DutyCat Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Thank you for the link, I am quite happy to view such things, as it gives a different perspective and keeping an open mind is part of what being a true scientist is. Finally, whilst you make good points, there is one thing that you don't take into account. That is the actuality that people through out time have spoken to God face to face, you don't take into account that belief is one thing, actual knowledge is another. When people have that type of knowledge, then what other people try to prove/disprove won't matter one iota. Really what can top that? You commented on the fact that you don't believe that the ancients knew about Black holes etc. God did indeed visit the ancients like Adam, Abraham, Moses and other prophets, He (God) taught them those facts, they wrote them down in the scriptures. Why would someone like me believe that - It's not blind faith I assure you. I know you won't believe that, and that's fine, the basis of a good discussion is respect for another party's view, whether you believe it or not. Regards Alan Alan, Unfortunately, a personal audience with God, in whatever form it manifests itself, is not empirical evidence. If a person reports a "visitation," then that has to be viewed with the same healthy skepticism as if he or she said they were abducted by aliens. Claimed visitations from God usually take the form of dreams, visions, or the interpretation of some event. They are not verifiable and are more likely self impositions of religious dogma. "I have seen it, or felt it, etc" is what you usually get as a last ditch effort to validate a theological perspective when all other attempts at persuasion have failed. It is a discussion ending event, because In order to debate it, one has to directly attack the personal credibility of the person you are having the discussion with. It can quickly become emotional and destructive to your friendship/relationship. Believe me I know from personal experience. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jinxter13 Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) It is a discussion ending event, because In order to debate it, one has to directly attack the personal credibility of the person you are having the discussion with. "Credibility", that is a very keyword in a discussion such as this, someone says they have seen or had contact with a UFO, Bigfoot, or something else of supernatural or ET origin....and right off most of their peers will question their credibility about if or what they saw; add to that those who will investigate the sighting. This door will swing the other way when the authorities avow they have no proof (evidence) of the occurrence, and John Q. Public will avow that those guys are hiding something, making credibility on both sides questionable, bringing about a statement like "who ya gonna believe us or them?". Edited October 29, 2014 by #1 Greywolf Quote Link to post Share on other sites
graves_09 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) "Credibility", that is a very keyword in a discussion such as this, someone says they have seen or had contact with a UFO, Bigfoot, or something else of supernatural or ET origin....and right off most of their peers will question their credibility about if or what they saw; add to that those who will investigate the sighting. This door will swing the other way when the authorities avow they have no proof (evidence) of the occurrence, and John Q. Public will avow that those guys are hiding something, making credibility on both sides questionable, bringing about a statement like "who ya gonna believe us or them?". It isn't the person's moral or ethical credibility that is the issue, it is the basic nature of the human brain. See the video from Neil Degrass-Tyson posted by Tony earlier in this thread. Even the most credible and intellegent people as still suspectible to human emotion, preception, etc. As Tyson says: human observation is the LEAST credible of all forms of evidence. A persons creditentials, where they be a cop, a scientist or President do not make their claims any more crediable. Science is based on data and measurements that are repeatible and varifiable. Interactions with bigffot, ET,and God meet none of those criteria. Edited October 29, 2014 by graves_09 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Can we get back the original question? I still want opinions as to why space-faring intelligences would want to interact with us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Can we get back the original question? I still want opinions as to why space-faring intelligences would want to interact with us. I suppose they might have their version of David Attenborough explaining the behaviour of those silly mammalians for the couch potatoes of the galaxy :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jinxter13 Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Can we get back the original question? I still want opinions as to why space-faring intelligences would want to interact with us. To learn something they don't know, perhaps a little interstellar trading like ancient earth between the phoenicians and who ever they traded with, or even to become allied with us against something else out there, a Klingon type of group, maybe they're benevolent and want to help us improve our quality of life. If an intelligent life form does visit us and make their presence known; it's IMHO to think that they will be more advanced than we are. unless they only know how to travel from planet to planet and have little other knowledge...which is highly doubtful. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nerdling Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Can we get back the original question? I still want opinions as to why space-faring intelligences would want to interact with us. Just think of why we go an explore and try to discover new things. I imagine it would be the same way with all intelligent life. I would think that the allure of learning the unknown would be enough reason to venture out into the stars to study new life. Perhaps they feel that by learning about us it will also give them some insight into their own past. I would imagine that most intelligent life has made the same mistakes as we have in our past. It would allow them to see how we adapt and overcome those trials. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Perhaps IF we were visited, maybe that species wouldn't be that much more advanced than we are. Maybe they would have been visited by the much more advanced species and then just simply given the technology and ability to travel such far distances. So if you were to entertain the idea that we could be visited by aliens, then you must also entertain the notion that we may be only 1 visit away from being able to do the same. We could possibly travel to another planet within the decade if something like that happens. Another somewhat scary thought, what if the aliens were simply rock collectors and thought our planet was just pretty rock. So they come in and wipe off all of the infestation (animals and us) and then polish up their newly found rock to admire in some REALLY large cabinet somewhere in another galaxy. Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I don't know, I have a worrisome feeling we'll end up in an Independence Day scenario. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ben Brown Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Can we get back the original question? I still want opinions as to why space-faring intelligences would want to interact with us. Given our species' predilection to paranoia, xenophobia, and willful ignorance encouraged by superstition, why would they want to interact with us? Ben Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Can't we all just agree to stop dropping not so subtle slams against religions and get on with the self loathing banter of how horrible people are as a species without singling out any one group? I mean apparently we're all just one big group of no goods, right? Or does that exclude the enlightened? Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DutyCat Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Can't we all just agree to stop dropping not so subtle slams against religions and get on with the self loathing banter of how horrible people are as a species without singling out any one group? I mean apparently we're all just one big group of no goods, right? Or does that exclude the enlightened? Bill I don't think there have been any "slams against religion" here. There has been a discussion and clarification of the scientific method in comparison to religion. We should all be critical thinkers or we do ourselves a disservice. What I try to make clear to anyone I happen to end up discussing this with is that science is about the material universe. Religion is about behavior and belief systems, which don't have hard scientific value. They are driven by emotional needs and taught behaviors. If a person sees value and validity in theology as it applies to them personally...if they use it to productively guide their actions, give them comfort, hope, and a sense of community, then more power to them. Regardless of what I think personally, i would never attack an individual personal belief system. I respect as person's right to believe what suits them, as I would equally demand they respect another person's right not to believe. Whatever floats your boat, that is until we start imposing our beliefs upon others. It is far too easy to become self righteous and judgmental, especially with acting on the perceived moral authority of a supreme being. But back to the original question. Start with the Drake Equation. Personally, given the times/distances involved, I think it is unlikely that we have ever been visited by ET's, at least in the modern era. In the past? Maybe. What I think would be interesting is a survey of known nearby Goldilocks Planets and how long they have had the ability to support life. Let's say we find a planet which appears to be habitable 50 LY away. What if we start broadcasting towards that planet and wait a 100 years to see if our signal was received and returned. Would that be considered too high risk? The omni-directional entertainment and communication signals sent from Earth now are very low power and are quickly lost in the background noise of space. Other, similarly developed planets would probably experience likewise. You MIGHT be able to pick something out if you looked in just the right place at the right time. It is very possible that a civilization has a technical, communicative society for a very short time. Who knows? I do expect that if we do actually experience a legit First Contact, then our relative neglect of space science will end immediately. Edited October 30, 2014 by DutyCat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I don't think there have been any "slams against religion" here. Not pointing any fingers at ya Dutycat, you've been fine. I enjoy the conversation that was going on. I'm more referring the comments like "willful ignorance encouraged by superstition" and such like that. There haven't been many comments like that but they have been thrown around some. That's all. I do find it odd or at least puzzling how you could say you don't think we've been visited in the modern era, but maybe in the past because of the time and distance to travel. Was it less distance long ago? Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I don't know, I have a worrisome feeling we'll end up in an Independence Day scenario. Installing computor viruses on their mothership and nuke it to smithereens? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jinxter13 Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Odd, but I think and this is purely IMHO, that an event similar to the arrival in Independence Day will provide undeniable proof that such an intelligence exists in places other than good ol' Terra Firma. If such an event does occur it will be an upheaval and undoing of what has been believed on all sides of the discussion argument that has been ongoing for a long long time. Edited October 30, 2014 by #1 Greywolf Quote Link to post Share on other sites
modelguy2 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Most of the "Goldilocks" planets discovered have been at least 1 1/2 times the size of Earth, quite a few a bit larger. I like it when they speak about possibly moving to such a planet as we'd weigh 1.5 times what we weigh here. You need to reach 17k mph to leave Earth's orbit. I've asked a physics teacher about solar system escape velocity and galaxy escape velocity but do not remember the answer. There is ( of course) an escape velocity equation that takes mass into account but I have to say that to escape the gravitational pull of the sun (solar system) or galaxy would take quite a bit of energy, let alone the energy required to escape a planet marginally larger than earth-especially if you take into account that everything on a larger planet would need to be built to withstand the additional gravity making it even heavier-catch 22 kind of. That's just one facet of wondering about ET's visiting Earth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 You need to reach 17k mph to leave Earth's orbit. Not to quibble on a minor point but the escape velocity is more like 25,000 mph. 17,000 is orbital speeds. But yes, your point is right. a LOT of energy to escape the galaxy. Doable? perhaps. Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites
modelguy2 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Thanks Bill, quantum brain fart :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
modelguy2 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) a quick search To escape earth's gravity = 7 miles/second (from the surface) the suns gravity (solar system) = 26 miles/second (1 astronomical unit from the sun (earth distance)), to escape the galaxy 200 miles/second +/- or 720000 mph. Of course the bigger the galaxy the bigger the required speed, it also depends on where in the galaxy you are located, but I just ballparked it. Edited October 30, 2014 by modelguy2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DutyCat Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Not pointing any fingers at ya Dutycat, you've been fine. I enjoy the conversation that was going on. I'm more referring the comments like "willful ignorance encouraged by superstition" and such like that. There haven't been many comments like that but they have been thrown around some. That's all. I do find it odd or at least puzzling how you could say you don't think we've been visited in the modern era, but maybe in the past because of the time and distance to travel. Was it less distance long ago? Bill No, that is not the angle I was taking. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, so that represents a large window of opportunity when compared to the "modern era," which for the purposes of this discussion I will say is the last 500 years. Our collective awareness of even the possibility of other worlds and ET's is much shorter than that...a couple of hundred years at most. So, aside from ancient folklore, any report of a visitation would have to be within that time period. That is a very small window, which in my view makes a visitation unlikely unless the Galaxy is teaming with FTL alien space cruisers exploring every "Class M" planet they come across. -Gil Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jinxter13 Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 No, that is not the angle I was taking. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, so that represents a large window of opportunity when compared to the "modern era," which for the purposes of this discussion I will say is the last 500 years. Our collective awareness of even the possibility of other worlds and ET's is much shorter than that...a couple of hundred years at most. So, aside from ancient folklore, any report of a visitation would have to be within that time period. That is a very small window, which in my view makes a visitation unlikely unless the Galaxy is teaming with FTL alien space cruisers exploring every "Class M" planet they come across. -Gil Great point Gil, with out limited ability at space exploration we haven't even gone very far or deep into our galaxy, and astronomers estimate that there are more bodies in space that there are grains of sand on a beach, OK now how many class "M" planets are in that group, and if they explore every one it's gonna take a very long time for them to get to us, if they're stopping at each and every one how long is each visit, or are they leaving probes, or something like a sonobuoy on a planetary scale to gather data. The idea of "curved space" or inter-dimensional travel still intrigues me; however our reach into outerspace is still in it's infancy, someone with a couple hundred thousand years on us, more than likely have a lot more figured out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) ... or are they leaving probes, or something like a sonobuoy on a planetary scale to gather data... See Arthur C. Clark's short story The Sentinal from which sprang 2001: A Space Odyssey. Edited October 31, 2014 by Slartibartfast Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jinxter13 Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) There is another nagging question in this topic in general, not discounting any reports (published) by any one or from any source. The question(s) is/are of all the reported abductions, to my knowledge none have involved any person of notoriety, by that I mean no world class leader (Premier, President though history indicates they may not always be a very good choice ), noted scientist such as Neil Tyson, great mathematician, Military leader of high rank (General, Admiral), if they have a similar philosophy, or thinking as we do; it would seem they would want, or should be interested in the most or more intelligent among Terrans. Yet all the abductions have been common everyday people. The total number of abductions may never be known as some people who have or may have been taken are afraid to come forward; not wanting to face ridicule or the questions put to them, by scientist or governmental agencies, or whomever would be interested. That old quote from the 50's movies "take me to your leader" would garner some consideration. It's just so curious, to me that people who would be of no value concerning info on the more advanced technical doings of this world, or have any say in any leadership role would always be the subjects abducted. It seems by the reports they are taken and examined, and that seems to indicated an interest more in the diversity of humans. Perhaps they are looking for something specific, such as what each ethnic groups characteristic tendencies are, but that wouldn't make much sense because each group has individuals that excel in athletics, intelligence, lifespan, physical ability,etc. The differences of note could be the physical make up, one group be taller, another being lighter skinned, however that would take on a racial study. which wouldn't be logical because of like I said....each group has individuals that fit into all the categories of another group. I'll probably get slammed for this, but in Africa we have Watusis', that average 7' tall, waitaminit..Yao Ming is [not] a Watusi and he's just as tall so that's out. Each group has brainiacs whose IQ reaches near to or over 200. OK folks...why is it that no individual with any kind of celebrity status has ever been abducted by an ET intelligence, maybe I'd better not say that too loud, I don't have celebrity status of any kind, and I am very very average . Maybe, just maybe [if] they are here they're looking for something planted DNA wise long before recorded history began, something along the lines of that Star Trek TNG episode where clues were left on different worlds, Terrans, Klingons, Cardasians, and Romulans all had a single piece and they all needed to be assembled into one piece for the puzzle to be complete. Edited October 31, 2014 by #1 Greywolf Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 If the alien abductors don't want notoriety, they have to pick Joe Average. Celebities of any stripe will garner much attention and so will the abductors. Can't probe De Grassi's behind and expect him to be silent about it! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scott R Wilson Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Can't we all just agree to stop dropping not so subtle slams against religions and get on with the self loathing banter of how horrible people are as a species without singling out any one group? I mean apparently we're all just one big group of no goods, right? Or does that exclude the enlightened? :woot.gif:/> Bill I am not slamming religion as much as those who would impose their belief system on everyone else. I think it's a real danger to our society that Christian Fundamentalist groups (as has happened in Texas) try to force school book publishers to print Christian myths about Creation in school texts as though Biblical stories are equivalent to science. Bill, you yourself suggested that it was only fair to do so. I disagree vehemently as you have realized by now. It also doesn't help our society in any way when people opposed to scientific findings because of their own ideology succeed in portraying science as suspect or politically biased, leading many less informed people to reject science that doesn't conform to what they want to believe as well. One can see this in the "anti-vaccine" movements which are succeeding in bring back diseases that used to be rare, with scientific evidence that their fears of vaccines are completely wrong. Or the people advocating drinking raw milk for its supposed health benefits, forgetting (or not knowing) that when Louis Pasteur came up with the idea of what we now call Pasteurization it was because raw milk sickened and killed a lot of people back in the day. Pasteurization kills the bacteria that is responsible, but the raw milk enthusiasts believe false ideas about how it reduces the nutritional value of milk products. The science does not support their position. The CDC reported that unpasteurized milk is 150 times more likely to cause foodborne illness and results in 13 times more hospitalizations than illnesses involving pasteurized dairy products, yet people who choose to reject science that doesn't conform to what they want to believe put themselves and their children at risk. And when the topic gets really serious, such as the threat of human-caused climate change, we have government officials in power who openly denigrate science and put forth the false notion that the findings of the scientists who study climate are financially motivated, politically biased, and that scientists are making this stuff up for their own gain. We also have Christian Congressmen saying things like we don't need to worry about it because God will prevent us from destroying our planet (tell that to the passenger pigeon, dodo and other species man has wiped off the face of the earth). That to me is absolutely frightening. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8123790/Congressman-says-God-will-save-us-from-climate-change.html One of my favorite authors, astronomer Phil Plait, says it this way: "The problem here is, in my opinion, one of polarization of “belief” in science and religion in America,* primarily due to the unholy marriage of the Republican Party and religious conservatives as the “Religious Right.” Despite the rock-solid fact that we are not a Christian nation, that concept has been loudly and often claimed by GOP politicians, increasingly honed over the years and sharpened to a fine point. Today, a Republican presidential candidate might as well stand up and say they eat live puppies rather than they “believe” in evolution. This science versus religion rhetoric has polarized our country so badly that a lot of people perceive all religion to be totally anti-science, and that’s not true, and not fair. Another part of this is the broad lack of scientific understanding by the American public. This is exacerbated by the same people on the far right (both in schools and on the pulpit) who misrepresent science, casting it as strictly opposed to their particular religious thinking (which, to be fair, in many cases it is, because these folks believe in stuff that’s provably wrong). And while this type of belief and scare-mongering of science is not universal, it is widespread and pushed by the media. My own views on all this, obviously, are not as black and white as many others I read. For example, I think religious people believing in theistic evolution is fine. I don’t believe it myself, but if folks want to believe in God for personal reasons and still accept the science, then good on them! At the very least, they’re not trying to legislate young-Earth creationism and other provably wrong concepts be taught in the classroom. And if they accept the science there, perhaps they can continue in that direction in other areas as well. I’d far rather discuss the Big Bang with Pope Francis than with Ken Ham. *I put “belief” in quotation marks because science isn’t a belief system." As to the dangers of rejecting science and accepting contrary beliefs Dr. Plait also said it far better than I ever could: "The more we teach people to simply accept anecdotal stories, hearsay, cherry-picked data (picking out what supports your claims but ignoring what doesn't), and, frankly, out-and-out lies, the harder it gets for people to think clearly. If you cannot think clearly, you cannot function as a human being. I cannot stress this enough. Uncritical thinking is tearing this world to pieces..." So if you are offended by my words, I am equally offended by the stance Fundamentalist Christians take toward science. The Christian Fundamentalist rejection of science and their acceptance and imposition of their dogma and myths on society as absolute truths constitutes a real threat to our society, in my opinion, and I think those of us who see that need to speak up. Scott W. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.