Tell E.T. skeptics where to stick it

[Itisnotlogical]

I really hate it when those who don't believe in aliens try to stick rules that apply to humans on to possible aliens. Who knows, maybe aliens don't breathe air! Maybe they breathe some other gas, or don't even breathe at all. I'm sure had humans evolved on say, the Moon, we would have adapted to live in that environment. Look at ants, for instance. They live in a hive-type society, with one dominant Queen ruling over all other ants within the colony. They can survive for up to a week underwater. Just because they came into existence on Earth doesn't mean they have to be just like us.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Errrrr.... right.

 

[Zachary Smith]

The OP's comments, which manage to be both . . .erm . . . highly speculative as well as confrontational, notwithstanding, I am surprised repeatedly that far more people accept the possibility of the existence of "God"--something for which there is NO established precedent--than accept the possibility of intelligent beings existing elsewhere in the universe (for which there is an obvious precedent; ourselves).

 

[Itisnotlogical]

The OP's comments, which manage to be both . . .erm . . . highly speculative as well as confrontational, notwithstanding, I am surprised repeatedly that far more people accept the possibility of the existence of "God"--something for which there is NO established precedent--than accept the possibility of intelligent beings existing elsewhere in the universe (for which there is an obvious precedent; ourselves).

I wasn't trying to establish any viewpoints on God or religion, but still, people would rather believe in a benevolent God which punishes those who do wrong and rewards those who believe in him than an alien race which has technology we can't begin to comprehend. Also, Christianity has been around a lot longer than the idea of UFO's.

 

[Zachary Smith]

The OP's comments, which manage to be both . . .erm . . . highly speculative as well as confrontational, notwithstanding, I am surprised repeatedly that far more people accept the possibility of the existence of "God"--something for which there is NO established precedent--than accept the possibility of intelligent beings existing elsewhere in the universe (for which there is an obvious precedent; ourselves).

I wasn't trying to establish any viewpoints on God or religion, but still, people would rather believe in a benevolent God which punishes those who do wrong and rewards those who believe in him than an alien race which has technology we can't begin to comprehend. Also, Christianity has been around a lot longer than the idea of UFO's.

Objective truths are not dependent on people being aware of them for their validity. There is or is NOT a God. There are or are NOT aliens. These positions have objective truths at the core regardless as to whether we know the answer or not.

My point is that there is a precedent for intelligent life evolving (or otherwise "manifesting") in the universe. WE are that intelligent life. Yet many remain skeptical of something happening elsewhere which has already been demonstrated CAN happen. While there are many others (a strong majority, in fact) who are committed to the idea of "God" when there is NO precedent or evidence for "His" existence. I just find this a weird way of thinking every time I consider it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Objective truths are not dependent on people being aware of them for their validity. There is or is NOT a God. There are or are NOT aliens. These positions have objective truths at the core...

Not, however, in any useful sense - since whatever the "objective truth" is, in either case, is not and never has been known to us. Nor have we any reason to expect that either truth will be revealed in the foreseeable future.

The reason that some people may be more willing to entertain the possibility of God's existence than that of alien intelligence is simply because we have no idea what the preconditions for God's existence would be but most people have some idea - correct or not, well-founded or not - what the necessary conditions and boundaries for life are.

I'm increasingly dubious that if extraterrestrial intelligence exists that we will ever find it because I doubt that we would recognize it.

 

[Zachary Smith]

You may have a point because I believe we have native intelligences here on earth that we have only limited means of communicating with due to radically different perspectives on the universe around us (dolphins).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You may have a point because I believe we have native intelligences here on earth that we have only limited means of communicating with due to radically different perspectives on the universe around us (dolphins).

Exactly. Also possibly whales - and even, possibly, apes and elephants. The point is that after god knows how many millennia of probably sharing the planet with one or more other intelligences there are still only a very limited number of people who are willing to accept the possibility that any creature other than human beings is sophisticated enough to even treat with basic humane respect rather than be farmed or hunted (pet or companion animals being an obvious exception that's not based on evaluations of their intelligence).

And these are creatures who are more similar to us than anything extraterrestrial that we're likely to encounter. Life has existed and evolved on this planet for billions of years and, after several random near-extinction events that have more or less reset the system, has produced exactly one species that we recognize as "using technology." The notion that what we call "intelligence" is an inevitable product of evolution is itself suspect; the proposition that evolved intelligence must or is highly likely to become technological intelligence is no more or less faith-based than accepting the divinity of Christ IMAO.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Of course, if any extraterrestrial intelligences create technology-based societies, we'll notice that pretty much on sight.

That said, I do tend to think any intelligent species evolving in environments suitable for human life will likely have strong similarities just based on physical conditions. Round things roll, for example. This is universal. In order to function in similar environments to ours, other creatures/beings/species will likely evolve along similar lines because nature tends to take the most conservative path. Form follows function.

As to beings evolving in radically different environments, to my mind, all bets are off on whether we might recognize or understand them at all. They might even function along a radically different time-frame from ourselves.

 

[Trekker4747]

I really hate it when those who don't believe in aliens try to stick rules that apply to humans on to possible aliens. Who knows, maybe aliens don't breathe air! Maybe they breathe some other gas, or don't even breathe at all. I'm sure had humans evolved on say, the Moon, we would have adapted to live in that environment. Look at ants, for instance. They live in a hive-type society, with one dominant Queen ruling over all other ants within the colony. They can survive for up to a week underwater. Just because they came into existence on Earth doesn't mean they have to be just like us.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-10/449211/allrighty.gif

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That said, I do tend to think any intelligent species evolving in environments suitable for human life will likely have strong similarities just based on physical conditions. Round things roll, for example.

Yes, yet as basic as that is - round things roll - biology on Earth has developed relatively few "rolling" creatures and AFAIK none with wheels. So that gives one a sense of how truly random and unpredictable these processes really are - we look at what's familiar and what we therefore most readily understand and we say "that probably makes the most sense." For all we know there are completely different approaches to living systems that even in an environment exactly like ours would make just as much sense.

If no one had ever seen a snake, a boa constrictor would seem pretty unlikely.

 

[TIN_MAN]

^ And snakes might be intellegent and Dennis doesn't brake for them, how sad.

 

[Zachary Smith]

That said, I do tend to think any intelligent species evolving in environments suitable for human life will likely have strong similarities just based on physical conditions. Round things roll, for example.

Yes, yet as basic as that is - round things roll - biology on Earth has developed relatively few "rolling" creatures and AFAIK none with wheels. So that gives one a sense of how truly random and unpredictable these processes really are - we look at what's familiar and what we therefore most readily understand and we say "that probably makes the most sense." For all we know there are completely different approaches to living systems that even in an environment exactly like ours would make just as much sense.

If no one had ever seen a snake, a boa constrictor would seem pretty unlikely.

Well, my point about "round things roll" was not so much to suggest a method perambulation as to point out that basic structures and forms behave the same everywhere in the universe, given similar environmental conditions. Round things roll because it is their NATURE to roll.

For a creature to have developed biological wheels as a means of movement means that also biological axles and perhaps even bearing would have needed to develop. This is MUCH more complex than legs. That's why we have legs instead of wheels. Nature follows the simplest route in most instances.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's why we have legs instead of wheels. Nature follows the simplest route in most instances.

"Nature" has done quite an amazing variety of exotic and complicated and peculiar things on this planet as a result of random mutation. There's nothing simple about a human eye and nothing inevitable about four legs, one hundred legs, wings or slithering along on one's belly. If you can have a human eye you can have a rolling appendage of some kind - it's simply accident and happenstance, not a tendency toward simplicity, that nothing on this world really does.

 

[Nardpuncher]

The one thing I hate is when people think that just because I like Star Trek and other sci-fi that I'm one of you UFO nuts. It's happened a few times and it's deadfully embarrassing.

 

[Zachary Smith]

The one thing I hate is when people think that just because I like Star Trek and other sci-fi that I'm one of you UFO nuts. It's happened a few times and it's deadfully embarrassing.

"UFO nuts"? Please explain why the acceptance of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe--something that has already happened here--is such an unreasonable consideration as to be considered "nuts" by you.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

"And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth." Monty Python

ETA: Telling people where to stick it didn't do Giordano Bruno a lot of good -- times have moved on, but only just.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_bruno#Bruno.27s_cosmology

 

[Nardpuncher]

The one thing I hate is when people think that just because I like Star Trek and other sci-fi that I'm one of you UFO nuts. It's happened a few times and it's deadfully embarrassing.

"UFO nuts"? Please explain why the acceptance of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe--something that has already happened here--is such an unreasonable consideration as to be considered "nuts" by you.

I never once said there isn't intelligent life in the universe. Read more carefully.

 

[TheGodBen]

Considering the shear size of the universe and how long it has been in existence, and that fact that the laws of physics tends to repeat certain patterns, I have no doubt that some form of life exists out there somewhere. Intelligent life evolving on other worlds is not an unreasonable possibility.

I do not believe that alien life-forms have ever visited Earth. The truth is that we are an insignificant species from an insignificant star system in an insignificant galaxy, we're not worth the energy it would take to travel the vast distances involved.

 

[Zachary Smith]

The one thing I hate is when people think that just because I like Star Trek and other sci-fi that I'm one of you UFO nuts. It's happened a few times and it's deadfully embarrassing.

"UFO nuts"? Please explain why the acceptance of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe--something that has already happened here--is such an unreasonable consideration as to be considered "nuts" by you.

I never once said there isn't intelligent life in the universe. Read more carefully.

Who are the "UFO nuts" you referred to?