Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

RIP Allan SandageFollow

#77 Nov 30 2010 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
The alien explanation is completely ridiculous, and is just as blind and unguided as the God explanation. Even if it were to be aliens, they would have to exist through some form of evolutionary process. You simply cannot start with complexity.


Yes. And this is the same argument I use when people try to argue that evolution can't happen. However, that does not preclude evolution happening naturally in one place and then those people traveling here and seeding a wide assortment of forms of life here. It would certainly explain the gaps.

One of the sub theories which is an alternative to the classic "tree of life" model, is that each basic family of species existed in some common form, and then spread out from there to form all the species we know today (or that have existed along the way). So instead of a single trunk branching into smaller and smaller paths, you have a large number of clusters of related species growing outward, each from their own point.

The problem with that theory is that even though it fits the actual data we have far better, it almost requires that some force created each of those cluster centers independently of each other. There's no explanation as to how several thousand (or tens of thousands) of individual proto-forms appeared, fully formed, and completely distinct from each other, to then fan out evolutionarily to each form thousands more. But that's actually what the data most strongly suggests.

And guess what? That's almost exactly what you'd expect to see if an intelligence deliberately seeded life on a planet. Which is where the intelligent design theory comes from (well, when it's not being pushed by religious folks that is). It's not just based on a need to push creationism, but is also supported by a growing realization that the patterns we're seeing in evolutionary history point to the clustering model and not the tree model.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#78 Nov 30 2010 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I have consistently supported evolution as a science Joph. I have even consistently argued that it should be taught in school and that creationism should *not* (at least not in science class).

There's a definite different feel to your posts in the threads. I doubt you'd notice it since you're too vested in it but it's there. Interesting stuff.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79 Nov 30 2010 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
But that's actually what the data most strongly suggests.
No, it's not.
#80 Nov 30 2010 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
There's no explanation as to how several thousand (or tens of thousands) of individual proto-forms appeared, fully formed, and completely distinct from each other, to then fan out evolutionarily to each form thousands more. But that's actually what the data most strongly suggests.

No, it doesn't. Maybe it does to you or something but that's not really the same thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Nov 30 2010 at 9:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Professor shintasama wrote:
Quote:
But that's actually what the data most strongly suggests.
No, it's not.


Yes, it is.

See how easy that is!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Nov 30 2010 at 9:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I have consistently supported evolution as a science Joph. I have even consistently argued that it should be taught in school and that creationism should *not* (at least not in science class).

There's a definite different feel to your posts in the threads. I doubt you'd notice it since you're too vested in it but it's there. Interesting stuff.


If you haven't noticed, I tend to take the "moderate" position in most debates. That doesn't mean I don't hold my own positions, but I'll tend to argue against the "side" that I think is unfairly attacking something else (or extending their own position past the point it can really be supported). So when someone tries to argue that evolution can't happen and it *must* have been God or aliens, I'll argue against them. Similarly, when someone argues that it must have been evolution and could not possibly have been God or aliens, I'll argue against them.


In this topic my position is that evolution clearly does work and clearly does happen. However, that does not preclude that in the case of life on Earth, some alien scientists (or divine being) seeded life as part of an experiment. For me, it's not just about arguing a "side", but arguing within the bounds of what I think is reasonable. Saying that evolution proves that creation is false is just as wrong as saying that faith in God requires that evolution be false. And I'll argue against both of those positions. Sometimes even in the same thread!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Nov 30 2010 at 9:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If you haven't noticed, I tend to take the "moderate" position in most debates.

I'm not even going to dignify that by laughing at it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Nov 30 2010 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Professor shintasama wrote:
Quote:
But that's actually what the data most strongly suggests.
No, it's not.


Yes, it is.
how about this:

No, it's not. Any idiot with a basic knowledge of genetics, evolution, and conserved biology knows that your claims are blatantly untrue.


I feel like a commercial pilot who just had someone come up and tell him that three are holes in aerospace engineering theory, thus planes can't actually fly. Then, when confronted with evidence that they can, claims that it's either due to god using magic to make them fly or aliens using tractor beams to keep them in the air. Your ******** is so crazy and absolutely unbelievable that I can't even formulate a decent response. It's like arguing that plants aren't alive or the earth is flat. Deep down I know that you are so obstinately misguided and misinformed that no amount of contradictory evidence will ever sway you. All I can so is sit here and shake my head that people like you exist in this world despite the vast amounts of information available to you.

faith in humanity -1
#85 Nov 30 2010 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you haven't noticed, I tend to take the "moderate" position in most debates.

I'm not even going to dignify that by laughing at it.
Screenshot
#86 Nov 30 2010 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Much as it pains me to say so, I actually sort of agree with gbaji on this one. There's nothing patently ridiculous about the idea of alien colonization. It's probably less likely that there haven't been alien civilizations with the capacity to identify and travel to other habitable planets. Consider the technological advances we've made in the last 100 years. Consider that other civilizations could be advanced millenia beyond us.

The only problem with it is that it's a useless hypothesis, and if there's even a slim chance that evolution accounts for all life on Earth, it's far more fruitful to pursue that avenue, if even only to eventually discredit it.

The fact remains that even if evolution were somehow disproved, it would provide no substantiation for religious claims of ID. Alien colonization would be the next big theory in line, and evolution would be presumed to be the process by which the alien progenitor came about. i.e., if not evolution here, then evolution somewhere.

Either way evolution remains integral to understanding and a worthwhile pursuit, whereas ID offers no real avenue for science.
#87 Nov 30 2010 at 9:48 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
There's nothing patently ridiculous about the idea of alien colonization. It's probably less likely that there haven't been alien civilizations with the capacity to identify and travel to other habitable planets. Consider the technological advances we've made in the last 100 years. Consider that other civilizations could be advanced millenia beyond us.



Screenshot

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#88 Nov 30 2010 at 10:32 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Are those things what they use to make crop circles?
#89 Nov 30 2010 at 10:39 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor shintasama wrote:
Quote:
But that's actually what the data most strongly suggests.
No, it's not.


Yes, it is.

See how easy that is!
Most strongly suggests? Huge fail, gbaji. It was once thought that this was true, but genetics smashed the **** out of it. It's a laughable idea at this point.
#90 Nov 30 2010 at 11:11 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Kachi wrote:
Are those things what they use to make crop circles?


'They'? You mean the aliens? I guess it would depend on the sate of their technological advancement. But yeah, Occams razor says its probable.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#91 Dec 01 2010 at 12:24 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Har, I mean the humans. But to clarify, when I posit the possibility of alien colonization of earth, I am in no way attempting to lend an ounce of credibility to the various theories of aliens visiting the earth today. Maybe they do, and I have heard numerous sighting stories from seemingly credible sources (which in some way puts it at least above religion, in my mind, considering there hasn't been a half-credible sighting of THE LORD in 2000 years), but most of my basis for acknowledging the possibility of aliens has nothing to do with actual belief in human claims/testimony and everything to do with the statistical likelihood of other civilizations that are ridiculously more advanced than our own.
#92 Dec 01 2010 at 3:22 AM Rating: Good
Moe wrote:
There is no more evidence for Dark Matter/Dark Energy than there is for an all powerful god speaking a universe in to existence.


It's "indirect" evidence, as only "it's" gravity is observable at the moment(It bends light, which is called "gravitational lensing" & has been observed doing so for quite some time). We call "it" Dark matter/Energy simply because we can't see it, we just know it's there.

We're getting closer to being able to observe it directly though. The LHC may prove it, but it'll be tough since I don't think even the LHC's detectors can "see" it. It's not impossible though, since it was once thought trapping anti-matter was impossible given that it's destroyed when it comes into contact with matter.

CERN did it anyway in November of 2010, though.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#93 Dec 01 2010 at 6:15 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Kachi, have you ever watched Ancient Aliens on History Channel? Interesting stuff.
#94 Dec 01 2010 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kachi wrote:
It's probably less likely that there haven't been alien civilizations with the capacity to identify and travel to other habitable planets.

No, it's not. No one can make any sort of intelligent statement regarding how likely it is. So far, we've visited a small handful of bodies outside Earth and found zero organisms period. We have no way of knowing if life (much less 'advanced' life) is unique to Earth or if its scattered all over on worlds we'll never know of. However, "Well, there must be 'cause there's a lot of stuff out there" is just lazy thinking.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Dec 01 2010 at 7:32 AM Rating: Good
Omegavegeta wrote:
Moe wrote:
There is no more evidence for Dark Matter/Dark Energy than there is for an all powerful god speaking a universe in to existence.


It's "indirect" evidence, as only "it's" gravity is observable at the moment(It bends light, which is called "gravitational lensing" & has been observed doing so for quite some time). We call "it" Dark matter/Energy simply because we can't see it, we just know it's there.

No, ignorant ****. We observe gravitational lensing. We have no f'ucking idea what causes it to any degree of certainty. There are, however, competing theories, of which the existence of dark matter is one.

And the possessive form of it is "its", not "it's".
#96 Dec 01 2010 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Kachi wrote:
It's probably less likely that there haven't been alien civilizations with the capacity to identify and travel to other habitable planets.

No, it's not. No one can make any sort of intelligent statement regarding how likely it is. So far, we've visited a small handful of bodies outside Earth and found zero organisms period. We have no way of knowing if life (much less 'advanced' life) is unique to Earth or if its scattered all over on worlds we'll never know of. However, "Well, there must be 'cause there's a lot of stuff out there" is just lazy thinking.

Come on, not finding any evidence of it on other rocks just lowers the observed rate of incidence. At this point we can hypothesize that 1/2 of all planets have life on them. We'll adjust that over time, of course, to something lower as we gather more data and have a better understanding of the underlying principles, but until someone proves it wrong HUZZAH!
#97 Dec 01 2010 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
Nadenu wrote:
Kachi, have you ever watched Ancient Aliens on History Channel? Interesting stuff.


Might be, if the commentators weren't so obviously biased and (quite probably) uneducated on the matter.

"Look, there's no way they could have built the pyramids in one life time. Aliens had to be involved!"

Yeah, I rank that show right up there with UFO hunters as top failures of the History Channel in the last few years. Mind you, I'm not saying the concept is flawed, just the execution.
#98 Dec 01 2010 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Come on, not finding any evidence of it on other rocks just lowers the observed rate of incidence. At this point we can hypothesize that 1/2 of all planets have life on them. We'll adjust that over time, of course, to something lower as we gather more data and have a better understanding of the underlying principles, but until someone proves it wrong HUZZAH!

You probably felt clever when you wrote it and that's the important thing. Go get yourself a cookie.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Dec 01 2010 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Come on, not finding any evidence of it on other rocks just lowers the observed rate of incidence. At this point we can hypothesize that 1/2 of all planets have life on them. We'll adjust that over time, of course, to something lower as we gather more data and have a better understanding of the underlying principles, but until someone proves it wrong HUZZAH!

You probably felt clever when you wrote it and that's the important thing. Go get yourself a cookie.

And you probably felt not the least bit snarky when you wrote that, so go get yourself ***-raped.
#100 Dec 01 2010 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Does this mean you didn't want the cookie or what?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101 Dec 01 2010 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Oh no, I took your advice and hope you take mine.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 267 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (267)