walk among us.

This is a completely ludicrous idea! Honestly, it's completely inconceivable that you could do that technologically. In fact, it's so ludicrous that I think I need an image macro to stress the point! Here:

...Hang on... :sarcastic

 

[The Wizard]

This is a completely ludicrous idea! Honestly, it's completely inconceivable that you could do that technologically. In fact, it's so ludicrous that I think I need an image macro to stress the point! Here:

...Hang on... :sarcastic

How ironic.. A person using an alien avatar that worships a deity and uses cloaking technology to represent itself to others saying that a cloaking idea is ridiculous... There is no higher irony possible...

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Aliens by a very very long stretch and infinitely long stretch because they need not have any of the supernatual trappings as God. If fact they would be just as natural as us.

 

[PolyHedral]

How ironic.. A person using an alien avatar that worships a deity to represent itself to others saying that a cloaking idea is ridiculous...

Sorry for making the sarcasm too subtle.

 

[cablescavenger]

Basically what the title says. I'll add my opinion then you guys can discuss.

I consider Aliens more believable for a couple of reasons.

1) Our own existence. We exist, so we are proof that life is possible. What is to say that earth is the only place where life has started?

2) Aliens exist inside our own universe. We know our universe exists. We are in it. We are part of it. If aliens exist, then they would be part of it. God however, would not be. In order for god to be real, there must be some place outside of our universe. Sure, we have no reason to believe there isn't. But then again, there is no reason to believe there is. In order to believe in god, you must assume that there is somewhere else without reason to believe there is. But if you believe in aliens, you have to believe they are in our universe, which we know exists.


P.S. For Esalem; the statement that "aliens exists in our universe" is an example of Forer effect. If aliens were real, they wouldn't have to be in our universe. They could exists in a different dimension entirely. But for the sake of this discussion, I was referring to aliens inside our reality without specifically saying so.

This is the Fermi paradox, where statistically it is likely but evidentially it is lacking.

Scientists are looking for life or evidence of past life in our own solar system, which contains one star and a handful of planets, beyond that we have the galaxy with 200-500 billiion stars each with the potential of harbouring their own solar system, and beyond that the universe which contains 125-500 billion galaxies.

So life would have to be really very unique for it not to occur elsewhere, and we were assumed to have perfect conditions for life, but increasingly we find life in the most inhospitable environments, so it might not be as rare as we have always believed it to be.

There is still a good chance that simple life forms may be present in our own solar system, before looking elsewhere.

It is my view that although statistically you might say that intelligent life is difficult to come by, but from what we have seen through evolution is that life gets more complex over time, not less complex, so finding intelligent life may not be as difficult as we perceive either. I am not advocating that intelligent life does exist, since it would require life to have been born into a hostile environment and then to have survived it for some considerable time without going extinct. Something which man has only just managed to achieve, so surviving the environment might be the barrier to success.

 

[Daviso452]

sorry Daviso, i don't like to play the game of 'what if'. if you have evidence about aliens then i would like to see it and disprove their existence otherwise if you don't have such evidence which you say you don't believe in aliens then i don't see the point of this discussion. there is no point in discussing something if one thing is made up and you don't believe in it.

you are fairly new to the Forum so you don't know me very well but i don't like to debate for the sake of debating or just oppose people for the sake of opposing them. your beliefs or lack thereof don't have anything to do with me, however if at any time you are sincerely after knowing a few things about religions and all that then i'd be happy to hear your questions and thoughts.

I am not debating for the sake of debating. You are victim to the Forer effect, thinking god is the only logical explanation. I am saying that is completely false. Aliens are just as, if not more, likely to have done all the things you claim god has done.

 

[Iti oj]

Aliens. Do to probabilt etc. If you mean alien intervention or god I would still say aliens.… lol history channel can be conving lol

 

[outhouse]

Aliens. Do to probabilt etc. If you mean alien intervention or god I would still say aliens.… lol history channel can be conving lol

history channel is a joke for aliens


I can bust almost everything those whack jobs state verbatim

Of course ive been to many of those place they talk about. Its easy to catch them on their lies

 

[outhouse]

Before I get into the scientific validity of a book published by an academic press like Springer, I'll just start by looking at peer-reviewed journal articles on the drake equation and the rare earth equation. In 2004, Cirkvic published a paper in the journal Astrobiology on the drake equation. The main point of the article is to point out particular flaws it has. However, Cirkvic also notes that other researchers have also found problems with this equation and have adapted/altered it. Specifically, Cirkvic cites the following works: "other criticisms of the Drake equation, from different points of view, can be found in Walters et al. (1980), Wilson (1984), Ward and Brownlee (2000), and Walker and Cirkovic (2003, preprint)." You'll notice that Ward and Brownlee (2000) are included. The work referred to is Rare Earth and Cirkvic is noting their work on the equation (which they refer to as the "rare earth equation") along side other works of scientific scholarship in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

Of course, these are not the only published criticisms of the drake equation. In 2010, Gleiser published a paper in the International Journal of Modern Physics and along side other alterations of the Drake equation he argued were necessary, he too cites the "rare earth equation" alteration work done by Ward and Brownlee. He also notes that "it is perfectly plausible that a universe satisfying all of these conditions [which would allow "prebiotic" life rather than "complex, multicellular life"] will be devoid of any form of complex life"

Finally, another paper from the International Journal of Astrobiology was published in 2009, written by Forgan. Forgan also states that the Drake equation "suffers from some key weaknesses" including returning oposite results. Forgan also writes, after mentioning the Fermi Paradox, that "The power of this question, along with the enormous chain of events required for intelligent observers to exist on Earth to pose it, has lead many to the conclusion that the conditions for life to flourish are rare, possibily unique to Earth." Forgan cites Ward and Brownlee here too, because, like so many other scholars who publish in peer-reviewed journals, Forgan knows that one doesn't simply write off a book because it is a book, as a whole lot of scholarship comes from academic presses like Springer.

Rare Earth, the book in which the rare earth equation appeared, was written by two scientists, one an expert in astrobiology and the other a geologist and paleontologist and published by Springer-Verlag. Now, If you don't read a lot of journals, monographs, or other technical books designed for specialists in the areas of mathematics and science, you may not be familiar with the company. They are, however, one of the largest and most respected publishers of scientific and mathematical journals, books, edited volumes, etc.



You haven't read the work, nor the other work criticising or altering the drake equation. But you have the audicity to write . I just gave you three different papers from peer-reviewed journals which either cite Ward and Brownlee's work on the rare earth equation or the book itself.

So you tell me: If a peer-reviewed journal considers a paper which builds on or validates the work Ward and Brownlee did, including their "rare earth equation," what basis do you have for your statement?


I noted one book which I specifically stated went beyond the science. So nice try.



Let's look at this quote from the journal article again: "The power of this question, along with the enormous chain of events required for intelligent observers to exist on Earth to pose it, has lead many to the conclusion that the conditions for life to flourish are rare, possibily unique to Earth."

Does it say "a few conclude" or "many?"





And then I followed that up by citing three different peer-reviewed articles which criticize it as well. That is in addition to the other scholarship I already cited. But you continue to rely on ad hominem attacks and rhetoric.



I don't ignore it at all. I specifically noted that this has now become a new field- astrobiology. Nor did I ever say that most scientists agree with scientiests like Ward and Brownlee. I said that there were plenty of scientists who DO think that something like the rare earth hypothesis or anthropic principle or any name you want to call the idea that extraterrestrial life, or complex extraterrestrial life, is incredibly improbable.



Intestingly enough, an article in Science titled "Deities for Atheists" states:

"My analysis of SETI pioneers found that most were once religious but became either atheists or agnostics as adults. Radio astronomer Frank Drake—creator of the canonical “Drake Equation” for estimating the number of ETIs inhabiting the galaxy—was raised Baptist and later reflected: “A strong influence on me, and I think on a lot of SETI people, was the extensive exposure to fundamentalist religion”. Drake has suggested that “immortality may be quite common among extraterrestrials”. Carl Sagan—who did more than anyone to conventionalize SETI—was raised Jewish and became agnostic. He wrote of SETI’s importance, “It touches deeply into myth, folklore, religion, mythology; and every human culture in some way or another has wondered about that type of question”. ETIs are secular gods. Deities for atheists."​

Also, what "brilliant minds" are you comparing to the supporters of the view I have described? You don't know who supports it. You haven't read any of the scholarship. You've made error after error after error, everything from thinking that an astrophysicist isn't qualified to talk about astrobiology to your remark about the rare earth equation being so unscientific despite being published by and academic press and cited in academic journals.​

You keep posting pseudoscience and acting like it has validity

the rare earth equation is a laughable joke and all of mainstream science laughs at it.


Many think its idiotic to think we are alone. I agree.

 

[outhouse]

lets look at your rare earth joke

Rare Earth hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rare earth hypothesis is the contrary of the widely accepted principle of mediocrity (also called the Copernican principle), advocated by Carl Sagan and Frank Drake, among others


here above, we have my view widely accepted.


Criticism


Criticisms of the Rare Earth Hypothesis take various forms.


Exoplanets are common

Over 700 exoplanets are known as of late 2011 and more are continually discovered.[37] Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Science estimates there may be 100 billion terrestrial planets in our Milky Way Galaxy alone.[38] Boss believes many could have simple lifeforms and there could be thousands of civilizations in our galaxy. He uses an estimate that each sun-like star has on average one Earth-like planet.
The claimed discovery of Gliese 581 g, a Goldilocks planet only 20 light-years from Earth, has been used as an argument against the Rare Earth hypothesis. With such proximity to Earth, exoplanetologists estimated that the likelihood of finding an Earth-like planet in any given system in our galaxy is 10-20%.[39] However, subsequent research has put the existence of Gliese 581 g into question.[40]
The discovery of Kepler-22b, a super-Earth orbiting in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star, has now been confirmed.[41]
[edit]

Evolutionary biology

<B>Central to the Rare Earth hypothesis is the following claim about evolutionary biology: while microbes of some sort could well be common in the universe, complex life is unlikely to be. Yet to date, the only evolutionary biologist to speak to the hypothesis at any length is Simon Conway Morris (2003). The hypothesis concludes, more or less, that complex life is rare because it can evolve only on the surface of an Earth-like planet or on a suitable satellite of a planet. Some biologists, such as Jack Cohen, believe this assumption too restrictive and unimaginative; they see it as a form of circular reasoning (see Alternative biochemistry, a speculative biochemistry of alien life forms). Earth-like planets may indeed be very rare, but non carbon-based complex life could possibly emerge in other environments.[42] According to David Darling, the Rare Earth hypothesis is neither hypothesis nor prediction, but merely a description of how life arose on Earth.[43] In his view Ward and Brownlee have done nothing more than select the factors that best suit their case.

What matters is not whether there's anything unusual about the Earth; there's going to be something idiosyncratic about every planet in space. What matters is whether any of Earth's circumstances are not only unusual but also essential for complex life. So far we've seen nothing to suggest there is.[44]
​

</B>
[edit]

Impacts

There are also studies showing that Jupiter has caused more impacts on Earth than it has prevented, invalidating the Rare Earth argument of Jupiter-like planets as necessary protectors.[45] The role of Jupiter, however, has since been revised by the Nice model.
[edit]


Oxygen

In the hypersaline anoxic L'Atalante basin at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea, multicellular animals have been discovered that use hydrogen instead of oxygen. They have no mitochondria as we know it, but use hydrogenosomes instead. They live their entire lives and reproduce without oxygen, invalidating the Rare Earth claim that all multicellular animal life requires oxygen.[46][47]

 

[connermt]

Basically what the title says. I'll add my opinion then you guys can discuss.

I consider Aliens more believable for a couple of reasons.

1) Our own existence. We exist, so we are proof that life is possible. What is to say that earth is the only place where life has started?

2) Aliens exist inside our own universe. We know our universe exists. We are in it. We are part of it. If aliens exist, then they would be part of it. God however, would not be. In order for god to be real, there must be some place outside of our universe. Sure, we have no reason to believe there isn't. But then again, there is no reason to believe there is. In order to believe in god, you must assume that there is somewhere else without reason to believe there is. But if you believe in aliens, you have to believe they are in our universe, which we know exists.


P.S. For Esalem; the statement that "aliens exists in our universe" is an example of Forer effect. If aliens were real, they wouldn't have to be in our universe. They could exists in a different dimension entirely. But for the sake of this discussion, I was referring to aliens inside our reality without specifically saying so.

Everyone at the time the bile was written (and up to a 100 or so years ago) wouldn't know the difference between a EBE or a "god". It's likely that EBEs were seen as gods.
I find it a lot more likely that, in today's society, EBEs exists more so than any supernatural god deity.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Basically what the title says. I'll add my opinion then you guys can discuss.

It would interesting to find out what conclusion aliens have come to when discussing this subject.

 

[Iti oj]

history channel is a joke for aliens


I can bust almost everything those whack jobs state verbatim

Of course ive been to many of those place they talk about. Its easy to catch them on their lies

i said found convincing not accepted. I would love to here some of the refutes.

 

[outhouse]

i said found convincing not accepted. I would love to here some of the refutes.

I wanted to have people i know get a hold of the producers and have me refute live while its running LOL

redneck refuting! with a little pop up square in the upper corner LOL


I could rip them to shreds. the worst is the dude with the goofy mullet



Heres all the proof I need to tell you so you understand a alien has never stepped foot on the planet nor communicated with anyone as they all claim.


Our atmosphere would be poisonous to them.

The weight of our atmosphere would crush their bodies.

The same way we cannot talk to chimps or apes that share what 97%-99% of our DNA, its highly doubtful they could communicate with us.

Same goes for dolphins who have a amazing language and vocabulary yet after 200,000 years. we cannot communicate very well with them. Only on a few basic commands.

 

[Iti oj]

I wanted to have people i know get a hold of the producers and have me refute live while its running LOL

redneck refuting! with a little pop up square in the upper corner LOL


I could rip them to shreds. the worst is the dude with the goofy mullet



Heres all the proof I need to tell you so you understand a alien has never stepped foot on the planet nor communicated with anyone as they all claim.


Our atmosphere would be poisonous to them.

The weight of our atmosphere would crush their bodies.

The same way we cannot talk to chimps or apes that share what 97%-99% of our DNA, its highly doubtful they could communicate with us.

Same goes for dolphins who have a amazing language and vocabulary yet after 200,000 years. we cannot communicate very well with them. Only on a few basic commands.

Unless they came from a planet with a similar atmosphere, or had suits. Mayan depicting with a space suit?
2. unless they came from a planet of similar size or had some type of suit.
3. idk good point. maybe they seeded language in the first place.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You keep posting pseudoscience and acting like it has validity

You keep calling it pseudoscience without any basis. Why don't you explain what your basis is for saying the three papers from peer-reviewed scientific journals I referenced which all refer to Rare Earth and/or the equation as valid science are pseudoscience?

the rare earth equation is a laughable joke and all of mainstream science laughs at it.

And yet Forgan references it in The International Journal of Astrobiology (2009) when he states that many have concluded that "the conditions for life to flourish are rare, possibly unique to earth."

You talk of "mainstream science." You make claims about their opinion. I reference mainstream scientific journals, and you call it pseudoscience.

More attacks rather than explanations. Again, what research are you relying to determine that the 20+ papers published in a volume by Camridge University on their series on Astrobiology, the 5 or so papers I've referenced from peer-reviewed academic journals, and a book published by a scientific press are all "pseduoscien?"

Many think its idiotic to think we are alone. I agree.

That's great. It says nothing about your basis for calling mainstream scientific publications which conclude the opposite "pseudocience."

lets look at your rare earth joke

Rare Earth hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me get this straight. You insult me, my sources, and refer to it all as "pseudoscience." I gave you source after source from actual academic, scientific publications. Your response is to cite Wikipedia!? You called actual academic papers "pseudoscience" and you defend your insults by citing an online encyclopedia?

Of course the rare earth hypothesis has critics. So does the view that life probably exists elsewhere. There are plenty of scientists who subscribe to the view that the earth is probably unique, and plenty who think that life of some sort probably exists elsewhere, and those inbetween.

That doesn't make those who support the idea that the earth is likely unique in its ability to support life are pseudoscientists. And when I cite a slew of academic works, quoting wikipedia to show that critics of the hypothesis exist doesn't make it "pseudoscience."

Instead of continuing to make baseless assertions and attacks, why not simply admit that you haven't read the actual scientific publications on this topic and your claims about "pseudoscience" aren't based on anything other than the fact that you simply haven't actually read enough of the science?

 

[PolyHedral]

Our atmosphere would be poisonous to them.

The weight of our atmosphere would crush their bodies.

The same way we cannot talk to chimps or apes that share what 97%-99% of our DNA, its highly doubtful they could communicate with us.

All three of these are matters of engineering and intelligence. I would expect aliens who have managed to traverse the stars to be vastly superior to us in both.

 

[outhouse]

All three of these are matters of engineering and intelligence. I would expect aliens who have managed to traverse the stars to be vastly superior to us in both.

Its possible.

BUT, one has to think that if they are restrained to the same laws we are, time and space. That they have in fact evolved in space to their current species. This would even make it harder to survive on any given planet.

fact is, even if we managed space travel, landing in different atmospheres would be deadly.

I do believe in UFO's and aliens ect, BUT I dont believe one has ever stepped outside the craft.

Communication, well again look at what we have accomplished and where we stand to species below us and how well we can communicate with them.



alot depends on how advanced and what species they evolved from. at this point its a guess wide open to imagination.