The notions of aliens being present here (and allowing this...) is absurd

obviously there are "rules" that govern the creation of life.

There is the ultimate rule, the Universal Law of Consequence. This mandates that above all, all causes will create effects, and nothing rises without causation. Even the Creator Himself cannot overcome this law.

Beyond that, there seem to be some other things that can be ascertained:

- all matter is fractal in design. While humans are not perfectly symmetrical, the fractal design of the biological forms on this planet is striking. Thus, all life must be supported by a fractal lattice supporting its physical form.

- each region has its own "take" on the laws of physics. the physics of another solar system is different than ours due to the impacts of its star(s)/planet(s). As well, wrinkles, kinks, folds and other disruptions in the "fabric of space/time" would dictate the outward expression of physics laws

- "physics" are merely the common and predictable threads of causation in a closed system. since the "rules" change with each system, the "laws" can vary wildly from system to system. The impacst to biology would be interesting, most certainly.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
obviously there are "rules" that govern the creation of life.

There is the ultimate rule, the Universal Law of Consequence. This mandates that above all, all causes will create effects, and nothing rises without causation. Even the Creator Himself cannot overcome this law.

I'm not sure what to make of these statements.

Why is it so obvious that there are rules that govern the creation of life? What set the laws that create life? Who can prove that life was created anyway?

Why state that there are 'rules' for life and then qualify that with one 'ultimate' rule? Is there one rule, or many rules?

'Even the Creator Himself...' Now does that mean you believe that a God created life? If so, wouldn't that God have set it's own rules, different to your supposed rules?

Why would it be that a God that can create life can't overcome your universal law?

It all seems muddled up to me. When you start theorising about a God that can create life, why does it need to be limited to obeying laws?

Originally posted by Dulcimer
What I would like to say can be summed up in this statement:

Many people around the world in several countries witness UFO's. The point of this forum is to decipher what they may have saw.

A UFO at the time is just what the acronym stands for... an unidentified flying object. Until it is identified it will remain so. That is the point of this forum, to discuss what the objects may or may not be.

Of course there will always be stories of aliens and stories that may sound bizarre. I believe the members here try their best to debunk stories when they can, and as you can see, we have proven many stories to be hoaxes.

Valid points.

You may not like this forum, but nobody forces anyone to read it.

No, I love this forum, ATS, it's great. I wish i had more tiem to spend here from my other usual efforts. Sorta like I love my country, but the problem is things are spiraling into the void, while everyone is diverted (TV, mindless fluff pop culture, and so on). It could be argued that everyone being diverted is the reason it's spiraling into the point of no return. Even in those who 'seek the truth' I see the same diversion: pick any almost issue about 911, 2012 doomsday prophecies/fantasies, etc, and in my view aliens/ufo's and even 911 itself(although 911 is uber critical, I'm talkign about all that effort consumed by truthseekers is completely distracting everyone from what my video is talking about).

I'd also like to clarify, as many have taken certain offense to this discourse, that the title where it said "here" wasn't talking about here at ATS, it was refering to here on earth, in case anyone was mistaken.

Talk about the conspiracies you wish to talk about. If you believe something deserves attention, make it happen.

Well honestly that was part of the motivation with this thread, but I've done similar threads to this in the past.

As for me giving you some sort of proof (that you will like) that is difficult. I always ask the person who asks something like this, what would it take?

Quality factor is important. Like your PM article started off good, but the description of the case invokes the conclussion that the meteor brings at the end.

That "Prophet YAHWEH" character almost had me going, but it turned out to be balloons or something wasn't it? Ironically even he said they were spiritual beings, assuming he's not a total fraud. But then of course if he is, then whatever he did now makes it that much harder to believe others who can pull off such a presentation.

The battle of LA case would be seriously worth noting, except again the military is present, and the military is one of my main stated answers to and 'causes' of all this.

Great video - loved it but have to say sorry bout the rest 'they' ARE here and cannot override our stupidity because they are operating under strict galactic laws that mandate them not to interfere except by the means allowed them: abduction - individual education - dna extrapolation for reseeding.

just one opinion of course.


[edit on 27-3-2007 by kronos11]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Actually, I'm not the one claiming (speculating) physical alien beings visit earth, which is what this is all about.

For the alien (experimentation/interest/etc, over imperialism) argument to hold solid, "earth's" would have to be a dime a dozen.

Why would they have to be common? You're speculating upon speculations to try and support your weak position and plain guess work.

Because that's an important issue if we're to assume that they dont 'control' us. Also in assuming they havent already taken over -wiped us out- to inhabit earth. If there were endless useful planets out there then it'd be safe to assume that they wouldn't be interested in controlling us, nor would be concerned if we developed a godlike system that could eventually mean their demise or loss of control.

In both cases verifible empirical evidence simply doenst exist, and the odds so far point against it.

How can you associate odds related to finding Earth-like planets, when we don't yet have the means to detect them?

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that the burden of proof, to demonstrate that the aliens at earth theories arent absurd, is on those who argue for it. I'm simply here added yet more reason why the entire notion is doubtful at best, or absurd. It's not like not knowing if it's even possible to travel (more like warp) light years at a time, and so on doesnt make it hard enough to seem likely.

Around the year 2000 I'd seen virtually every known UFO imagery, and none of it was too convincing, and still isn't.

Well, guess what, mate, it's the year 2007 now, so you're a good six and a half years behind. Why don't you catch up on seeing 'virtually every known UFO imagery' in the last six and a half years and let us know what you think?

I've glanced around enough to see the same old lines. And now it's even easier for ANYONE to make sophisticated forgeries and fabrications... and the same advances apply to the military space/aircraft as well as mind control technologies that almost patently make for the better answers to things that cant be ruled out as odd but natural phenomena.

And really, by now, I'd expect that you guys who support it would have bombarded me with some serious cases to be proud of if, they exist. SO far the best example is the battle of la from 1942, which I will admit is rather interesting. But again, military operation during world war time. If it were alien then it would seem clear that they're here to antagonize us, which then takes us back to the whole control/imperial concept. You'd think they'd be smart enough to realize who paranoid and irrational ushumans are, and if they're just interested in observing then why bother exciting our militaries, especially after The Bomb, to potentially cause WW3 or other?

Another thing to note is that if these beings are millions of years ahead of us it would seem they wouldn't even need to actually visit here and fly around, they'd have uber scanner technologies, liek we're constantly progressing towards.

Until then, I'd say that your research is lacking and your technical claim relating to the frequency distribution of Earth-like planets is poorly conceived.

I'm not the one stating that something that is dripping with pure speculation, yet no plausible logical reason, is true. What I'm pointing out are things that cast yet more and more doubt on the notion.

I'm sure that there are plenty of planet hunting scientists who would like to ask you how well schooled you are in knowing the abundance of Earth-like planets. You might save them the effort to actually need to look for them and count their frequency. Either that, or they'll laugh at you and your claims.

And I'm sure they'll admit that we dont have many conclusive cases of systems that even have great potential to contain earths let alone actually have them. So any real scientist would laugh at the doubtful claims of aliens being here, and would have to admit that we simply cant determine the planet context to ADD to the goal of logical alien scenarios (which hold the burden of proof), ESPECIALLY not those that carry on about how they planted us here as slaves and so on... the view that I'm mostly targeting here I must add.

Just because they're aliens doesnt mean they simply wont make any sense at all to us. We're talking about beings that themselves evolved in a life system, not some mystical god of creation of the universe concept.

In short, with my persepctive here, there's more and more reasosn to doubt any alien at earth concepts/.

Originally posted by kronos11
Great video - loved it

but have to say sorry bout the rest

'they' ARE here and cannot override our stupidity because they are operating under strict galactic laws that mandate them not to interfere except by the means allowed them: abduction - individual education - dna extrapolation for reseeding.

just one opinion of course.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by kronos11]

If it's illegal to interfere, then why, on earth, are they down here set off alarms with our militaries, when they could ignite WW3 and nuclear winter?

From there it carries back into, if they're so advanced(especially if they created us), why would they need to do all sorts of experiments and all that?

Hey I could be wrong, as there are plenty of things that can never be truly answered, but given the scenarios and such the notion just seems absurd...

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that the burden of proof, to demonstrate that the aliens at earth theories arent absurd, is on those who argue for it. I'm simply here added yet more reason why the entire notion is doubtful at best, or absurd. It's not like not knowing if it's even possible to travel (more like warp) light years at a time, and so on doesnt make it hard enough to seem likely.

There are a lot of miles between 'doubtful' and 'absurd'. And I'm afraid you are mistaken, or at least so I believe.

My understanding of the 'burden of proof' is that it lies with anyone making claims. If someone claims that aliens are visiting the earth - yes, they are required to provide proof of those claims. If someone claims that aliens are not visiting the earth, they too are required to provide proof of these claims.

Sure, this becomes tricky when the element of government secrecy is added in - because it is the nature of any cover-up that any proofs are removed, but it still remains that anyone making claims is required to provide proof.

My point is this - anyone who is claiming their assertion to be fact is required to provide proof of this claim. To claim that an idea is 'absurd' is not only to claim that it is completely untrue (and therefore that the reverse is true in a binary question like this) but that such a claim is 'utterly or obviously senseless'. So not only are you claiming that aliens have not visited this planet, but you are claiming this is such a certainty that to believe otherwise is 'senseless'.

You are welcome to doubt the claims of UFOlogists when they claim that aliens have visited this planet. You are entitled to request they provide evidence of these claims. But when you launch a thread making claims of your own - the burden is on you to prove these claims. And so far the only proof seems to be a speculative motive of alleged beings.

I never said that it's absolutely not possible. I just argued that claims that they are here are asburd. Claims and strong convictions that they are here is quite different from speculation and curiousity that they might be here. Dont get me wrong.

From there even more doubt can be found in the potential that any real experiences could very well be spiritual type forces, or the posthuman ancestor simulation argument, since we're already speculating.

Combining those 2 speculative possible solutions, with the logical improbabilities and physical uncertainties of the rest, it seems to me there are quite weak and pointless odds of any real presence.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I never said that it's absolutely not possible. I just argued that claims that they are here are asburd. Claims and strong convictions that they are here is quite different from speculation and curiousity that they might be here. Dont get me wrong.

We're bounding on a semantic discussion here, but technically speaking speculation that they are here is the same as claims that they might be here. Both allow for the possibility that the suggestion is incorrect.

But your wording was that the 'notion' that aliens are here is 'absurd'.

notion: an opinion, view, or belief
absurd: utterly or obviously senseless

To claim that something someone believes is 'obviously senseless' is to claim that the opposite belief is incontrovertibly true. Otherwise there is no obviousness.

Hey IgnoranceIsn'tBliss,

I believe that what people see, including myself, is 50/50 maybe more human than alien. With our advancements in technology, I'd be surprised if we did not have a couple flying saucers, and maybe some of those deltas lying around somewhere that we use frequently. The other sightings, well those may be extraterrestrial. But I don't limit it to just extraterrestrial, but inter-dimensional as well. I also believe that the media's reports of U.F.O.'s are really just a distraction of the real issues facing the earth today, like the disappearance of the bee colonies all over the world, the disappearance of our natural resources, the outright establishment of an oppressive world, through war and police intimidation, hate and racism. The murder of thousands of people all over the world for the advancement of globalization and more murder through the advancement of all religions. Those U.F.O. reports have done nothing more in achieving disclosure. They just brought more people in to speculate. Anyway, I can't say it is absurd that they are present and allowing this. You never know, they can be the ones in control and actually creating this whole mess we are experiencing today. Or maybe they are saying to them selves, "Let's see how far they can go, before we really feel threatened by them. Then we won't allow them to do this". But you are right, the search of extraterrestrial life can be put aside while we face our terrestrial life problems. There are some very serious problems happening, and it really is gonna hit the fan before we know it. I think it is that we can't bring our selfs to face these problems because we have the hope of an extraterrestrial race or god that will come down, and might fix it all, or just destroy it all. A few question about your videos, since you are here. Let me see if I understand correctly. After watching your new one and looking back at "They Want Your Soul", the technology is so advanced that advanced sensors and advanced radar imaging will be used to draw out the urban battle field. Giving soldiers/police a view of every passage, building, and life form in the targeted area. In turn, soldiers will have access to this information through implants in the brain that receive the signals, then the information is used by them to draw out strategies and plans of attack. If they are collecting, or will be collecting everybody's information to input into a global database, super A.I., will the soldier also have access to everybody's personal history that is in the system while patrolling or in battle? Will they obtain the information through face, scar, teeth or tattoo radar recognition? If so, will it be provided by the U.A.V. radar sweeps? Or will the soldiers actually have the capability, through their enhanced brain modifications, to analyze individuals up close visually then process and search the visual data from the global database? Or will the implanted chip's global position data suffice? How will that information be displayed to the soldier? Will they be able to see the information in their field of view and control it through thought processes, and electrical brain signals? Will they be able to switch on and off features that they need at different situations? Or, will the information be displayed mentally and controlled in the same way? For example, when you think about the way your house looks when you are not there. You can pretty much see it, in a way, in your thought. Not visually, but you can definitely recall the floor plan and the items in it. Your work is interesting, talk about the music. R.I.P. Dimebag.

Originally posted by TheStev

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that the burden of proof, to demonstrate that the aliens at earth theories arent absurd, is on those who argue for it. I'm simply here added yet more reason why the entire notion is doubtful at best, or absurd. It's not like not knowing if it's even possible to travel (more like warp) light years at a time, and so on doesnt make it hard enough to seem likely.

There are a lot of miles between 'doubtful' and 'absurd'. And I'm afraid you are mistaken, or at least so I believe.

This depends... and when there are literally religions wrapped around this issue there's not much in this case.

My understanding of the 'burden of proof' is that it lies with anyone making claims. If someone claims that aliens are visiting the earth - yes, they are required to provide proof of those claims. If someone claims that aliens are not visiting the earth, they too are required to provide proof of these claims.

Sure, this becomes tricky when the element of government secrecy is added in - because it is the nature of any cover-up that any proofs are removed, but it still remains that anyone making claims is required to provide proof.

Sure. And that's why I brought my video, soem differeing perspective, adn the debunker of the "gray aliens" cncept which remains a hallmark in alien lore. Funny hwo the TV doesnt talk about that one isnt it... which adds to my other arguments here that I've expanded on here wherever I could.

My point is this - anyone who is claiming their assertion to be fact is required to provide proof of this claim. To claim that an idea is 'absurd' is not only to claim that it is completely untrue (and therefore that the reverse is true in a binary question like this) but that such a claim is 'utterly or obviously senseless'. So not only are you claiming that aliens have not visited this planet, but you are claiming this is such a certainty that to believe otherwise is 'senseless'.

Technically, it was them being present here. From there I've gone down the list the best I could to point out it as 'utterly or obviously senseless'. I'll admit the entry post could have been in better form, but this experience will ensure thats the case in the future.

You are welcome to doubt the claims of UFOlogists when they claim that aliens have visited this planet. You are entitled to request they provide evidence of these claims. But when you launch a thread making claims of your own - the burden is on you to prove these claims. And so far the only proof seems to be a speculative motive of alleged beings.

The odds that aliens have simply visited this planet, as opposed to being a presence here are quite different. And back on point, my argemtn was mostly against them being present here, which would cause the believer to lean towards the ideas of them being some sort of control factor. In that case, I'd say my initial arguments challenged that view quite successfully. My other arguments only added to the implausibility factor, while debunking a core belief in alien lore. ...'utterly or obviously senseless'.

souls:

It all depends on when we're talking about. The final outcome of the Singularity, which not even transhumaists/futurists can fully predict.

But a central theme is "collectivism" when things get really advanced.

Also, the Internet is a key part of the system. This includes the entire history of the Internet, and other mass data stores like Google.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As far as UAV's and tracking, in the near term sense, DARPA is trying to finish 'see thru walls' technology, which would obviously end up on UAV sensors and in satellites.

As far as personal info, it'd be more law enforcement having all of that info, unless under total martial law that is. The access will be there even if its not right in the enforcers head.

Depends on what kind of implants are involved. Digital Angel can already track schools of fish in the ocean, and "the GIG makes Digital Angel look like played out sega 8bit".

Really eveyting you said is in the realm of possibility, and somewhere in the apparent path of incrementation.

If you'd like to carry on about the issues directly involved in the tech please move it over to the video thread thanks.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This depends... and when there are literally religions wrapped around this issue there's not much in this case.

Sorry, not following you here. Are you saying there's not miles of difference between 'doubtful' and 'absurd'?

Technically, it was them being present here. From there I've gone down the list the best I could to point out it as 'utterly or obviously senseless'. And back on point, my argemtn was mostly against them being present here, which would cause the believer to lean towards the ideas of them being some sort of control factor. In that case, I'd say my initial arguments challenged that view quite successfully. My other arguments only added to the implausibility factor, while debunking a core belief in alien lore. ...'utterly or obviously senseless'.

(My italics for emphasis)
Why would it cause the believer to lean towards that idea? It causes you to lean towards that idea - but you do so of your own accord.

Ok, here's something for you to try on for size. We don't have intergalactic travel yet. Perhaps that's where aliens draw the line. See, what you're saying is that these alleged aliens have a line drawn in the metaphoric sand. If our technological advancement crosses that line, then the aliens step in and stop us. In your opinion we have crossed the line, therefore because they haven't stopped us they must not exist.

The point I'm making is this: assuming there even is such a line (which is an enormous assumption to make) how do you know we've crossed it? I mean, thinking about the concept on the surface - it seems like intergalactic travel would be that line. After all, no matter what crap we come up with on this planet, we're no threat to them in any way as long as we're stuck on this planet. No matter what weapons we come up with, they would be of little consequence to an alien race unless we had a way to get them off this planet and to another planet.

So your argument against the 'presence' of aliens on this planet is based on not one, but two major assumptions. The first being that aliens have this 'line in the sand', the second being that we have already crossed it. Two big assumptions on which the majority of your argument seems to be based.

Originally posted by TheStev

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This depends... and when there are literally religions wrapped around this issue there's not much in this case.

Sorry, not following you here. Are you saying there's not miles of difference between 'doubtful' and 'absurd'?

Well, since you want to get literal, where is the endless list of defining terms that fit in between doubtful and absurd. How vast of a spectrum is there? Also, where was my argument in that regard flawed?

Technically, it was them being present here. From there I've gone down the list the best I could to point out it as 'utterly or obviously senseless'. And back on point, my argemtn was mostly against them being present here, which would cause the believer to lean towards the ideas of them being some sort of control factor. In that case, I'd say my initial arguments challenged that view quite successfully. My other arguments only added to the implausibility factor, while debunking a core belief in alien lore. ...'utterly or obviously senseless'.

(My italics for emphasis)
Why would it cause the believer to lean towards that idea? It causes you to lean towards that idea - but you do so of your own accord.

Well, in the realm of some leaning towards some sort logic, there's not too many answers of what to make if they are indeed a presence here. Otherwise, we're really just giving them sort of standard as if they're just too much to even attempt to fathom, as if they're the mystical God of Creation, Themself. At that point, it would seem we're delving back into the realm of absurdity to "know" they're here, because its all a matter of speculation. This isnt a scenario where we know for a fact they're here and we're trying to understand why... or, it's not like like they're some instrumental sort of key to understanding the reason of EVERYTHING (like quantum photons changing from merely being observed), which merits far more attention and rationalism than just theorizing that aliens not only exist but also get to, and maintain a presence here... because we figured out some flying technologies and got the idea that flying saucers travel here. Even if we explain them as the sourc eof us, that takes us still into speculative debate about their creator ad infinitum.

After all, no matter what crap we come up with on this planet, we're no threat to them in any way as long as we're stuck on this planet. No matter what weapons we come up with, they would be of little consequence to an alien race unless we had a way to get them off this planet and to another planet.
...
So your argument against the 'presence' of aliens on this planet is based on not one, but two major assumptions. The first being that aliens have this 'line in the sand', the second being that we have already crossed it. Two big assumptions on which the majority of your argument seems to be based.

The major kicker behind the Technological Singularity is that we'll no longher be able predict technological advancement and revolutions. It's a basic and fully expected outcome when massive AI takes hold. Assuming "warping" or whatever is possible and more importanly feasible for for living beings to live thru, this advancement could andp robably would rapidly come. NASA being a central player in this might add add to this, and the 'us becoming a threat to them scenario'.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now it's not exactly that we've already crossed this 'line', although the technologies from the video could already be 'complete' (including sophisticated spaceships) and we just havent been told, the real vew comes from our leaders behavior. A main part of my view is that our leaders wouldn't have the balls to challenge our alien overlords, and government knowledge of 'them' is a central theme and even condition in the alien argument.

For example, the best case example provided was a military event (where they apparently couldn't even shoot it down); given the date would our leaders have even attempted building nukes with the chance of pissing of the aliens? Maybe they would have done it out of defense, but this point still makes the entire ordeal even shakier.

Assuming aliens not only visit here on occasion but are actually 'present' here, the idea that (at least our government) wouldn't know about them seems absurd.

SO if the aliens are 'here', and our establishment knows about them (and this is tackling a moderate view, as the theories go possibly even further than the reptilian overlords notion), their arrogent behavior (that Saddam didn't even match) sheds overwhelming doubt on the alien presence argument.

Would overwhelming doubt not cross the spectrum into absurdity?

[edit on 27-3-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

tezzajw
Until then, I'd say that your research is lacking and your technical claim relating to the frequency distribution of Earth-like planets is poorly conceived.

I'm not the one stating that something that is dripping with pure speculation, yet no plausible logical reason, is true. What I'm pointing out are things that cast yet more and more doubt on the notion.

The more that you respond to my questions, the less sense you make.

I have not started with any assumptions at all, in this thread. I ask you to prove how you know that Earth-like planets are rare. You can't.

Instead, you go on about how unlikely it is that aliens are visiting Earth. At least that's what I think you go on about.

IgnorantBliss

tezzajw
I'm sure that there are plenty of planet hunting scientists who would like to ask you how well schooled you are in knowing the abundance of Earth-like planets. You might save them the effort to actually need to look for them and count their frequency. Either that, or they'll laugh at you and your claims.

And I'm sure they'll admit that we dont have many conclusive cases of systems that even have great potential to contain earths let alone actually have them. So any real scientist would laugh at the doubtful claims of aliens being here, and would have to admit that we simply cant determine the planet context to ADD to the goal of logical alien scenarios (which hold the burden of proof), ESPECIALLY not those that carry on about how they planted us here as slaves and so on... the view that I'm mostly targeting here I must add.

What? I'm writing about scientists hunting Earth-like planets and you are writing about how they would laugh at aliens visiting Earth?

Your writing is ficticious, unsubstantiated and convoluted. You can't answer a question posed to you and you can't support your claim that there are few Earth-like planets when we don't even have the means to detect them yet. We don't know how many Earth-like planets there may be until we actually have the means to find them!

This thread is boring me now.

Originally posted by tezzajw
So with roughly 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, you're taking a relatively small sample of 50,000. That's a great start to prove your claim.

It would appear that your science too is flawed.

"There are about 300 billion stars in our galaxy. About 10 percent (or 30 billion) are roughly Sun-like," he explained. "At least 5 percent (1.5 billion) but possibly as many as 90 percent or 100 percent (about 30 billion) of these have Jupiter-like planets."
www.space.com...

As you seem to present yourself as an expert on space, I find this highly questionable. I did throw around weak claim in that regard, I must admit openly and loudly since you're demanding it. My original claim on this matter was from an old memory from wherever I seen the rare earth hypothesis many years ago, which made sense at the time. It's rather obvious, and it's not like I've been staunchly holding onto my statement as a fact. I've since stated that it's speculation, so now your debunking of my debunker post, in a place where the aliens claim would appear to be the concensus, will be hinged on 'debunking' my arguemnts with speculation to cast doubt on the speculative concensus [ie aliens are here].

So how many 'earth's', according to that source>

"A reasonable guess is the same number of Earths as Jupiters," Lineweaver said.

That, however, depends heavily on how one defines Earth-like. If one includes rocky planets in general, like Mercury, Venus and Mars, "then they are probably more common than Jupiters," he said. If, however, you mean rocky planets with liquid water at the surface, "then we really can't answer that very well. They may be as common as Jupiters, or they may be much less common."

Right. So again, we dont know, we can only speculate. It could be billions, or not. All this means is that a certain part of this entire ordeal, which is equally important to both sides, cannot be ascertained. Shall I repeat this for you? Actually, I'm not the one speculating that aliens are here, and i offered an answer to their experiment argument using an alien claim supporters own argument.

I have not started with any assumptions at all, in this thread.

O?

You're speculating upon speculations to try and support your weak position and plain guess work.

So you're saying I have a weak position (that aliens arent present on/at earth), but now you're pretending to be some neutral devils advocate? And i'm the one who's fictitious? I think the only real hard facts in this entire ordeal so far are:
1)aliens on earth are speculation
2)people actually fabricate alien evidence for whatever reasons
3)MY VIDEO which supports my argument
4)grey aliens arent ALF's
5)we dont know how many earths there are, wich isnt ideal for my argument, but I've still offered many other arguments that keep me from being depedent on it.
6)neither of us knew the proper number of lit suns, well at least I didnt, but my overall research (being the expert on earth systems and related political behavior important to my overall argument) is "fictituous" because i dont study the entire universe.

Didnt answer? Dont cherry pick:

ME:
"For the alien (experimentation/interest/etc, over imperialism) argument to hold solid, "earth's" would have to be a dime a dozen. So therefore, to hold the speculative argument, one must also speculate that earths are a dime a dozen, which can only be speculated. In both cases verifible empirical evidence simply doenst exist, and the odds so far point against it.
From there. like I said, even those extrasolar systems still face remarkable odds of having earths (simliar element quantities, etc) in earth like states (atmospheres and so on) of evolution. Wasn't the earth allegidly in a rock/volcano like state in the past? In any case, this lowers the odds of there being harvestable/inhabitable planets."

Seriously, you're dragging this out as if the earths a dime a dozen thing was the title of the thread and my opening and closing remarks, my signature, and that my entire "weak" position (aliens arent here contrary to the claims) is totally shattered and my entire position is befouled with seething ignorance, yet I still carry on.

You got me on an ad ignorantum on one supporting argument in my position. I've since elaborated on that and countless other examples.

I ask you to prove how you know that Earth-like planets are rare. You can't.

Where have I carried on as if I could? Or, when have I stated that your position on this one ongoing detail is wrong?

You're bored?

Hey thanks for trolling the thread and killing hours of my time when you corrected me early, and that wasnt good enough, even though I modestly admitted that:
"Because that's an important issue if we're to assume that they dont 'control' us. Also in assuming they havent already taken over -wiped us out- to inhabit earth. If there were endless useful planets out there then it'd be safe to assume that they wouldn't be interested in controlling us, nor would be concerned if we developed a godlike system that could eventually mean their demise or loss of control."




So in sum, we hardly have a clue about how many planets there are; e must speculate (in our allegid search for the truth).

Speculation is also needed to support the alien claim, perhaps as much as if we were to judge the number of earth condition planets. A central theme is they dominate us in one way or another. My argument here makes that unlikely, so therefore other answers were brought up to explain around that. I tried to answer those, then I made a weak claim that earths arent a dime a dozen, to add perspective -the potential probablity- of the alien experiments etc argument. There was a concensus that it was speculation, after I was corrected, yet somehow this argument continues.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
obviously there are "rules" that govern the creation of life.

There is the ultimate rule, the Universal Law of Consequence. This mandates that above all, all causes will create effects, and nothing rises without causation. Even the Creator Himself cannot overcome this law.

I'm not sure what to make of these statements.

Why is it so obvious that there are rules that govern the creation of life? What set the laws that create life? Who can prove that life was created anyway?

Why state that there are 'rules' for life and then qualify that with one 'ultimate' rule? Is there one rule, or many rules?

'Even the Creator Himself...' Now does that mean you believe that a God created life? If so, wouldn't that God have set it's own rules, different to your supposed rules?

Why would it be that a God that can create life can't overcome your universal law?

It all seems muddled up to me. When you start theorising about a God that can create life, why does it need to be limited to obeying laws?

Well...the rule(s) referred to are simple: cause and effect. From there, you have additional "rule(s)" relating to the various variables of the type of interactions various materials/energy have with each other. The chaos of physics and the mass rippling of impact from micro to macro is a representation of this cause and effect relation. We percieve but a small slice of this, and understand a very small amount of that. It could be said that we understand none of it, actually, as evidenced by the glaring imperfections in our theories. But that is another story.

All actions arise from previous actions, and the actions create new reactions. The Universal Law of Consequence, if you will.

It would appear that you tried to over read into what I wrote. I was not aware that there would be such close inspection of each word and its interrelational aspects with other words. Forgive my lack of decorum. The solutions to your questions do appear somewhat apparent.

Regarding the presence of a Creator...that is something that I cannot argue. Whether you believe it or not, it is a personal decision. I do not wish to debate a deity. I am more than open to opine in the correct forum, however. Let's just say that I believe that the design of reality is from a genius well beyond just pure luck and happenstance.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]