et's

[BYTEr]

I think life must exist elsewhere due to the vast size of the universe and the estimates of the number of galaxies, stars and planets.

However, the universe being so old and vast means I'm not optimistic of finding other life any time soon unless some sort of miracle breakthrough happens that means we can use some sort of warp drive or we're able to directly observe other planets hundreds of light years away.

Other life may exist in our solar system though, but it's such a shame that as a species we put so relatively little into exploring it, I hope I live longer enough to see a proper exploration of it.

 

[itchy]

Maybe we're aliens....

We are from a conceptual perspective.

We breed and live on a rock that's spins 1000 mph and goes around the sun at 18.5 miles a second. Makes you think a lot.

 

[dowie]

We are from a conceptual perspective.

We breed and live on a rock that's spins 1000 mph and goes around the sun at 18.5 miles a second. Makes you think a lot.

Nah that in itself doesn't make us "aliens" - it is a relative term and the context used here is relative to earth.

Life starting as a result of say a comet though could mean that we and all other living creatures are of alien origin.

 

[itchy]

But if a alien met us we would be aliens to them from there perspective.

So therefore we are aliens to anyone alien to us.

 

[Felon]

Life starting as a result of say a comet though could mean that we and all other living creatures are of alien origin.

The thing that really hurts my head, is when you look at RNA/DNA and how brilliant it is as a mechanism for encoding genetic information and how it's used by cells to build bodies. I've read several books on DNA - however I'm always left wondering whether DNA really did come about by accident, due to the ways in which things like proteins have a tendency to fold and create shapes - or whether the initial thing came from "elsewhere"

Obviously - life evolves here on earth, but the origins of the mechanism itself (DNA and the basic building blocks) are quite mysterious, to me - it could be a viable possibility that the initial "thing" that started it all - may be alien, it certainly hasn't been disproven AFAIK.

 

[Adnams Drinker]

I'm definitely in the 'universe is so large, there must be other life on planets somewhere amongst that lot' camp. I cannot believe that out of all the billions of planets that make up the universe that Earth is the only one with [supposedly ] intelligent life on it.

As to whether we'll ever meet them as we travel outwards or whether they've ever visited us, that's a whole different story ... funny how they predominantly seem to visit Hicksville, USA if they do ...

 

[AHarvey]

Anyone seen the photo released from the TESS Spacecraft? Amazing photo and showing over 200,000 stars from a 2-second exposure.

 

[Tefal]

The thing that really hurts my head, is when you look at RNA/DNA and how brilliant it is as a mechanism for encoding genetic information and how it's used by cells to build bodies. I've read several books on DNA - however I'm always left wondering whether DNA really did come about by accident, due to the ways in which things like proteins have a tendency to fold and create shapes - or whether the initial thing came from "elsewhere"

Obviously - life evolves here on earth, but the origins of the mechanism itself (DNA and the basic building blocks) are quite mysterious, to me - it could be a viable possibility that the initial "thing" that started it all - may be alien, it certainly hasn't been disproven AFAIK.

DNA is amazing from the view of nature from the view if a designed system its pretty ****.

See cancer for reasons why

 

[Felon]

DNA is amazing from the view of nature from the view if a designed system its pretty ****.

See cancer for reasons why

I'm speaking more about the initial mechanism, as in - how it came about, if you look at biological systems now - then yes, they're packed full of errors which is why an overall "designer" that actively designs life-forms here on earth has been proven wrong. Cancer isn't the best reason - any initially perfect system could become damaged due to the environment (for example smoking and damage to DNA) which might break an organism, but it's obvious when you look at things like the laryngeal nerve - that it wasn't designed outright.

 

[4K8KW10]

The initial mechanism should happen now and everywhere on Earth with the correct conditions, if it doesn't - then life has different origins.

 

[dowie]

DNA is amazing from the view of nature from the view if a designed system its pretty ****.

See cancer for reasons why

Maybe the creator had a tight deadline and the QA guys just mindlessly ran the usual unit tests...

Then the comet landed and the most advanced species generated from it so far turned out to be the ones that could quite likely end up destroying everything before we're able to advance to a stage where we can populate other planets and build in some redundancy.

Maybe, given the vast distances between potentially habitable planets and the logistical challenges in sustaining complex life forms for multiple generations to travel those distances, the only feasible way of spreading life through the universe is via its basic ingredients on a comet... or maybe it was all an accident.

 

[Tefal]

I'm speaking more about the initial mechanism, as in - how it came about, if you look at biological systems now - then yes, they're packed full of errors which is why an overall "designer" that actively designs life-forms here on earth has been proven wrong. Cancer isn't the best reason - any initially perfect system could become damaged due to the environment (for example smoking and damage to DNA) which might break an organism, but it's obvious when you look at things like the laryngeal nerve - that it wasn't designed outright.

Cancer is an inherent flaw in a DNA based system though live long enough and its practically a certainty


Although in a design scenario I suppose treating cancer would be seen as such a trivial maintsinence task it would be similar to living a bearing every 50 years

 

[itchy]

Perhaps he thinks you point a telescope at a cinderella planet and you see all the lights on like Earth.

But the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second so Cinderella would at least year old and that's at 1 light year, if said telescope looked at a planet 1000 light years away then she would be long dead.

 

[Rroff]

they're packed full of errors which is why an overall "designer" that actively designs life-forms here on earth has been proven wrong.

Which assumes an agenda on the part of the designer - if there was an active designer who is to say they are following any particular logic or reason?

Somewhat far out but maybe the whole thing is a simulation (one of) to solve a problem in another reality and intentionally flawed. (IIRC there are a couple of TV shows using alternative/multiple universes that explore that kind of concept).

 

[dowie]

they're packed full of errors which is why an overall "designer" that actively designs life-forms here on earth has been proven wrong.

Dubious logic there, if a car or computer component is flawed it doesn't logically follow that there was no designer.

At some point in the future we may be able to engineer life too, it could easily have some flaws... it may be near impossible for us to engineer it without certain flaws depending on whatever constraints appear and whatever compromises need to be made. Having flaws doesn't logically preclude a designer (with regards to the initial stages that have evolved to what we now have on this planet). Having a short shelf life/inevitable death, in addition to reproduction perhaps helps from an evolutionary perspective. Perhaps the ageing process, susceptibility to cancer isn't as much of a flaw as we might think if we want new versions to keep on iterating/evolving. Maybe the current human lifespan is the optimal "step size" for this model... actually maybe we've artificially increased the step size and perhaps are not much use for anything beyond our 40s or 50s.

 

[Felon]

Dubious logic there, if a car or computer component is flawed it doesn't logically follow that there was no designer.

At some point in the future we may be able to engineer life too, it could easily have some flaws... it may be near impossible for us to engineer it without certain flaws depending on whatever constraints appear and whatever compromises need to be made. Having flaws doesn't logically preclude a designer (with regards to the initial stages that have evolved to what we now have on this planet).

If you look at the flaws that exist within life, such as the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe, it essentially rules out that a designer designed a giraffe due it's very nature, because any competent designer wouldn't make such a huge error, it's a flaw that's occurred due to physical law - not design. If it was designed outright, it wouldn't exist - unless the designer was incompetent, so the presence of such a flaw can certainly preclude a designer.

If you're talking about whether someone or something designed the initial building blocks of life and how they all fell into place in the first instances, RNA/DNA and the first *stuff* and let evolution take hold after that - then maybe it was designed then left alone to flourish without any further intervention, I can certainly see that being feasible. As for aspects of design in evolved creatures on earth right now (such as a Giraffe, Tiger, Whale) - any evidence of a designer playing a part (intelligent design) has been disproven.

 

[dowie]

If you look at the flaws that exist within life, such as the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe, it essentially rules out that a designer designed a giraffe due it's very nature, because any competent designer wouldn't make such a huge error, it's a flaw that's occurred due to physical law - not design. If it was designed outright, it wouldn't exist - unless the designer was incompetent, so the presence of such a flaw can certainly preclude a designer.

If you're talking about whether someone or something designed the initial building blocks of life and how they all fell into place in the first instances, RNA/DNA and the first *stuff* and let evolution take hold after that - then maybe it was designed then left alone to flourish without any further intervention, I can certainly see that being feasible. As for aspects of design in evolved creatures on earth right now (such as a Giraffe, Tiger, Whale) - any evidence of a designer playing a part (intelligent design) has been disproven.

I've not mentioned giraffes at all. You're now talking about things that have evolved, the conversation was about the initial stages of life.

Edit, sorry, we are in agreement I think so perhaps I have quoted you out of context in the previous post. My mistake.

 

[Felon]

Which assumes an agenda on the part of the designer - if there was an active designer who is to say they are following any particular logic or reason?

If there was an active designer that had a hand in creating life as we know it today, to me that contradicts the known laws of physics. This is because we know that many of the flaws that occur in life are caused by the endless random forces of physics. A good example would be brownian motion, where the movement of molecules inside a cell is no different than if you were to go on a random walk, or by rolling dice - the behaviour is not engineered in any way, it's random - yet it causes changes or differences in the cell which might be good or bad, (it might lead to trichromacy, or it might lead to cancer) all entirely random.

The problem with that, is that the effects of the designer are essentially reduced down to random chance as in - if the known mechanisms of physics can produce the wide range of phenomena that we see today, entirely by themselves (mechanisms we mostly understand down to the atomic level) then the designer is essentially totally defunct and meaningless and has no place in the system.

Of course, if your theory is that everything is a simulation then yeah - I've got argument to take that on

I've not mentioned giraffes at all. You're now talking about things that have evolved, the conversation was about the initial stages of life.

Edit, sorry, we are in agreement I think so perhaps I have quoted you out of context in the previous post. My mistake.

Fair play I thought some wires were crossed somewhere between us

 

[Danny75]

If we found ET's then what would be the consequences for religion and us? After all the bible doesn't mention them.

There are numerous references to aliens (angels/extra-terrestrials, nephilim) and UFOs in the Bible. The visitation of Lot by two angels who then destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, flying chariots of fire, wheels within wheels, star of Bethlehem stopping directly above a manger in Bethlehem, pillars of fire in the sky, John's vision of the New Jerusalem as a city (we'd probably call that a mothership these days) descending from the sky, etc. Even Jesus reportedly said:

John 18
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Which is literally "my kingdom is extra-terrestrial", meaning he (the spirit inside the human body) was/is extra-terrestrial. It is of course a matter of one's perspective, but it is impossible not to see Biblical mention of ETs if you are conscious of the ET question and read the Bible without organised religion blinkers on.

I don't just want to point that out. You did ask about consequences and later stated that all religion will pass away some day, so here's my take on it. One needn't exclude the other. Theoretically, one of the consequences of mass contact could be truer religion, as certain myths were dispelled, and the difference between science and the spiritual becoming less pronounced. Even without direct contact, the spiritual (some of it) could well be scientifically proven, once scientific knowledge reaches the necessary standard in order to scientifically verify it. Any organised religion which runs counter to this revelation, would then likely pass away, but any true religion would remain/be amplified. At the same time, wrong or bad science would also pass away (or things that currently pass for "science").

If someone already believes they aren't just human, and suspect they may have an extra-terrestrial Creator, their religious belief may not change as much in that respect, as long as ET contact reveals itself in that manner. If ET contact happened to be in a different manner, then obviously it will alter things. I do think all organised religions will have a hard time, no matter what method of contact. So will concepts (beliefs) like money, politics and statism, suffer. These too, are religions, from a certain point of view, requiring belief in their authority and their value, in order to have any value at all, or at least as much value as we currently place upon them.

 

[itchy]

There are numerous references to aliens (angels/extra-terrestrials, nephilim) and UFOs in the Bible. The visitation of Lot by two angels who then destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, flying chariots of fire, wheels within wheels, star of Bethlehem stopping directly above a manger in Bethlehem, pillars of fire in the sky, John's vision of the New Jerusalem as a city (we'd probably call that a mothership these days) descending from the sky, etc. Even Jesus reportedly said:

John 18
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Which is literally "my kingdom is extra-terrestrial", meaning he (the spirit inside the human body) was/is extra-terrestrial. It is of course a matter of one's perspective, but it is impossible not to see Biblical mention of ETs if you are conscious of the ET question and read the Bible without organised religion blinkers on.

I don't just want to point that out. You did ask about consequences and later stated that all religion will pass away some day, so here's my take on it. One needn't exclude the other. Theoretically, one of the consequences of mass contact could be truer religion, as certain myths were dispelled, and the difference between science and the spiritual becoming less pronounced. Even without direct contact, the spiritual (some of it) could well be scientifically proven, once scientific knowledge reaches the necessary standard in order to scientifically verify it. Any organised religion which runs counter to this revelation, would then likely pass away, but any true religion would remain/be amplified. At the same time, wrong or bad science would also pass away (or things that currently pass for "science").

If someone already believes they aren't just human, and suspect they may have an extra-terrestrial Creator, their religious belief may not change as much in that respect, as long as ET contact reveals itself in that manner. If ET contact happened to be in a different manner, then obviously it will alter things. I do think all organised religions will have a hard time, no matter what method of contact. So will concepts (beliefs) like money, politics and statism, suffer. These too, are religions, from a certain point of view, requiring belief in their authority and their value, in order to have any value at all, or at least as much value as we currently place upon them.

I have never read such incoherent rubbish in my life, really serious or at the town halls?