Re: Humanoid Aliens

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by LogicalResponse

 

last time i checked , witness testimony is evidence in a court of Law





So if ten witnesses go into court saying they saw the spaghetti monster, does that make spaghetti monsters real?

asking for physical proof when dealing with a matter this serious (UFOs) is necessary in my opinion

(that could be something like clear photo/video, or parts of a craft/alien)

reply to post by dkman222


Depends, is the spaghetti monster sitting in the defense chair?

Strawmen are easy to burn.
Edit to add this face -


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

I mean, do I need to show you how to compare pictures of alleged spaghetti monsters vs. aliens?

Which would the jury consider more noteworthy, you think?

Give me a break. Try a real argument.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by LogicalResponse

 

"Logical Response".
I'm sorry if perhaps you have already "logically" answered your own baited question, but can you explain why the humanoid form is not the most efficient known?

I did in SEVERAL posts. How can you miss them?

Would I have to link them?

I'm sorry, but I tried my best to respond "logically."

You have yet to begin responding logically.

Of course I would expect someone with the name "logical response" to speak up on the idea of humans being planted here by higher-order beings genetically.

That's what's funny. Why would I address what amounts to be a totally irrelevant factor in hypoethical ET evolution.

How is any of what was just proposed logical in any sense of the word?

It is implying that human beings were placed here by some ephemeral entity or a higher order of "greater beings..."

Honestly, if that's "illogical" then what that proposes sounds like nothing less than typical tin-hat nuttery by the book.

But let me ask, after you answer why you think that the humanoid form IS NOT the most efficient known species of animal, why is superior race GM not a logical answer to AT LEAST the biblical mythos?

Because the Bible, god, and religion are irrelevant ideas. They're superstition with no basis in observable reality nor do they effect the postulated existence of intelligent ET civilizations.

But besides all of that, this is not a place for religious discussion. I made that clear more than once, actually.

Many seem to ignore it. I find that rather telling.

Could it be that all religious texts are simply evidence of the idea that GM *has* taken place in the past?

Concepts of deities, mystical beings, and adherence to sacred texts has absolutely nothing to do with logic OR science.

At least the possibility of ETI has some basis in known science. But more importantly, that is also the framework that must be adhered to here.

Is this LOGICAL?
More logical than believing in a sky-daddy?

Yes. And by an extraordinarily large order of magnitude.

So, please. No more woo-woo ideologies. Why the little humanoid gray men?

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
I mean, do I need to show you how to compare pictures of alleged spaghetti monsters vs. aliens?

Which would the jury consider more noteworthy, you think?

Give me a break. Try a real argument.

Gave you several.

Try sticking to one.

Alright, I'll have to catch up with the thread tomorrow, I suppose...

Except for one thing. We only have our own planet to guage the efficiency of a species from. That is this one.

The evidence suggests that there are other civilizations.

That being said, we have to wonder why the species from other civilizations, if they are actually coming here, would be humanoid.

Your question is dead in the water.

As I have said, the crocodile is 200 million years old, or some such insane number... Now, it would be quite easy for humans to eradicate that animal.

Suggesting that our form, the humanoid form, the the most efficient that we know for a fact exists.
I see no other reason to suggest that on a planet far removed from earth, that there would be a form more efficient.

Especially when what we observe here is that the humanoid form is damned near flawless.
Except for intelligence.

I'll work on reading up on your thread in the case I have overlooked something with this argument (something I have actually seen and pondered many times myself) and you work on actually answering my counter.
Deal?

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Alright, I'll have to catch up with the thread tomorrow, I suppose...

Except for one thing. We only have our own planet to guage the efficiency of a species from. That is this one.

The evidence suggests that there are other civilizations.

That being said, we have to wonder why the species from other civilizations, if they are actually coming here, would be humanoid.

Your question is dead in the water.

As I have said, the crocodile is 200 million years old, or some such insane number... Now, it would be quite easy for humans to eradicate that animal.

Suggesting that our form, the humanoid form, the the most efficient that we know for a fact exists.
I see no other reason to suggest that on a planet far removed from earth, that there would be a form more efficient.

Especially when what we observe here is that the humanoid form is damned near flawless.
Except for intelligence.

I'll work on reading up on your thread in the case I have overlooked something with this argument (something I have actually seen and pondered many times myself) and you work on actually answering my counter.
Deal?

Absolutely. I try to get to as many as possible with the time I have.

I still have to view a video that another poster linked me and have to get back to him as well. I also think Indigo had some questions.

There are a lot of good queries, just not enough skeptics/people to answer them in a timely fashion.

(There's also a planetary anomaly thread I'm very interested in right now.)

[edit on 3/30/2009 by LogicalResponse]

Interesting topic, firstly tho I'd like to say that there are some very interesting theories out there regarding the fact that our gods could be ET's. Much like the cargo cults, it's not really too much of a stretch.

In regards to why they look humanoid? Think of the guy who dressed up like a crocodile to learn how they live so they wouldn't be scared and eat him.

If I was home alone and a scary monster came into the room saying he comes in peace I would definitely stain myself. It's probably safe to assume that the vast majority of aliens would be scary looking based on how different they look.

The greys if real (A lot of people have seen god, mary, buddha, loch ness monster etc), would probably try to ease us by looking somewhat similar. Studies have shown that people see big eyes as being cute. A small mouth would also put us at ease at it takes away the biting threat. The height is also calming to humans I'd say, moreso than an 8ft grey at least.

If aliens are coming down and messing with us surely they'd do their studies. And the greys are probably the least threatening form to take.

Originally posted by LogicalResponse

Absolutely. I try to get to as many as possible with the time I have.

Excellent, as I'm still waiting for responses to my comments on page 5 and 6 with regard to such issues as the unreliability of evolution simulations (which have also not been specifically referenced despite being claimed as supposed proof of the OP); the impossibility of accurately calculating how many planets there are in the universe which have conditions which could foster a basic humanoid type based only on what we think we know of a tiny fraction of it, and also, the logical reasons I gave why it could be that humanoids appear to predominate as visitors to earth rather than non-humanoids, etc.

Further I'd like to see what basis you have for the comment that "Planets that resemble earth's conditions are assumed to be incredibly rare", when the link you posted takes us to an article etitled "Galaxy may be full of 'Earths,' alien life." and which quotes Alan Boss, an astronomer with the Carnegie Institution, as saying: "There may be 100 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, or one for every sun-type star in the galaxy"

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Depends, is the spaghetti monster sitting in the defense chair?

Strawmen are easy to burn.

It is not a strawman at all. There are gulfs of difference between the standards of evidence in science and the standards of evidence in a court-room.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

It is not a strawman at all. There are gulfs of difference between the standards of evidence in science and the standards of evidence in a court-room.

But the difference between the two systems is not one of 'valid' and 'invalid'. The Legal System and it's methods are valid. Methods of investigation employed must suit the type of evidence that is available for the phenomenon that is being investigated. Would you insist on limiting the methods used to investigate quantum physics to the methods designed for classical physics? No. That would be absurd, because to do so would completely stall the investigation. If the ET/UFO phenomenon is presenting eyewitness testimony, then that evidence has to be addressed, not ignored.


[edit on 31-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Well said Malcram.

The point being made witness testimony is evidence and is accepted as evidence, even in the scientific community testimony is a form of evidence. What is not being said is that testimony is the only kind of evidence.

Nobody could really have a valid objection to this.



[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The point being made witness testimony is evidence and is accepted as evidence, even in the scientific community testimony is a form of evidence.

You're leaving out one important caveat. Eyewitness testimony is accepted, but not eyewitness testimony by itself. Alone, it is not sufficient evidence.

For an example of how eyewitness testimony by itself is not considered sufficient evidence, consider the ivory-billed woodpecker. Though thought extinct it was announced the bird may still be living. However this report was based on suggestive evidence, such as eyewitness reports. This is quite controversial among ornithologists, as no conclusive, unambigious physical evidence has been provided. Even video of purported ivory-billed woodpeckers is controversial and debated among orinthologists.



[edit on 31-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]

I can think of several explanations why 'aliens' might be humanoid.

1) Convergent evolution - nature reuses designs. Earth-like planets would have similar evolutionary niches to be filled. The best solution on Earth could be the also be the best solution on other planets. Consider the resemblance between an icthyosaur and a dolphin - two very different species separated by an enormity of time but both occupied the same evolutionary niche.

2) There is a property of space-faring intelligence that favours the humanoid shape. Such creatures would have in the past had to use fire, shape metal etc for which hands and fingers are extremely useful. Is it possible to imagine a better design? There is also a tendency on Earth for intelligence to be associated with predatory behaviour, hence forward facing eyes.

3) The 'aliens' are our descendants from the future. Either evolved or gentically enhanced they retain some of our characteristics.

4) They are from a parallel earth where evolution took a slightly different turn.

5) A million year old culture would eventually develop machine intelligence. Such an intelligence would be free to roam the galaxy, time would not be an issue nor the barrier against FTL travel an impediment. When an intelligence such as this encounters biological lifeforms it may be extremely easy for it to create biological 'suits' to better communicate with the natives.

6) A common sci-fi meme is that of advanced cultures being able to alter their own body forms. They might adapt to the local conditions of a planet such as Earth by altering themselves to make visitations easier, adapting to the local gravity, atmosphere etc. Body forms may also be subject to fashion trends which could explain the many forms reported ranging from eight foot giants to small hairy dwarfs. Upgrading their bodies to the latest style may be as easy to them as putting on a hat.

7) The universe is actually a vast simulation. Aliens are simply avatars of the game designers and as such appear according to their whims.

8) They created us 'in their own image'

9) Humans are actually colonists from an older space-faring civilisation.

10) We are being visited by aliens who resemble us precisely because they resemble us. Perhaps they too are intrigued at why we are humanoid like them. Perhaps the aliens who look like blancmanges are all off visiting other planets where the inhabitants also look like blancmanges. If we travelled the stars and found two planets one with intelligent slime the other with humanoids we might find the slime intriguing but I think we'd be much more interested in making contact with the humanoids. To put it another way, there's nothing so interesting to a dog as another dog.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

You're leaving out one important caveat. Eyewitness testimony is accepted, but not eyewitness testimony by itself. Alone, it is not sufficient evidence.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

What is not being said is that testimony is the only kind of evidence.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Read my post again, particularly for this sentence, "What is not being said is that testimony is the only kind of evidence. " It is implied in that sentence that I am not advocating that witness testimony should be the only kind of evidence accepted. It can be used in conjunction with other evidence.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


I misread. However, my point still stands. Eyewitness testimony is insufficient, despite the frequent suggestion that it is.


[edit on 31-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by LogicalResponse
reply to post by ajmusicmedia

 

Life evolves from random mutations, making the long term results unpredictable.

[edit on 3/30/2009 by LogicalResponse]

Uhh? Life? You probably meant to say something like "species"?

reply to post by Malcram



Oh look at that, Malcram twisting words again. Not surprised. Never said that the methods used by a court were invalid. I said they were different. And in the scientific area, they are insufficient to prove a scientific claim.

Why do I bother taking you off ignore?


[edit on 31-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Right, I have no problem with that. In subjective cases eye witness testimony is enough, if you saw a UFO, you saw a UFO and it is enough. In the cases of objective cases, where one needs to convince another, one needs objective evidence in conjunction with subjective evidence.

This brings us onto mass-testimony, as soon as something is witnessed by more than one person it ceases being subjective, it means that that particular thing has an objective character, because it exists in the public domain and not just in the individuals minds.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]