Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 100
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?Page 4 of 53    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
>>>HOWEVER they are single cell organisms with out a brain, interestingly they can keep ahead of antibiotics, and shots created from the last years mutation.

They're not conciously learning how to be better at fighting anti-bioics- they aren't even aware of our existence to begin with- instead, if 1 flu virus reproduced a million times, and one has a mutation that allows it to survive better, then the other 999,999 may die- but the one will survive, and will continue to reproduce, and thus, spread.

Microbes really are the single greatest species in that regard.

>>>or has it been possible that man kind help generate organisms that are resistant to things

Nope- we've just managed to figure out a way to kill off the other microbes- the freaks of that species wouldn't have had any effect if we didn't kill off the ones who didn't have resistance to it too.

Another good examples are moths- many years ago, the majority of moths were white, while a few were grey- the grey ones, when on white trees like spruce, basically glowed to predators. But mankind came through and some trees color changed because of pollution- now the grey moths have the advantage, and because of that they multipled while the white ones became the ones endangered to predators. Did these grey moths think to themselves "hey, these humans are polluting- nows our time to shine"- or was it simply a random change that allowed them to get the upper hand?

>>>If we are capable of changing and splicing DNA, without leaving any trace that we have done that. Which there are people who now have designer babies for a BIG price.

I was not aware of either being true- it certainly is a belief that, through research, we may one day be able to do that, yes- but then again, so is AI, and nanomachines, and the mind machine interface- that doesn't mean we definately can, nor is that evidence of aliens in any form.

>>>Go look up Planet X, it was discovered in 1982, and has been headed this way every since.

....

*sigh*

Planet X is a theorical planet from the early 20th century that was suspected because of gravational changes observed on planets like Neptune- because of which, scientists knew there had to be more planets out there. Then they found Pluto and various other dwarf planets, which explained it perfectly.

Let me to perfectly clear; There is no Planet X. Planet X was a belief that there was a planet half the size of Neptune- a Gas Giant sized planet far on the fringes of our solar system. Instead, we've discovered the Kuiper belt, a series of rocks and dwarf planets- so far, we've recorded over a thousand different objects in this belt, and another 60,000 is suspected to still reside in that part of our solar system.

There was no "discovery" of planet X in 1982. In 1983, there was a reported discovery of a Jupiter sized planet, but then it ended up just being distant Galaxies.

The planet "Nibiru" is a psuedo-scientific theorized planet. And who suggested it? Thats right- Zecharia Sitchin, the same man who is convinced that aliens altered our genes, and the cause of this very topic.

It, to be perfectly frank, is bullshit. There has been no observed reaction of this planet at all, anywhere, by any actual scientists. The only evidence we've ever found of a planet X is the conviction from Sitchin that his interpretation and only his interpretation of Sumer text is true, and all other interpretation of it, as well as all observations of our solar system from the millions of people before him, is false. A planet of the size that Sitchin suggests would leave a graviational reaction- ironically, the very reason why we knew there had to be a planet X disproves the idea that there is a planet Nibiru. Sitchin's ONLY evidence that it exists is the fact that the Sumers were convinced it did- which even then, actual sumer scolars say he is using the wrong dilect to get his results.

>>>Any ways it is stated that Nibiru smashed into this 5th planet creating the meteorite belt.

If a planet smashed into another planet that close to ours, then all life on Earth would be extermined.

Also, why trust the Mayans? The Greeks were far greater observers of the skies- why didn't they see any of this? You'd think a massive explosion the likes of which hasn't happened on this planet for nearly 3 Billion years would have been noticed by everyone on the planet- not just the Mayans.

>>>Its next orbit that will bring this extremely large planet near our planet is in 2012, and can rattle the crap out of the planet.

I'm sorry, but do you honestly believe you can claim to be "on the fence" and "openminded" when you're dictating that an imaginary planet is going to end the world in 3 years time?

You claim your beliefs are plausible- but they require us to ignore so much we have learned based on your hunches that have no actual evidence. There is no evidence of aliens- there is no evidence that man was altered by aliens- there is no evidence of Nibiru and there is no evidence of the world ending in 3 years. These are all baseless assumptions in a despite plea that there is more to the universe- and you're combining all these assumptions- all from the same man- into one massive theory that, if any one thing is wrong, the whole thing falls apart.
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 101
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 2:18:34 PM
OHHHHHH SIGHHHHHHH ONCE AGAIN if you actually read my posts, I stated this was ALLLLLLLL theoretical actually the word should be hypothesis...

I find it ironic that you don't mention the other stuff about the primordial soup which seems to make so much sense to you.

As well I mentioned the physicist Kaku that has talked about these different ideals, and what could be a plausible suggestion; AS WELL he and other scientists have stated the planet has been made over at a minimum 4 times... Meaning things that happened have taken out completely everything.

You stated birds come from dinosaurs, but nobody really knows what wiped out ALL the dinosaurs. Therefore if there was an event big enough to kill off ALL dinosaurs across the world, how did it NOT kill birds, and other creatures????

So according to you, the Mayans can't be trusted, but the Greek can. However the Mayans have incredible temples that are standing to this day. As well they have been known as some of the greatest chemists when it comes to creating different poisons, pain killers, and hallucinogens. However there calendar with these planets are just BS, and something YOU have chosen as unreliable.

A planet coming into our orbit has nothing to do with aliens now does it... It was just an example of what OTHERS, not my own stories are out there.

Kaku's example of sending human DNA in a pod, or ship to be used to encode others is just another suggested theory to continue the human race.

I know you seem to have a need to prove your own belief as being the only correct ideal, but really other people are allowed to explore different ideas... If I were standing on a street corner handing out pamphlets with a sign saying find God, the world is soon to end.

All I am doing is demonstrating theories that are out there along side of YOU own theory. You want to claim it is more concrete, but really that isn't true. Scientist are constantly debating the subject, AND trying to prove or disprove these things.

We are talking about millions if not billions of years back... It is hard to prove a lot of things that happened that far back...

Hell they are still debating if King Tut was murdered or died of natural causes. People get paid for this... ME I am just open minded to explore what other ideas are out there, I have NO agenda except to maintain the ability to be open to different ideas...

I never said I subscribed TO the idea our planet was going to be wiped out in 2012, however used a theoretical or hypothetical idea.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 102
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 3:14:56 PM
>>>I stated this was ALLLLLLLL theoretical actually the word should be hypothesis...

But its not that either!

The best description would be its a "what if"- the only evidence of this planet Nibiru ever existed was that the Sumers believed in it- which proves absolutely nothing at all. Sitchin didn't look at the stars and saw it or measured the gravational forces or anything of the sort- he MADE IT UP, based on the notion that the Sumers believed in it- and he's been proved that his translation of the text is wrong. The belief in the planet Nibiru should hold no more credience than there is about 15 Gods are living atop a mountain in Greece, or that in the 5th century BC, the leader of the Eygptian was a God himself. If you say we must accept all beliefs on equal grounds, then you must accept ALL beliefs on equal grounds- that if I say there is a flying Spaghetti Monster in my backyard, that you *must* accept it as likely.

Thats my main problem with your line of thinking- it replaces critical thinking with acceptance of any and all thoughts, assumptions, and theories

>>>AS WELL he and other scientists have stated the planet has been made over at a minimum 4 times...Meaning things that happened have taken out completely everything.

I'm assuming you mean life on the planet? And yes, there have been numerous major and minor extinctions, yes- but there are more logical conclusions than "Aliens did it"- like radiation from the sun, and astroids. And not all life disappeared- some continued to survive a harsh, bleak life. Life, since its conception, has never been completely wiped out. The same life that first appeared on Earth is the same life we are experiencing now.

>>>You stated birds come from dinosaurs, but nobody really knows what wiped out ALL the dinosaurs. Therefore if there was an event big enough to kill off ALL dinosaurs across the world, how did it NOT kill birds, and other creatures????

Not all life was extermined. After all Mammals survived. Hell, not all dinosaurs were exterminated- modern crocodiles are decendants of dinosaurs. The belief that birds came from dinosaurs are based on a comparative bone structure.

>>>So according to you, the Mayans can't be trusted, but the Greek can.

Well, one of them developed modern philisophy, the republic, bath houses, and math. The other developed a sport where you kick the previous losers head around like a soccer ball.

But even if they both were equally great civilizations, it doesn't denounce the question of WHY ONLY ONE CIVILIZATION NOTICED A GIANT EXPLOSION IN THE SKY

>>>... It was just an example of what OTHERS, not my own stories are out there.

And those other people are WRONG. Just because someone believes it or even considers it doesn't make it true.

>>>but really other people are allowed to explore different ideas...

And thats fine- but at this point, there is zero evidence for any of it- hell, theres tons of evidence counteracting it.

>>>Scientist are constantly debating the subject

You want to consider one man who makes claims with no proof as "scientists"??

Is it any wonder that all these hair-brained ideas always seem to come from the same person?

>>>... It is hard to prove a lot of things that happened that far back...

And so any attempt to prove what happened back then is a lost cause, and we should just start making things up and accepting whatever theory we think sounds the best, rather than looking for evidence and gaining conclusions based on observations?


On an entirely different note, though, I love how you keep bragging about how open-minded you are, but you said things like "Go look up Planet X, it was discovered in 1982", and "Its next orbit that will bring this extremely large planet near our planet is in 2012"- those don't sound like you're just throwing out ideas- it looks like you're stating facts.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 3:17:18 PM
I think one of the biggest problems with this thread is most people don't appear to understand what "plausible" means.

As for that Nibiru nonsense, if there was a gas-giant heading our way and only 3-4 years away, you could see it with the naked eye. Complete and utter horse-crap.
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 104
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 3:20:48 PM
^^^^^^^Desert according to some it can be seen in the Southern hemisphere... But hey depends on what source a person looks at, and if they are considered a primary reliable source...

OK Jib, I grasp what you are saying...

MY knowledge of planet x and nibiru had been rather limited to the NOW time...

I get what is being stated about Zecharia Sitchin, he has a hypothesis that sounds a lot far out. However he does have the different plates, stones, what ever. Even the Greek had some far out ideas, as did the Romans, and Egyptians, they all had there Gods that world their world, and one God was better than the other.

Correct or not correct, I don't know the guy make some interesting points, but it DOES sound fanciful when they say that the Anunnaki came and mingled with the Sumarian, and there seems to be a lot of "shape shifting" going on in the story.

Odd that the Maya have some of the very same stories, but guess as stargazer says that goes into two different directions.

Now I am still going to state I am sitting on the fence about the whole thing, simply because as a LEGAL studies person, I do require a lot more empirical proof to make a decision I can stick with.

I know I was accused of that NOT being possible, but once again really I am one little person, and what I sit on the fence about when it comes to events that occurred that far back in time really doesn't matter in the least.

To me this is no different than a biblical debate, and lets face it there are 80% of the American population that will tell ya that the bible is 100% factual. So with a number like 80% belief, then they must be correct, after all that kind of percentage of belief must mean that their reasoning is logical, and critically thought out... ACCORDINGLY to your theory of belief

So I am in my own little world willing to believe in fanciful thoughts.. As well some one really respected is also a flake and has no validity despite his education... Come on you can do better than that....

No matter...

In the mean time I am getting an education at a rather late age, and working towards goals that are for the help and benefit of others. Which would mean I don't put a LOT OF STOCK into the planet ending in Dec 2012; if it does, at least I was doing something that was meaningful to me.

Soooo there is NO NEED to pummel me any more, because I actually took the time to research what exactly the OP asking, and not just the header... Interesting hypothesis, and that is why it doesn't have much scientific leverage...

 saintgasoline
Joined: 8/3/2007
Msg: 106
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 5:11:13 PM
Nexthyme, I am not "bashing" you by calling you ignorant. Saying someone is ignorant is not an insult. It does not mean you are stupid. Nor does it mean I'm smart. It only means that you perhaps are not as educated on the subject of evolution as you should be. Your quotes betray this fact, as the classic "If evolution is true then why are there still apes" meme could only be used as a rebuke by someone with absolutely no understanding of evolution, and this is precisely why you hear similar sentiments repeated by creationists. (And, for the record, the question is also nonsensical because humans ARE apes.)


We are all allowed our opinions based on the different theories and experiences we have had.


I am not saying you are not allowed to believe as you wish. You can believe the moon is made of cheese if you'd like. My argument is that your belief is not well-founded in evidence and your understanding of evolution that informs that belief is sorely lacking.


If you are so smart on the subject then why didn't YOU explain where the missing link is, and WHY we still have a missing link???


The concept of a "missing link" is a poor layman's misconception. Each and every generation is technically a "missing link" in that some genetic information has been jumbled and changed. The conception of a species is not a black and white dividing line, but instead a fine gradient, owing to the very nature of evolution. Thus, to ask for "a" missing link, as if there is only one, and to think that every generation that ever existed could even be fossilized, just betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of modern evolution. What we HAVE found is that chimpanzees are our closest relatives, and our next closest relatives are found in the apes, and then the monkeys. We've also found fossil evidence for all kinds of human ancestors; australopithecus aferensis is one example. So in short, there isn't any "missing link" and indeed this idea doesn't even make sense--in fact, it is just the sort of misleading characterization of evolution spread by creationists. This is perhaps why you are ignorant, as your sources of information are even more ignorant.

As for the appendix, it is clear that it is a vestigial part. For one, it doesn't serve an optimal role as a regulator of gut flora. This also explains why it can be removed without harm, why it causes more harm than benefit most of the time, and why people have even been born without appendixes. To say a part is vestigial doesn't mean that it can't serve a suboptimal function. Again, this is a standard creationist misrepresentation of the argument from vestigial parts.


Once again it goes to is it PLAUSIBLE, and I say yes, it is a plausible theory... THEORY does not mean fact, but based upon different evidence there is enough to support it being a theory that is possible.


More creationist misrepresentation. You seem to think something's being a "theory" means it can't be just as well-supported as a fact, and that's completely wrong. For something to be a "theory" in science only means that it is predicts and is supported by a wide array of facts. Because it is supported by so many interrelated facts, you can say that theories are in reality BETTER than facts in terms of evidentiary support, and also in explanatory power. And I didn't say the theory of evolution was merely "plausible." I said it was MORE plausible than any theory about aliens, and that the alien theory is totally implausible and not supported by any evidence at all.


We have NO imperical proof as to where the missing link is between apes and humans... After my OWN research the theory still falls short between the last evolutionary step of the neanderthal to modern man.


I've already explained to you that we DO have fossil evidence (as well as indirect evidence from genetics and comparisons with existing apes) that more than adequately show our common ancestors with non-human apes. The concept of a single "missing link" is a mistaken conception. Also, modern humans didn't evolve from neanderthals, so perhaps that is where your "research" is going awry (we shared a common ancestor). In fact, modern humans existed alongside neanderthals and we more than likely caused their extinction.


You subscribe to what you want to believe, and I leave the door open to the possibility that aliens may have intervened... In the end, calling another person ignorant, is something I would expect out of a 12 yr old...


Is it possible that aliens were the cause of humanity? Possibly. Is this a plausiable idea supported by evidence? No. It is not supported by any evidence whatsoever, and in the face of a legitimate theory for which there is reams of evidence (that is, evolution), only the hardiest of fools could possibly still be open to any "alien" theory as being just as legitimate as evolution.
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 5:40:27 PM
saintgasoline please read message 104Which I retract what was being asked BY THE OP... I did MORE research on what theory he was talking about.

There are many unanswered questions, and YES humans actually were found to be along side of neanderthals...

The proof that evolutionist state are in terms are we are like, and there is similarities... However anything that is considere logical and from upstanding researchers are called bs. Which to me is still narrow minded thinking.

It isn't being a FOOL to think there is plausibility in something, it just means I don't limit myself to what one group wants to say where our origins have come from verses another.

I have openly admitted in many threads that evolution IS NOT my main study... In fact the medical field and legal field is my main fields of study... (ok with a side line of hair stylist)

I have repeatedly stated I sit on the fence on this, and find that I have had to repeatedly defend myself for NOT BEING AN evolutionist. This I think is rather silly, because we aren't in a Mensa group debating something that is going to change the world. We are just exchanging ideas.

I am still vexed as why the appendix seems to be an issue, because I HAVE REPEATEDLY AGREED that this was an evolutionary organ, that seems to have no need in today's modern human. As well have stood and seen many removed by Dr's, because of the problems they created.

I am wondering can we agree that despite all that is said, and researched there is still a lot we don't really know about our origins and that it is perfectly ok for those of us that like to be entertained by the hypothesis, theory, WHAT EVER about aliens, then big deal.

As a student in legal studies, I DO have a higher expectation of empirical proof than a lot of other people, simply because that is part of my training. Call it impossible, and I agree, thus I can't jump on any band wagon, because there is a lot of holes in a lot of theories...

I admitted after reading the theory presented by the OP, that it does seem rather fanciful, and has the possibility of being nothing more than entertainment for the Sumarians. I don't think I am IGNORANT because I didn't look up the theory prior to posting. As well I have readily agreed I jumped the gun by going strictly by the header....

As I have said, I am living in the present, and working towards things that are beneficial to man kind at the present. If that leaves my knowledge on evolution rather sketchy, well that is how it is... This is supposed to be a fun site, and not something that demands a PhD in archeology, or fields of that nature...


 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 109
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 7:50:10 PM

Go look up Planet X, it was discovered in 1982, and has been headed this way every since. This planet is called Nibiru (or something like that) It is as large as Jupiter, and orbits around our sun ever 3000 plus years.


Oh thyme! No, it's not. There is no Planet X or Nibiru. This is the fantasy of a group of people who really don't understand basic astronomy and astrophysics or realize just how many people are actually looking at the sky at any particular time. However, taken from someone who has studied astronomy extensively over the past 30 years, there is no Nibiru. A Jupiter-mass planet on the outskirts of our solar system would not go unmissed.

As for the asteroid belt, the combined mass of all the objects there would not equal the mass of the moon. In addition, what is there is separated into resonant orbits with Jupiter. Asteroids orbit throughout the solar system, including in zones 60 degrees of either side of Jupiter in its orbit.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 110
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 9:42:47 PM

What happened with the curved shaft in the Pyramid that had the door at the end of it. It seems that the only way that door could be discovered is by robot and remote camera. Whoever built it knew that. It is a small shaft and there is no reason to build the Pyramid with a curved shaft. A curve is harder to maintain than a straight line. I am a block layer, and I know.


While I agree with you that a curved shaft is more difficult... can you say non sequitur?
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 111
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 10:08:00 PM
Stargazer THANKS, I have to steam at this point to argue any more... I have to say SORRY I made the mistake of agreeing in a plausible theory, and for being lead astray by theories that others take seriously.

In this day and age with so many things to explore, getting quality information is apparently more challenging then I thought. In MY DAY, we went to the library and read books. There was no computer to look up odds and ends, or things that caught your interest vaguely...

I had stated in post 104 that I apologized after fully reading the theory the OP had brought.. I was simply going on the plausibility, and even NOW find it a plausible idea, just as evolution is plausible...

I am not taking a real stance on anything, simply because as I have said now what 6 posts??? There are holes in all of the origin of man kind theories...

I deal in provable facts from what I am going to school for, that is JUST part of where I am at.

Give me a couple years, and I will find something else of interest.

I do find it interesting that someone would say it is inconsequentual that the great pyramid has a curved tunnel, or opening. WHY???

This is the thing that bothers me when people just want to believe one thing, and one thing only.

I HAVE NEVER stated until I was pushed against a wall as to why I think evolution has holes in it. Then I was poo pooed for not finding these simulatities as emperical proof.. Yet at the same time the things I brought up were immediately dismissed.

To me that is being completely narrowminded, and having a refusal to entertain that there may be more than one single answer to the question of evolution.

Poo pooing the Sumarian theory has its merits, because after doing some reading the ideas did seem really fanciful, and an aweful lot like the myths I read from Greek and Roman Mythology.

As I noted, it did seem interesting that the mayan culture has a LOT of the same ideals as the story from the Sumarian, and that is odd since that kind of travel wouldn't be that easy.

I am sure it would be easy for me to just set my ideals aside and say you guys are right, BUT I still sit on the fence, and I chose to do so, because I am not so convinced of either theory as being fully correct. WHICH shouldn't be a big deal to any of you, because I am going to be practicing legal advocacy, and not anything to do with evolution, OR astronomy.

This is been an enlightening thread, but at this point I can't compete with continued poopoo on your information, but what we say and think is ALL correct.

Thanks for the info.. And being kind in delivering it... Not that I will be watching the skies all that hard, but if par chance something big and unexplainable starts coming this way... I guess we just may have emperical proof for the Sumarian tablets.. If not, meh who really cares...
 saintgasoline
Joined: 8/3/2007
Msg: 112
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 10:13:25 PM

There are many unanswered questions


There are many unanswered questions. Whether humans evolved, however, is NOT one of them. The questions that still remain to be uncovered are the details. We have more than enough evidence from many different sources that evolution occurs. The questions that often remain are to explain in explicit detail how certain things evolved with a bit more specificity. For instance, it is like finding icing on your dog's muzzle, paw prints on the counter, and only a few remaining crumbs on the counter top of your kitchen. From this evidence you KNOW that your dog ate that cake, but you may have remaining questions about how exactly the dog got on the counter, whether the dog ate the cake quickly or slowly, etc., that remain to be answered. In a similar manner, we know evolution occurred, but scientists are just left with other details to fill out. The similarities we see in life, combined with these similarities being arranged in a linear fashion throughout millions of years, combined with vestigial features, combined with geographic distributions that imply common descent, combined with its coherence and synthesis with modern genetics and even with theories of geology like plate tectonics--all of these lines of evidence coalesce to produce a virtually impenetrable case for evolution.


It isn't being a FOOL to think there is plausibility in something, it just means I don't limit myself to what one group wants to say where our origins have come from verses another.


One would be foolish to reject evolution IF they are familiar with the evidence that supports it. The evidence is so overwhelming that you'd have to be intellectually dishonest or very foolish to deny evolution in the face of it. This isn't a question of limiting yourself to certain sources of knowledge, but of accepting those sources of knowledge that have been established with tons of evidence, and rejecting those other sources that rest on no evidence whatsoever (alien theories, intelligent design, etc.). I suspect that you simply are not familiar with all of the evidence, so I don't presume you are a fool, but instead ignorant of the basic arguments and evidence for evolution.


As a student in legal studies, I DO have a higher expectation of empirical proof than a lot of other people, simply because that is part of my training.


And my point is that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that your standards for empirical proof would have to be so high as to be unreasonable in order to reject evolution. Were your standards consistently so high as to put evolution into doubt, you'd also find yourself rejecting gravity, the belief that fire will burn you, and so on. In short, there's no way your standards could be so high as to rule out evolution, otherwise you'd basically be unable to believe anything, given the rather solid evidentiary foundations that evolution rests upon.


This is supposed to be a fun site, and not something that demands a PhD in archeology, or fields of that nature...


You don't need a Phd to understand evolution. I don't even have a bachelor's degree in the sciences and I understand it better than a great many people. (My degree is in English, of all things.) And I see what you are saying about this being a "fun" site, but evolution is not a trivial thing. We live in a world where a great many people doubt evolution and are constantly fed lies and misrepresentations about it from various religiously-motivated groups. In the US, science education has suffered as a result. I didn't even learn anything of substance about evolution in high school, and instead had to teach it to myself. You can go on believing whatever you'd like about biology, but I will go on correcting anyone who says silly things that imply evolution is not a rock-solid theory concerning the origins of species. Because though you may disagree, I think evolution is a very fun thing to discuss, and I also think it is a very important thing to discuss.
 saintgasoline
Joined: 8/3/2007
Msg: 113
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 10:35:46 PM

I was simply going on the plausibility, and even NOW find it a plausible idea, just as evolution is plausible...


No, no, no! The alien hypothesis is NOT plausible. There is absolutely NO evidence to support it, and in the face of a conflicting explanation that is a scientific theory supported by mountains of evidence, it becomes even more implausible. One can say it is logically POSSIBLE (but then again, it is logically possible that in the next five minutes I will turn into a chocolate easter bunny), and that's about it. It is not plausible in the slightest given even a basic understanding of the natural world.


There are holes in all of the origin of man kind theories...


There are "holes" not just in all origin theories, but in all theories ever constructed about anything. This is a feature of our limited epistemic capacities as human beings, and a result of the fact that we cannot deduce empirical truths about reality from thin air and a priori. A theory may have a "hole" because it is not fully explained or spelled out, but few things have to be fully explained to be known. For instance, the hole in this word---evol_tion---may be pretty glaring, but nevertheless we can still know what's there regardless. So while there may be certain unexplained phenomena in biology, there is still abundant evidence to support the fact that creatures have evolved. In contrast, there is NO evidence to support anything about alien life constructing mankind.


I deal in provable facts from what I am going to school for, that is JUST part of where I am at.


No, you don't. It is philosophically naive to think you deal with "provable facts" in the law whereas science deals with "just theories". For one, it is obvious that facts are theory-laden. That is, you can't even make sense of facts or speak of facts unless they have a theoretical context. If I present to you the "facts" of blood on a man's shirt, a dead body at his feet, and a bloody knife in his hand, those facts don't tell you anything unless they are put into some theoretical context. Perhaps he killed the person, and that explains why he is covered in blood and holding a knife. Or perhaps he found the person dead, removed the knife from the body, and got blood on himself in doing so. As you can see, constructing theories is integral to the law, and it is hardly just a matter of accumulating facts. What is done is that theories are formed (theory x, he's a murderer, or theory y, he's innocent and found the body) and then observations that follow from these theories are adduced. If he's the murderer, for instance, we might expect a certain type of blood splatter on his body consistent with knife thrusting, whereas if what we find is a blood smear from someone leaning over a body and removing a knife, this is more supportive of the other theory. In the end, one can construct an endless array of theories to explain various facts, but there are theories that are more or less plausible than others, and there are even theories that are wholly implausible (ie, if a defendant suggested that aliens killed the woman, even though this doesn't explain any of the evidence away nor is it accounted for by any additional evidence).

This is one reason I find it odd that you are going on about how you don't need to know about science because you are more concerned with going into law, but understanding the subtleties of the scientific method is one of the most important things you could learn before practicing law, as the hypothetico-deductive method is used constantly in trying to establish guilt or innocence. Trying to portray your discipline as somehow completely different epistemically is just nonsense.


WHICH shouldn't be a big deal to any of you, because I am going to be practicing legal advocacy, and not anything to do with evolution, OR astronomy.


I hope the above explains why I DO think it is a big deal, even if you are not becoming a biologist or astronomer. Someone practicing legal advocacy should be capable of understanding that the theory of evolution is infinitely more plausible than other theories on the basis of the evidence. If you continue to sit on the fence it betrays an unwillingness to consider evidence or to come to a reasonable conclusion, making you seem almost an unreasonable total skeptic. And in law you certainly can't be a complete skeptic! Unlike the sciences, one is forced to come to a conclusion in the law, so you better be good at analyzing the available evidence and adopting pragmatic epistemic standards that do not require absolute certainty, lest you find yourself completely lost and sea and unable to do anything!
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 114
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/19/2008 11:13:59 PM
REMEMBER if you look back in past posts, I have agreed evolution has occured... THAT ISN'T at issue. HOWEVER it doesn't mean that their wasn't a helping hand in it.

The issue is nobody has been able to FULLY PROVE IT... Just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean it didn't happen. NOT SAYING IT DID, but I am not going to rule it out.

As a legal professional a person HAS TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES. They have to see what the other side is going to lay out as a defense. Thus even though a person doesn't sit on the fence if you are working with a client, you still have to be willing and able to see ALL sides, and theories that will be presented.

As I stated, I have accept evolution as part of our existance... That should NOT be a question, because I repeatedly pointed out things that demonstrated evolution.

However as your example with the dog, unless you know for sure you don't have kids, mice, a spouse that come in, and it is ONLY THE DOG that had the cake, you have to consider OTHER THEORIES as to what happened to the cake.

Only thinking ONE theory is correct, when there is other possibilities is very limiting to a persons thinking.

You made my point exactly as to the man with the blood on his shirt... THere are MANY THEORIES, and if a person just says because the man has the knife in his hand, and blood on his shirt, means he had to kill the other person. Would not only be a miscarriage in justice, but also bad legal work.

Former medical professional here, thanks but I did very well in that field as well. However evolution and astronomy is not required course work for the legal field. It has been a side interest, one that is NOT required to make or break what I am going to be doing.

I did very well in the science realm, especially when it comes to understanding the human body. How ever I will NOT be trained as a CSI, and that is their job to explain to the court blood spatter, and all that goes with criminology.

Therefore going back to my fence sitting. I agree that evolution played a part... No doubt, however I don't want to know my thinking so much as to think that their was NO alien help, simply because it is a theory that COULD BE plausible... It isn't impossible, AND there IS evidence that something has come out of the sky many times through out history, that got humans to behave in a certain fashion.

There are ground designs that can ONLY be seen from the sky. Cave paintings when there was absolutely NO mechanical devices around. There are surgery tools that are close to three thousand years old, that work as well as what we have NOW. Surgical procedures that are practiced today.

There are several paintings from the middle ages where they have what people call flying saucers.. in the back ground of Religious paintings.. Come on, there has to be some basis of seeing some sort of mechanical device to be able to paint it.

This leaves open speculation as to why these procedures were known, but then lost...

If I never seen an elephant, I would NOT be able to paint it. I could guess if someone described it to me, but that doesn't mean I would be accurate in any details..

Just because there isn't anything YET, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or maybe has been poo pooed, just because it would put a rip in the full theory of evolution.

The point is, you and a couple others seem to feel this need to put me on evolutionary as being the ONLY explainable explanation to man kind.

However proving that I am actually a good student and faithful to what I am studying. I am open to that which has facts to it, however, my client even though a little less obvious, or not having a good alibi, still deserves to be defended, because there is a chance what my client is saying is in fact true.

If I was so foldable to all the pressure of changing my belief, then I would NOT be a good legal advocate... Besides, my position does not go to court, it goes and researches facts, and has to find emperical proof to help an attorney prove their case.

So despite you trying to say I am going to be a fallible skeptic, the truth is, I need to be, so as to find all the evidence on EITHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. That way the client doesn't get blind sided by opposing counsel.

Thanks for being concerned about where I am headed, and how evolution and astronomy some how applies to my chosen field... I am actually an honors student, with 6 classes left. SO I must not be doing all that bad.

By the way, in my critical thinking classes I got 100% in them, as well as evidence.

If I was going into the field of criminal defense, which I am not, then I would have to really have a grasp on analyzing evidence. I am not, but I have no doubt I would do just fine if I decided to... It is all about conviction, and even if the client is guilty as sin, they too deserve the best defense there can be...

Listen, From all the postings back and forth and having to defend myself. The only thing that has changed is that the Sumarian tablets may be fanciful thinking. However I still think that alien intervention in DNA restructuring is plausible... You guys don't have to agree with me, and I am all good with it..

 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 116
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/20/2008 12:37:04 PM
The issue is nobody has been able to FULLY PROVE IT... Just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean it didn't happen. NOT SAYING IT DID, but I am not going to rule it out.

As a legal professional a person HAS TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES. They have to see what the other side is going to lay out as a defense. Thus even though a person doesn't sit on the fence if you are working with a client, you still have to be willing and able to see ALL sides, and theories that will be presented.


That is NOT how science works. Science is not a debate and there are not opposing sides. Scientists are often forced to accept things that don't conform to their preconceptions. In science, you propose a hypothesis consistent with ALL the known data. Such a hypothesis necessarily makes predictions which can be tested to DISPROVE the hypothesis. (Scientific theories are never proved.) If you cannot make any sort of prediction, your hypothesis is not science. If I apply that to the hypothesis that aliens were responsible for human life, what prediction can you make that would allow us to distinguish between aliens and evolution? If you cannot make such a prediction, your hypothesis is more complex because aliens are unnecessary, so it isn't a scientific theory. ANYONE can claim ANYTHING if it can't be tested. Evolution has made many testable predictions and not found to be lacking.
 saintgasoline
Joined: 8/3/2007
Msg: 117
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/20/2008 2:05:36 PM
THere are MANY THEORIES


Yes, there are many theories to explain any given set of facts or observations. It does not follow, however, that all of these theories are equally supportive of or supported by the data. When you enjoin others to be open to a particular explanation when all of the data supports the opposite conclusion and when your explanation has no legitimate evidence in its favor, then this is just shoddy reasoning.

For instance, the following quote from you speaks volumes about the problems with your reasoning:


The issue is nobody has been able to FULLY PROVE IT... Just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean it didn't happen. NOT SAYING IT DID, but I am not going to rule it out.


Being unable to "fully prove" something is NOT an issue. Nothing empirical can be fully proved. Science only attempts to adduce evidence in support of various theories that allow us to rule out and consider those that are more or less supported by the evidence. To say you won't rule out an idea merely because it has the barest possibility of being true, when so much evidence supports a conflicting theory and no actual evidence supports the idea in question, then that is simply unreasonable. I'm sure you'd recognize this elsewhere. If someone insisted a twelve-foot tall****oach made of rainbows was currently in your closet, and upon investigating you find no evidence of such a thing, you rule this out. Even though you cannot "fully prove" this in a mathematical, logical sense, you are able to rule it out based purely on the evidence, or lack thereof. But for someone to call this idea about the huge, rainbow****oach in your closet "plausible" would just be laughable and insane, or else show that they don't really know what the word "plausible" means.


The point is, you and a couple others seem to feel this need to put me on evolutionary as being the ONLY explainable explanation to man kind.


That is not what we are saying. We are saying that evolution is the most well-supported explanation in terms of the available evidence, and that contrary ideas are not supported by nearly as much evidence, if any evidence at all. It is not as if we are plugging our ears and saying, "I won't listen to anything else; evolution is true!" What we are insisting is that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the evidence for alternative theories is either wholly underwhelming (as with the alien idea) or else makes no legitimate predictions and thus can't be said to be supported by evidence (as with creationism).

And to borrow your own skepticism, I will consider the possibility that you are not an honors student and did not score well in your critical thinking courses, as the evidence here certainly suggests otherwise. Perhaps additional evidence will remedy this, but for now it is the most plausible assumption!
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/20/2008 6:57:41 PM

An example, Uniformitianism with regard to weather systems and geological formations . It is assumed that our weather patterns are the same today as they were 250 million years ago and Continental Drift and the belief of super continents are only theories, reinforced by circular reasoning to confirm the original hypothesis.


Could you provide a source of some sort for this theory? Thanks.
 saintgasoline
Joined: 8/3/2007
Msg: 122
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/20/2008 8:48:27 PM

Yes, scientific methodology, empirically proven, all good and just, but the only problem, is that "ALL" the known data is assumed to be correct.


How exactly is this a "problem"? Would a better methodology assume that all data is incorrect and do away with any need for data or evidence? The point I'm making is that though we are naturally epistemically limited, science with all its limitations is the best method we have for arriving at truths about reality.

As for your example, I think it is a bit much to imply modern geological theories such as continental drift are based on purely circular reasoning. For one, I'm not sure why you think the assumption about consistent weather patterns is somehow a foundational support for continental drift. It's founded ona variety of other observations, and taken as a whole they help cement the whole framework into place. There is the coherence with and outside coherence with biological distribution of fossils along once-connected land masses, the actual observations of new ocean floor being created along the atlantic ridge, the entailments of volcanoes and earthquakes being present along fault lines, and much more, I'm sure. The fact that it would cohere with evolutionary geographic distributions is a particularly solid fact, as a field totally outside of geology has bearing on its truth.

So I think that particular example is a bit misleading. There are more questionable hypotheses out there, and I think an example from more obscure cosmological hypotheses would have served your point better!
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/20/2008 9:03:35 PM
Ah, the esteemed and antagonistic Mr. rhino - I suppose you have an opinion?

Let us hear it then

I learned from someone on another thread that if you simply argued for conventional wisdom you would never have to post a reference and you'd never experience anything other than the same narrow minded reality. So I thought I'd give it a shot.

And as some folks require references - unless of course one would happen to be an expert in - well, everything - conventional, one would'nt need this.

Conventional wisdom - Uniformitarianism - you'll find a nice reference in a favorite research source. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)


Perhaps I've misunderstood what antagonistic means, because I hardly think asking for a reference is antagonistic. I did try to look for myself, but you misspelled it the first time you posted. Thank you for the corrected spelling and the non-primary source material.

I'm going to assume this is the more specific source in Wiki that you intended to post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/20/2008 9:44:12 PM
Silivros thank you, You have said what I have spent thousands of words trying to get across... My hats off to you.


<div class="quote">Yes, scientific methodology, empirically proven, all good and just, but the only problem, is that "ALL" the known data is assumed to be correct. Often hypotheses are founded on hypotheses, which in turn are founded on theories. While the methodology is sufficeint, not always is the interpretation.
An example, Uniformitianism with regard to weather systems and geological formations . It is assumed that our weather patterns are the same today as they were 250 million years ago and Continental Drift and the belief of super continents are only theories, reinforced by circular reasoning to confirm the original hypothesis.
With development in various scientific fields of study much of what we consider as common knowledge with regard to our natural sciences might need to be revisited and reassessed with new data.

My whole point has always been there are holes, and unaswered, unknowns about evolution... Huge holes according to some scientists.

Just because I am open to entertaining an idea that may not be mainstream, does NOT mean I have ignored the other theories that repeatedly on this thread get posted as FACTS...

THE FACT IS, scientist have speculated, that evolution from ape to man is the ONLY way, (according to some) modern man could derive. That is a plausible theory, BUT not the only one. For the record everything that HAS been provided for the other argument has been poo pooed as NOT true or credible... Completely ignoring some facts, that are contrary to there NOT BEING alien visitation to this planet.

If I chose to entertain those ideas, and see where it leads me, I have done NOTHING MORE than open my mind to another scientific methodology, and am hunting for the emperical proof.

I have been taunted about how this stuff fits in my legal studies... WHICH IT DOES NOT, but in my studies especially in the area of criminology, it would be considered shitty police work if they JUST FOCUSED on what seemed to be the most obvious, even though there were holes in the theory.

We all know the legal system makes big mistakes on a regular basis, especially when they become narrow minded.

Lets go back to legal studies...
Civil court goes by :Preponderance of the evidence means such relevant evidence that as a whole shows that the existence of the fact to be proven is more likely than not.

Criminal court: Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.


Nothing empirical can be fully proved

If someone cut your heart out, and ate it for lunch, you would be dead. That has been fully empirically proven... I could go on all day on the things that are empirically proven.

However your argument that we have to accept evolution as the only theory, because there is to much evidence to the contrary, but yes there are BIG holes in these theories, simply because not every thing has been proven..

My point exactly... Thus that leaves the door open for reasonable doubt... Case dismissed...


If I want to look at ALL plausible, OR IF SOMEONE THINKS IMPLAUSIBLE... SO BE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 *sass*
Joined: 11/2/2008
Msg: 127
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/20/2008 10:28:43 PM
Saint:
The point I'm making is that though we are naturally epistemically limited, science with all its limitations is the best method we have for arriving at truths about reality.
And within science.. theories intermingle with fact in order to move a hypothesis forward...

If we are only willing to look at what has already been proven, there would be no further progress....

Oh, and hi
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/20/2008 11:37:19 PM

I thought this would be something you would be able to understand as you have used wiki yourself in a previous post.

Ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand, and objectivity is limited by the subjective mind.


Yep. *Holds up mirror* See?

(Dude, you really don't understand what you think you understand. At least not well enough to push it past the "word salad" stage and make others understand your points... It's kind of sad, actually. Perhaps a perusal of "pseudo-intellectual" in any of the usual dictionaries would be in order for you. Love the emo picture, though. It suits.)
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 129
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/21/2008 11:44:21 AM
>>>If we are only willing to look at what has already been proven, there would be no further progress....

Yes, but the theory in question actually has nothing proven, and is contradicted by what w've observed in the universe. There is nothing backing it other than a theory, and not even in a scientific sense- its nothing more than a "what if". It holds just has much crediance than if I were to say ths sky was held up by invisible celery stalks- yes, its a theory, and yes, I'm free to question it and challenge other theories- but there is no actual observational evidence supporting it other than me thinking "wouldn't it be nice if..."

And you're saying that being certain in, of all things, proven facts will harm progress??!

We know what we know not by blindly going out and saying "hey- maybe clouds aren't the accumulation of moisture, but instead are our dreams formed into white weightless cotton candy"- we observe the universe. Our understanding of things like phsyics, astrophsyics, medical science, and yes, evolution- these revalations were not made by baseless assumptions- but BASED assumptions-that we don't just throw ideas out there, and announce that since other people cannot prove that there aren't invisble celery stalks holding our sky they, then its just as possible and plausible than any explaination by a scientist. We observe how the universe is, and try to ask why- and more importantly, evidence is presented.

You say if we only support what has been proven to be true will harm progress. But what about the opposite? Can giving our support to something that CANNOT be proven harm progress moreso?



And thats working in the general- but in this particular case(aliens creating humanity), it gets even worse- it uses evolution as a crutch to explain all life on Earth save one- man. Why? Why is it that man learned about fire, about tools, and about simple social things like protecting the injuried and burying their dead- but aliens are the only explaination for man learning about metals? Why?? If man developed intelligence indpendantly on its own up until that point, why couldn't it continue?? If these aliens were hovering over us for longer than all of recorded history, why did it take so long for these societies to understand things like agriculture, which wouldn't have appeared until the aliens were on the way out? Why would the aliens want gold in the first place- Gold is wonderful for young civilizations because its easily malible, but steel IS stronger, diamonds ARE stronger- the reason we turned to gold was that we could mold it at lower tempertures, as we did with iron.

And, of course, why is there no evidence of aliens at all? If they were here for over 10,000 years, you'd think they'd leave something as evidence-their dead, their ships energy's waste, even diseases with DNA structure different from all other life on Earth- the only thing we have is cavemen painting objects on the walls we, 12,000 years later, think it looks like objects in our popular media- there is no evidence that the cavemen were simply wrong, nor is there evidence that our interpretation is RIGHT.

People claim evolution has holes- and if thats true, then the belief that aliens created modern man has a hole the size of the grand canyon going through it, because there are so many holes in it its unbelievable that people still cling to the belief of aliens. Evolution doesn't explain everything- the Platpus is a fun example- but the belief that aliens created humanity? That explains NOTHING- It merely creates more and more questions and flaws- it cannot handle critizism and survive, without people clinging to the hope that we will respect their right to believe in absurities.
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/21/2008 3:25:49 PM

And thats working in the general- but in this particular case(aliens creating humanity), it gets even worse- it uses evolution as a crutch to explain all life on Earth save one- man. Why? Why is it that man learned about fire, about tools, and about simple social things like protecting the injuried and burying their dead- but aliens are the only explaination for man learning about metals? Why?? If man developed intelligence indpendantly on its own up until that point, why couldn't it continue??


If ALL things simply evolve, WHY OH WHY, is man kind, and ONLY man kind the one the developed to intellectual beings???


even diseases with DNA structure different from all other life on Earth-
This is the best that you can state??? We have no proof of DNA structure from aliens... Shug we are STILL finding things that don't make sense, they have been hidden away in the bottom the ocean by gases heat vents. In the dark in cold caves that haven't eye site, nor what would it seem they have food source.

Here's the hole that many seem to by pass on a regular basis... IF we living, and ALL living came from one source, this big ass bang, why aren't ALL of our DNA structure simular??? That hasn't been explained. We have extinct animals, that are STILL being discovered. And as a matter of fact it was in the last 20 yrs they realized that the structuring as put together by earlier scientist or dinosaurs are majorly wrong.


Evolution doesn't explain everything- the Platpus is a fun example- but the belief that aliens created humanity? That explains NOTHING- It merely creates more and more questions and flaws- it cannot handle critizism and survive, without people clinging to the hope that we will respect their right to believe in absurities.


Once again we have the our way thinking only, or your beliefs are absurb argument.

Yeah that has the ring of I have to be right, and will get down right snarky if you don't agree with what I believe..

Guess what a lot of scientist hung against MAJOR majority criticism survived the nay sayers and came to be world famous and respect to this day posthumerously; Newton, Einstein to name a few. Then we have DaVinci who was known as a painter, but his theories prior to anyone else, but were tucked away because of the risk of being charged with heresy and death, were also proven to be right.

I only entertain the idea as an option, and the seems like total blasphemy in your eyes..

At my age, I have learned, because when I was in my 20's I felt thing were SET, and a certain way no matter what anyone else said. Life is about questioning, and following different observations even if they go against mainstay ideas. Life is about exploring ideals different than the majority, and be willing to at least research and figure out WHY there were some very long term held ideas in the past.

There is no winner at the end, just knowledge to be gained, right or wrong is in the cards, just exploring WHY the ancients held some ideas, and followed certain beliefs.

Beliefs by the way that are still held to a certain degree by 80% of the population.

Therefore for all of your actual rant, and those with the clever name calling ( IE: psuedo intellects) when tally comes rolling around a lot of you are sitting in the minority of what the majority believes. As nice as it is to say well these people are all ignorant, and we hold the key to how things really are.

The real truth is, none of know the exacts of what happened billions of years back. Stating there is no proof, simply because the theories you have been presented with SEEM more provable, really still means nothing. Simply because it is a theory that people did a lot of I think this is what happened, because these things are simular. Someone else saying oh yeah, this makes sense, that's got to be the answer.

It is fool hardy to stop asking questions when there are still so many unanswered questions. One has to be thankful for those who are really in the field that haven't stopped asking questions and want to know more.

By the way, we have a piece of meteor from Mars found some where up in the arctic. They have it specially enclosed so as not to RISK any contamination of cells that may be on this piece another planet.

To say we don't have DNA proof means really nothing, because going back to the big bang theory, all was created equal according to those that follow that theory. Perhaps the DNA that is being looked at exist everywhere, therefore there wouldn't be some major difference to be seen.

What ever the case, things in the realm of science has progressed amazingly since 50 yrs ago. Every day there are new discoveries and new questions to be answered, just because something hasn't been found doesn't ALWAYS mean it doesn't exist.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 131
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/21/2008 3:56:45 PM

Yes, scientific methodology, empirically proven, all good and just, but the only problem, is that "ALL" the known data is assumed to be correct.


That isn't true. In science, data are specified with error bars and confifence limits which give a precise measure of the extent to which the data could be in error. Any theory which lives reasonably close to those limits is generally considered consistent with the data.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 132
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 12/21/2008 4:02:12 PM

Guess what a lot of scientist hung against MAJOR majority criticism survived the nay sayers and came to be world famous and respect to this day posthumerously; Newton, Einstein to name a few.


You are very naive. Both Newton's and Einstein's ideas were accepted very quickly (at least the ideas that were not proven to be incorrect.) In fact, one of Einstein's criteria for his theories was that his theories must reduce to Newtonian physics in the appropriate limits so that both theories were consistent with data where the data was insufficiently precise to distinguish.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >