Hard for humans to accept.....

I don't find it hard to accept that we are not alone in the universe, that we may be insignificant, or that there is no God. What I find hard to accept is that we were created for a purpose when we seem to be no more important to the universe than that of a piece of rubble (or less than that considering rubble is scattered everywhere in the universe, or at least more so than life) I would imagine that if we were created, we would be better than our creators. Why create something at all if it could not out last you, replace you, and succeed you. If we do have a creator or creators, they are probably lesser than us.

Your musing about notions in our present but in the movie we apparently discover proof of visitation and some other artifact that points us to send a ship to zeta r. In the face of this evidence all bets are off. The SJ isn't God, let's get that straight, they can't create a Star for example. An ingredient of the rising action in the story is that there is conflict among the crew in the face of even more evidence when they land. Some "believe" that we may meet our maker, as it were, while others on the crew don't. One certainly doesn't bring a gun when potentially meeting a God. "Small things are going to be huge" - Sir Ridley

"I don't find it hard to accept that ........ there is no God." -I knew there are way more rational people out there than we are led to believe.

[quote]goodkat › "What I find hard to accept is that we were created for a purpose when we seem to be no more important to the universe than that of a piece of rubble (or less than that considering rubble is scattered everywhere in the universe, or at least more so than life)"[/quote] Bingo ! The Whole Idea behind The "Ancient Aliens" theory is that [b]Mathematically[/b][i][u][/u][/i], it is next to Impossible that mankind did Not have technological help along the way. It is based on sheer numbers. We just flat out cannot be so important when one considers the science. The thought that it could be any other way is Pure arrogance and conceit...perhaps mixed with a heavy dose of fear. And not just fear that it could be true, the fear of what it being true does to their belief in G-d. Shatters it completely. No religious person or "believer" is ever going to accept this. Religion has not only celebrated our differences and separated us all into groups, divided mankind against itself, but it has most definitely completely clouded our scientific judgments.

"The Whole Idea behind The "Ancient Aliens" theory is that Mathematically, it is next to Impossible that mankind did Not have technological help along the way. It is based on sheer numbers." -Not sure on this one either. For one, the fact that anything exists in its own is statistically boggling. Second, there are way better theories about human origins than extraterrestrials helping us that don't involve God. In fact, that particular science has advanced so much now, we have a fairly good picture of how us and life in general came to be through [b]evolution by natural selection[/b]. Darwin in his time did not know about genes and DNA and all those things we know now, but he did describe how the mechanism works; It was simple, logical, and scientifically viable (it did not rely on fairy tales or creators). I really don't see how one can be arrogant for not taking the creator-type theories seriously, specially if there are way better options. They make good entertaining stories, but that is probably it in my view. If we were to meet extraterrestrial life someday (which may be plausible), It would hardly be advisable to look at them as some sort of creator or higher beings fo' sho' .

I will show you, You misunderstood what that meant, and what it means is... It is arrogant for man to think he is alone and has been alone forever in the universe. That too, mathematically as well as scientifically speaking, sits right next to the absolute impossible !!!

-"It is arrogant for man to think he is alone and has been alone forever in the universe." It is not arrogant in my view, it may be a bit limited, but not arrogant; specially if there is no evidence to support this. If there was evidence, then it would be illogical to assume the opposite. Like the great Carl Sagan put it: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". -"That too, mathematically as well as scientifically speaking, sits right next to the absolute impossible !!!" Are you talking about the odds of there not being intelligent life in the universe or that we got some help by extraterrestrial intelligent life along the way? It looks like you are mixing the two...

it is arrogant and I am not going to get into all the reasons as to why it is but it is completely arrogant and seriously presumtive as well. The statement... "We are the ONLY beings in the entire universe" In and of itself just as plain English is insinuating an unprecedented level of arrogance.

as for the last part about odds, the scientific fact is, it is true for BOTH. I repeat... SCIENTIFIC FACT !!!

Oh and please, allow me this one last comment... There is...for a FACT...an overwhelming amount of DIRECT EVIDENCE that both are true!!!

-"it is arrogant and I am not going to get into all the reasons as to why it is but it is completely arrogant and seriously presumtive as well. The statement... "We are the ONLY beings in the entire universe" In and of itself just as plain English is insinuating an unprecedented level of arrogance." If you have no evidence to the contrary it is not necessarily arrogant. The estimated number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations (not proof) in a galaxy has actually been looked at. There is a famous equation called Drake's equation (named after professor Frank Drake who came up with it). It goes like this: "The Drake equation states that: N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L where: N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible; and R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space." For our galaxy, the answer comes to 10, not a big number at all considering how big it is. Here is the equation with explanations: "Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, but the values used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were: R* = 10/year (10 stars formed per year, on the average over the life of the galaxy) fp = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets) ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of developing life) fl = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life) fi = 0.01 (1% of which will be intelligent life) fc = 0.01 (1% of which will be able to communicate) L = 10,000 years (which will last 10,000 years) Drake's values give N = 10 × 0.5 × 2 × 1 × 0.01 × 0.01 × 10,000 = 10." The equation is not the cleanest of all, but it is way better than fantastic conjecture in my view.

no comment. IMO you just do NOT get any of this. And that's cool. You certainly do not have to. The simple fact is it is both arrogant to think we are alone and haven't been given some sort of help, and mathematically most likely we have been visited and we have had technological help from other worldly beings. To be honest I think what you are missing is how many stars there are out there and how insignificant and tiny we are, like a spec of microscopic dust in Sandstorm that is Immeasurable !!!!

I want to add that I respect very much the work you just did there, it is stellar...and I respect your opinion as well, half our world is with you on this one man, we can have this debate in a peacfull way I am sure, I am not angry at all....Just FYI bro...I respect you for even doing this and putting in the effort.

-"no comment. IMO you just do NOT get any of this. And that's cool. You certainly do not have to. The simple fact is it is both arrogant to think we are alone and haven't been given some sort of help, and mathematically most likely we have been visited and we have had technological help from other worldly beings." Show me the math on this-and bear in mind even this would not be proof; its still conjecture or a theory until you come up with evidence.

-"I want to add that I respect very much the work you just did there, it is stellar...and I respect your opinion as well, half our world is with you on this one man, we can have this debate in a peacfull way I am sure, I am not angry at all....Just FYI bro...I respect you for even doing this and putting in the effort." Hey no problem bro, I am not mad, and never thought that you were. It is great to discuss these types of things as it makes you think about your own beliefs. A little thinking never hurt anyone.... peace :)

It would take along time, I would have to write out some lengthy explanations but I will see if it is do able and in a way that does not annoy anybody and can present the evidence in a efficient and fair way. I can tell you straight up right now that the starting places would involve 2 man made structures as I am sure you know, that ON WHICH, scientists have uncovered extreme direct evidence that they were not created entirely by mankind, contain materials as of yet not positively identified as from this earth, to this day, and have heiroglyphics inscribed on them which CLEARLY suggest that they were made with help from beings who arrived not from somewhere else on earth, but from the Sky... in both cases... The Great Pyramid Of Geza & Stonehenge

How is it arrogant to presume that we haven't recieved any help, given a lack of concrete, definitive evidence for such meddling? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary supporting evidence. We have nothing more than some ambiguous images and construction feats without comprehensive explanations for how they were achieved, but credible, entirely terrestrial theories abound. Those who lived in antiquity were no less creative and clever than we are. Resorting to an extraterrestrial explanation for how they achieved their impressive feats of building and construction, unfairly diminishes their accomplishments.

It is a statement said in a context to reflect back the assumption by man, and given the size of the universe, that there are no other beings in the universe other than man and the assumption by Mankind that STARS are the key to finding places where conditions exist where other life may exist, which is based entirely on yet another assumption that other beings would have to be like mankind. The truth is it is a representation of Mankind flexing his stature and muscle as an "all supreme being of the Universe" which just does not make any sense even given our defective argument of how many stars there are out there in the universe and is arrogant at best in it's nature to assume such a thing !!!

-"It would take along time, I would have to write out some lengthy explanations but I will see if it is do able and in a way that does not annoy anybody and can present the evidence in a efficient and fair way. I can tell you straight up right now that the starting places would involve 2 man made structures as I am sure you know, that ON WHICH, scientists have uncovered extreme direct evidence that they were not created entirely by mankind, contain materials as of yet not positively identified as from this earth, to this day, and have heiroglyphics inscribed on them which CLEARLY suggest that they were made with help from beings who arrived not from somewhere else on earth, but from the Sky... in both cases... The Great Pyramid Of Geza & Stonehenge" Where is the math and evidence? I'm sorry but none of what you wrote above has any of it. It would be a good idea to understand the difference between claim and fact. I also don't agree with your claims that the pyramids of Giza are proof of extraterrestrial visitation (Stonehenge is even worst). Think about it, why would an advanced race show them how to build pyramids or trilithons? Even a child can quickly figure out that a wide base on bottom is more stable. They (E.T.) could have easily been more generous and showed them how to build with steel, and concrete or even better, some other form that would defy the laws of gravity as we understand them now; now that would be food for thought. As far as the difficulty of transporting the stone and building with it, there are plenty of possible ways this could have been done with a bronze age civilization, where actual simulations were made by engineers. I'll try and find a link for you, there are bunch of these around..

I more than welcome the idea that we are not alone in the universe but the idea that we had help outside of Earth is doubtful in my mind when there is stacking evidence behind our evolution and our technological leaps that show we are more than capable of being where we are today without such help from non Earthly beings. What disturbs me the most about you Spartacus is that you mention it being mathematically impossible for us to be here today if not for the help of ancient aliens and yet instead of showing the math you go on about archeology, and how the structures the ancients built had other worldly materials not positively identified to have come from Earth. That is not evidence and hieroglyphs are no better. I'm more than willing to change my perspective on things if there is stacking evidence behind it but right now you're not convincing me.

"What disturbs me the most about you Spartacus" I would have replied here if your reply had been written this way... "What disturbs me the most about [b]what[/b] you [b]wrote[/b] Spartacus 2 words can make a huge difference in someone's perceived intentions Instead, and given the wording you used and especially given what has already been said by me in this thread have no other alternative but to assume you have absolutely NO CLUE what so ever what you are talking about let alone doing and cannot rely to it any further, refuse to discuss it any further, and it;s a shame cause you wanted Math and there is so much Math it would make your g-d damned head spin!!!

The "ancient astronaut theories" are all completely bereft of direct, empirical supporting evidence, and rife with unsubstantiated supposition and subjective interpretation. Without the support of direct, empirical evidence, this hypothesis is conveniently untestable. Therefore, the Scientific establishment scoffs at the notion for good reason. Occam's razor applies.

Instead of insulting me Spartacus why don't you enlighten me, you say I have no clue but you don't show me why. I would rather have my head spin than to be left in the dark not knowing. Prove me wrong and I will happily support the claims, if not then stop pushing your beliefs onto others through posts.

[quote]The "ancient astronaut theories" are all completely bereft of direct, empirical supporting evidence, and rife with unsubstantiated supposition and subjective interpretation. Without the support of direct, empirical evidence, this hypothesis is conveniently untestable. Therefore, the Scientific establishment scoffs at the notion for good reason. Occam's razor applies.[/quote] That is funny. The same is definitely the case with Religion

Of course it is, Miser. They don't call it "a leap of faith" for nothing.

The burden of proof is always on the believer. If you can't back up your claims of beliefs, don't be surprised/frustrated when someone calls you out on them.

Here is one (with a narrative style, very nice): Part 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwiic6BoleQ&feature=related Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv5L5yyPynM&feature=related Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uBC0iKB61s&feature=related Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a4VeaEvRM8&feature=related Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTTj7AUBz_E&feature=related Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL-xehm-eLg&feature=fvwrel Just take into account that: 1.) The pyramids were not made in a day (figure of speech of course) 2.) It took the Egyptians many tries before they were able to get to the scale of Giza pyramids. The roots of the pyramids can even be traced back to ziggurats as I understand, which are way older. These non-fantastic theories seem way more plausible to me. I'll find some more later.

Spartacus??? Start hitting people with some hard facts??? The only fact your prooving is that your head is buried really deep up your own arse!

Hey Spartacus, I am not mad at you or anything. Sometimes the tone of written conversation is easily misinterpreted. I am not trying to annoy you either. You seem like a pretty smart person as you try to reason things out. Don't look at this as a conflict, just a way to sort out what is true or useful and what is most probably not. An argument never hurt anybody, it will only make you smarter if anything at all. Also keep in mind that arriving at the truth is not an easy thing to do, but you can at least sort some things out of the way that are nonsense or not useful. Peace Brother :)