• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

I have now met a real life creationist.

Is there life out there ... are there intelligent or advanced civilisations existing or may have previously existed before our own? These are questions even for scientists to be "open" to .. like Dawkins , Kaku , and N.deGasse Tyson who says he is. Aliens is often put with the fairies and santa claus in certain debates.
 
Aliens is often put with the fairies and santa claus in certain debates.
Are aliens actually 'put with' fairies and Santa Claus?
Or is it the claims of alien contacts that are viewed as similar to the evidence for fairies at the bottom of the garden or memories of seeing Santa on Christmas eve?
 
Is there life out there ... are there intelligent or advanced civilisations existing or may have previously existed before our own? These are questions even for scientists to be "open" to .. like Dawkins , Kaku , and N.deGasse Tyson who says he is. Aliens is often put with the fairies and santa claus in certain debates.

Sure, but we can make deductions based on what we know already. We know that our planet is not unique. In fact we've found loads of Earth like planets just in our "vicinity". if we look further away, we're likely to find more. Since we have life, and life got started here very fast, and is now advanced, it's just simple deduction that:

1) Life is common in the universe
2) There exists other intelligent species out there, and other civilisations

But we have no evidence of being visited. If it had happened there should be evidence of it. The conclusion of this is they have no ability to reach us. Ie, there is a scientific insurmuntable obstacle to interstellar travel. Both for us, and for the aliens.

Sure, it might be wrong. But the above assumption is a fairly safe assumption to make. This is just rudimentary logic based on available evidence.

Yes, aliens visiting us should be put with mythical beings. They're just as mythical.
 
Aliens is often put with the fairies and santa claus in certain debates.
Are aliens actually 'put with' fairies and Santa Claus?
Or is it the claims of alien contacts that are viewed as similar to the evidence for fairies at the bottom of the garden or memories of seeing Santa on Christmas eve?

Actually there many similarities between UFO accounts and faerie lore.

And a popular train of thought by Christians, by luminaries such as Chuck Missler, claim that those UFOs are actually demonic entities or fallen angels and that it is part of a demonic deception.
 
Are aliens actually 'put with' fairies and Santa Claus?
Or is it the claims of alien contacts that are viewed as similar to the evidence for fairies at the bottom of the garden or memories of seeing Santa on Christmas eve?

Actually there many similarities between UFO accounts and faerie lore.
I thought i just suggested that...
And a popular train of thought by Christians, by luminaries such as Chuck Missler, claim that those UFOs are actually demonic entities or fallen angels and that it is part of a demonic deception.
Popular because it puts new information through the pre-accepted filters so that no new thinking is required. Magic is attributed to the miracle of their God or the deception of their anti-God.
Just about anything can be filed under 'satan's influence' if you don't want to deal with it.

Or can't.
 
Is there life out there ... are there intelligent or advanced civilisations existing or may have previously existed before our own? These are questions even for scientists to be "open" to .. like Dawkins , Kaku , and N.deGasse Tyson who says he is. Aliens is often put with the fairies and santa claus in certain debates.

The thing about science is that it's a methodology; So if you apply it anywhere, then you need to apply it everywhere.

The hypothesis "UFOs are aliens visiting Earth" entails a number of testable elements, ALL of which must remain unfalsified if we are to accept the hypothesis as plausible.

One such element is the question of whether it is plausible that intelligent life exists outside our solar system; Another (related) question is whether it is plausible that intelligent life exists elsewhere within our solar system.

The answer to the latter question, we can be confident is 'no' - it's plausible that simple life might exist on Mars, or Europa, or in the clouds of Jupiter or Venus; But if such life was present AND had advanced to the point of using technology, we would almost certainly have found good, hard, repeatable evidence for it by now.

The answer to the former question is almost certainly 'yes' - we now know that there are enough Earth-like planets in the universe - even just in our galaxy - to render the chances that ours was the only one to develop intelligent life pretty remote. From what we know of physics, chemistry and biology, and from what we know about the frequency with which planets are found, and the number of stars in the galaxy, intelligent life would need to be incredibly uncommon for it not to exist elsewhere.

But that's only part of the story. Intelligent life elsewhere is a far cry from intelligent life visiting us here. The Galaxy is a big place, and the speed of light is an absolute limit; So visiting even 'nearby' stars is extremely difficult. If we were to discover strong evidence of intelligent life at a nearby star - say within a dozen lightyears - and were to decide to put a massive effort into visiting them, we would need all our resources just to build and send one crewed spacecraft there; And that craft would be in no condition to land, and then re-launch and return to Earth, even without a kidnapped alien or some samples taken from one. We certainly wouldn't arrive with the ability to zip around in their atmosphere, frightening drunken alien yokels and turning inside out whatever their analog of a cow is.

In fact, an alien civilization a dozen lightyears away would be very hard to detect - the inverse square law is against us here, and we need very sensitive equipment to receive deliberately sent, highly directional, signals from our own space probes within our solar system. If an identical Earth, with an identical technology, existed 12 lightyears away, we would be hard pressed to detect it; About the only signals we would likely pick up would be from the DEW radars used in the cold war - and we only 'broadcast' signals from them for about three decades, from the 1960s to the 1990s.

In short, aliens almost certainly exist; And equally, they almost certainly are not here, and are not likely to even know that we are here. (Just as we don't know where they are). So anyone who claims to have seen one has probably been indulging too much in mind-altering activities.
 
Is there life out there ... are there intelligent or advanced civilisations existing or may have previously existed before our own? These are questions even for scientists to be "open" to .. like Dawkins , Kaku , and N.deGasse Tyson who says he is. Aliens is often put with the fairies and santa claus in certain debates.

The thing about science is that it's a methodology; So if you apply it anywhere, then you need to apply it everywhere.

The hypothesis "UFOs are aliens visiting Earth" entails a number of testable elements, ALL of which must remain unfalsified if we are to accept the hypothesis as plausible.

One such element is the question of whether it is plausible that intelligent life exists outside our solar system; Another (related) question is whether it is plausible that intelligent life exists elsewhere within our solar system.

The answer to the latter question, we can be confident is 'no' - it's plausible that simple life might exist on Mars, or Europa, or in the clouds of Jupiter or Venus; But if such life was present AND had advanced to the point of using technology, we would almost certainly have found good, hard, repeatable evidence for it by now.

The answer to the former question is almost certainly 'yes' - we now know that there are enough Earth-like planets in the universe - even just in our galaxy - to render the chances that ours was the only one to develop intelligent life pretty remote. From what we know of physics, chemistry and biology, and from what we know about the frequency with which planets are found, and the number of stars in the galaxy, intelligent life would need to be incredibly uncommon for it not to exist elsewhere.

But that's only part of the story. Intelligent life elsewhere is a far cry from intelligent life visiting us here. The Galaxy is a big place, and the speed of light is an absolute limit; So visiting even 'nearby' stars is extremely difficult. If we were to discover strong evidence of intelligent life at a nearby star - say within a dozen lightyears - and were to decide to put a massive effort into visiting them, we would need all our resources just to build and send one crewed spacecraft there; And that craft would be in no condition to land, and then re-launch and return to Earth, even without a kidnapped alien or some samples taken from one. We certainly wouldn't arrive with the ability to zip around in their atmosphere, frightening drunken alien yokels and turning inside out whatever their analog of a cow is.

In fact, an alien civilization a dozen lightyears away would be very hard to detect - the inverse square law is against us here, and we need very sensitive equipment to receive deliberately sent, highly directional, signals from our own space probes within our solar system. If an identical Earth, with an identical technology, existed 12 lightyears away, we would be hard pressed to detect it; About the only signals we would likely pick up would be from the DEW radars used in the cold war - and we only 'broadcast' signals from them for about three decades, from the 1960s to the 1990s.

In short, aliens almost certainly exist; And equally, they almost certainly are not here, and are not likely to even know that we are here. (Just as we don't know where they are). So anyone who claims to have seen one has probably been indulging too much in mind-altering activities.

How can science be applied to philosophy or human behavior?

And wouldn't there be some things that the methodology can not be applied to?
 
How can science be applied to philosophy or human behavior?
Science is largely trial and error and noting the results. Explanations for what worked, and what didn't. And of course attempts to weaponize anything we figure out.

You've observed the effects of morality and come to a conclusion that morality is useless and/or harmful. And you claim to have a philosophy that rejects morality for that reason. That would be applying science to philosophy, seeing what philosophy works and what doesn't and adjusting your philosophy accordingly.
Of course, you then go and choose a moral code that you say is philosophy instead of morality, but that's just your sophistry at work. You're still trying to use scientific methodology for your philosophy.

As to using science to understand human behavior ,what do you think psychiatry, psychology, advertising, and jury tampering do?
 
... but is this really how you want to live your life?
Why do you even ask? Some brains don't get to make a choice. Consider yourself fortunate.

Two weeks ago I drove right past Hamm's Ark Encounter. I was going to drop in just for the entertainment value but lacked sufficient time. Maybe one day when I'm sufficiently inebriated to appreciate the experience I'll stop and have a good laugh.
 
Here in Texas you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a creationist.


Swinging a dead cat and hitting a creationist sounds like a very good idea.
The dead cat must have caught a tail wind and landed in Alabama :D

In my parts it would be about as likely for a bald eagle to catch the dead cat, than hit a creationist...
 
Back
Top Bottom