SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | Evolution


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Cogito who wrote (15802)8/19/2011 3:13:09 PM
From: longnshort
   of 63146
 
"And don't worry. I won't be spending any appreciable time in this haven of ignorance."

you have already brought the IQ level on this board down

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: longnshort who wrote (15803)8/19/2011 3:14:36 PM
From: Cogito
   of 63146
 
>>you have already brought the IQ level on this board down<<

Not possible.

BTW, I did edit my previous post, but I also meant what I said about not hanging around here.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Cogito who wrote (15804)8/19/2011 3:26:47 PM
From: longnshort
   of 63146
 
"Not possible."

You a liberal and you think Obama lololol is doing a good job lolololol and you voted for the moron. If you couldn't see he wasn't up to the job, or any job for that matter, before you voted for him. Then you are truly a moron

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Cogito who wrote (15804)8/19/2011 3:29:13 PM
From: longnshort
   of 63146
 
did you see this, you global warming marxists are going off the deep end.

aliens are gonna kill us because of GW, lolol I guess all the polar bears are gonna die didn't work. lololol

Heck not only does NASA say there are but that they will kill us over Global Warming.



Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report


Comments (729)
Ian Sample, science correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 August 2011 19.04 BST Article history



When they see what a mess we've made of our planet, extraterrestrials may be forced to take drastic action. Photograph: PR

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa's Planetary Science Division and his colleagues compiled a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity "prepare for actual contact".

In their report, Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis, the researchers divide alien contacts into three broad categories: beneficial, neutral or harmful.

Beneficial encounters ranged from the mere detection of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), for example through the interception of alien broadcasts, to contact with cooperative organisms that help us advance our knowledge and solve global problems such as hunger, poverty and disease.

Another beneficial outcome the authors entertain sees humanity triumph over a more powerful alien aggressor, or even being saved by a second group of ETs. "In these scenarios, humanity benefits not only from the major moral victory of having defeated a daunting rival, but also from the opportunity to reverse-engineer ETI technology," the authors write.

Other kinds of close encounter may be less rewarding and leave much of human society feeling indifferent towards alien life. The extraterrestrials may be too different from us to communicate with usefully. They might invite humanity to join the "Galactic Club" only for the entry requirements to be too bureaucratic and tedious for humans to bother with. They could even become a nuisance, like the stranded, prawn-like creatures that are kept in a refugee camp in the 2009 South African movie, District 9, the report explains.

The most unappealing outcomes would arise if extraterrestrials caused harm to humanity, even if by accident. While aliens may arrive to eat, enslave or attack us, the report adds that people might also suffer from being physically crushed or by contracting diseases carried by the visitors. In especially unfortunate incidents, humanity could be wiped out when a more advanced civilisation accidentally unleashes an unfriendly artificial intelligence, or performs a catastrophic physics experiment that renders a portion of the galaxy uninhabitable.

To bolster humanity's chances of survival, the researchers call for caution in sending signals into space, and in particular warn against broadcasting information about our biological make-up, which could be used to manufacture weapons that target humans. Instead, any contact with ETs should be limited to mathematical discourse "until we have a better idea of the type of ETI we are dealing with."

The authors warn that extraterrestrials may be wary of civilisations that expand very rapidly, as these may be prone to destroy other life as they grow, just as humans have pushed species to extinction on Earth. In the most extreme scenario, aliens might choose to destroy humanity to protect other civilisations.

"A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilisation may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilisational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions," the report states.

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.

Even if we never make contact with extraterrestrials, the report argues that considering the potential scenarios may help to plot the future path of human civilisation, avoid collapse and achieve long-term survival.

• This article was amended on 19 August 2011. The subhead said the report was "for Nasa". This has been corrected.



Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: longnshort who wrote (15805)8/19/2011 3:34:04 PM
From: Cogito
   of 63146
 
And again I'll ask why you find it necessary to insult me when I have never insulted you?

But I don't really care what your answer may be, and I'm not going to waste any more of my time here.

Go ahead and compose a really witty and devastating response. You can have the last word.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Cogito who wrote (15800)8/19/2011 6:29:01 PM
From: Brumar89
1 Recommendation   of 63146
 
First off most evolutionists really do believe evolution explains the origin of life. They just don't know how. It's a matter of faith for them.

Second it's not just a matter of evolution not explaining the origin of life, its that what science has discovered about life, that its information and code based, presents a major problem for any naturalistic origin. There are no known chemical or physical laws that would produce an information coding system.

The fact that the origin of life must logically be based on a designing intelligence means that we should keep an open mind about assuming that only naturalistic forces have brought about the diversity of species. While genetic drift, mutations, natural selection may have produced a lot of the diversity we see, it's also reasonable to think the guiding intelligence that produced life in the first place may have well done a lot of guiding along the way.

But it's not as if Intelligent Design has an answer for where life came from, either, other than to say that somebody smart and immensely powerful made it. So basically, you're saying that since we don't know exactly how everything got started, it has to have been the work of a magical Guy in the Sky.

Actually the fact that we don't know the details of how the designing intelligence went about forming life isn't so important. It is of profound importance whether life is designed or is an accident, though. Design means there IS a 'big guy in the sky', if that's what you want to call him. That's not an insignificant thing. It opens up the possibility that there is a purpose in our existence.

And where did the Creator come from? If you can't explain that, you haven't answered anything.

Wrong. If there's a creator, that's of profound importance to us. Whether we know the creator's origin, if it has one, isn't too important to us at all.

If this WASN'T of profound importance, you wouldn't have folks attacking the idea of intelligent design or creation. Some people prefer there not to be any big guy in the sky, for various reasons. For people with this philosophical preference, evolution serves as an important statement of faith that must be defended.


Aldous Huxley: "I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political." --Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means (London: Chatto & Windus, 1946), pp. 270, 273. (As quoted by Answers in Genesis at answersingenesis.org, 10/13/04)

Thomas Nagel: “…I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
"My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world. (Thomas Nagel 1997 The Last Word Oxford Univ Pr October 2001).

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (15808)8/19/2011 7:29:30 PM
From: Cogito
   of 63146
 
You start with the conclusion and work backwards. Along the way you make assumptions that aren't true. You end up with garbage, and don't know it.

There is absolutely no point to my trying to debate any of this with you, so I'll just wish you a pleasant day.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Cogito who wrote (15809)8/19/2011 8:55:20 PM
From: Brumar89
1 Recommendation   of 63146
 
No, I'm starting with a scientific fact ... life is information and code based.

It's you guys who start with a conclusion (there is no God who caused us to be here, we're a meaningless accident) and work backwards.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Cogito who wrote (15809)8/19/2011 10:43:29 PM
From: Greg or e
   of 63146
 
Throw out unsupported claims, ignorantly (or worse yet, intentionally) mis-characterize the views of your opponents: and then RUN AWAYyyyyyyyy. Unfortunately this an all too typical Atheist response.


Atheists decline Oxford debate on God

churchtimes.co.uk

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Solon8/19/2011 10:49:22 PM
1 Recommendation   of 63146
 
Evolution SUCKS!

Yahweh commanded that rapists must marry their victims. None of us can comprehend the moral perfection of this moral perspective. Only Yahweh is PERFECT. Yahweh gave this moral directive because He IS perfect.

Simply look inward at yourself...if you are honest you will admit that you cannot mount to this moral acme of perfection.

This wonderful moral code encouraged testosterone aggression! If a girly was desirable for whatever reasons (looks, intelligence, money)--an aggressive man could rape her all to Hell beJesus!...and he was rewarded with a wife for life.

Evolutionists yammer about biology and science and crap like that. And modern philosophers talk about individual rights and human values. (Compare these "scientific" (LOL!) idiots with GREAT YAHWEH!)

If you desire a woman you can marry her just by raping her beJESUS! Only a morally PERFECT guy with PERFECT testosterone could have set this commandment down as a PERFECT moral DIRECTIVE.

Bless the Divine and Holy name of Sweet Wonderful Jesus Boy!

Evolutionists mince about 'Survival of the Fittest'--what a laugh!! Yahweh demanded that rapists marry their victims. So the most aggressive and unfeeling people get to grab all the cuties! This is ABSOLUTE moral perfection. It is the WORD OF GOD. All this new stuff about human rights, compassion and respect is IMMORAL!

Yahweh ROCKS!!

Evolution SUCKS!!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.