AvPGalaxy Forums

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5kNE-MMhx0#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5kNE-MMhx0#ws)

Thanks to Viscal via PF (http://www.prometheusforum.net)

Im liking that lower pitched "Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" inception esque sound.

Would be cool if it's in the movie.

Oh my god! My body is so ready for this movie!

Did anyone else catch the little Freudian slip by Ridley at the very end? "I really can't wait to do a se- science fiction and 3-D again".  ;D

Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:36:04 PM
Oh my god! My body is so ready for this movie!

Did anyone else catch the little Freudian slip by Ridley at the very end? "I really can't wait to do a se- science fiction and 3-D again".  ;D

A sexual fiction in 3-D is what he wanted to say I think.

Ah. That makes sense. I'd definitely check out a 3-D porn by Sir Ridley.

Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 18, 2012, 12:47:01 PM

Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:36:04 PM
Oh my god! My body is so ready for this movie!

Did anyone else catch the little Freudian slip by Ridley at the very end? "I really can't wait to do a se- science fiction and 3-D again".  ;D

A sexual fiction in 3-D is what he wanted to say I think.

"Big things have small beginnings" ;)

But, in all seriousness, cool interview. I haven't even seen this one yet and I'd love to see a sequel! :D

Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:50:01 PM
Ah. That makes sense. I'd definitely check out a 3-D porn by Sir Ridley.

Well if Ridley was really on the ball he'd know that a 3-D porn outsold Avatar in China. So I think he's being inspired by the wrong material.

If anything he should have pitched a Sci-Fi porn to Fox.

"Hey guys, this new up and coming hot shot writer Jon Spaights pitched an Alien Porn Prequel to me, it's great, what do you think"?

Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Apr 18, 2012, 12:57:11 PM

Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 18, 2012, 12:47:01 PM

Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:36:04 PM
Oh my god! My body is so ready for this movie!

Did anyone else catch the little Freudian slip by Ridley at the very end? "I really can't wait to do a se- science fiction and 3-D again".  ;D

A sexual fiction in 3-D is what he wanted to say I think.

"Big things have small beginnings" ;)

But, in all seriousness, cool interview. I haven't even seen this one yet and I'd love to see a sequel! :D

That. Was. Awesome. NA!  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

What was that hotel supposed to not have? :D

Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:50:01 PM
Ah. That makes sense. I'd definitely check out a 3-D porn by Sir Ridley.

Actually, Ridley would have to invent a new format for such a project - 3Double-D   :P

Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:36:04 PM
Oh my god! My body is so ready for this movie!

Did anyone else catch the little Freudian slip by Ridley at the very end? "I really can't wait to do a se- science fiction and 3-D again".  ;D

I think it was more along the lines off...

"I really can't wait to do a se.....x wee, its been so long"

Quote from: Eva on Apr 18, 2012, 02:30:26 PM

Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:50:01 PM
Ah. That makes sense. I'd definitely check out a 3-D porn by Sir Ridley.

Actually, Ridley would have to invent a new format for such a project - 3Double-D   :P

Too late...  Piranha 3dd beat him to the punch :)

Quote from: Eva on Apr 18, 2012, 02:30:26 PM

Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:50:01 PM
Ah. That makes sense. I'd definitely check out a 3-D porn by Sir Ridley.

Actually, Ridley would have to invent a new format for such a project - 3Double-D   :P

Well, he wouldn't have to start from scratch. Piranha 3DD is already laying out the groundwork for him ;)

Quote from: Mustangjeff on Apr 18, 2012, 02:35:43 PM

Quote from: Eva on Apr 18, 2012, 02:30:26 PM

Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:50:01 PM
Ah. That makes sense. I'd definitely check out a 3-D porn by Sir Ridley.

Actually, Ridley would have to invent a new format for such a project - 3Double-D   :P

Too late...  Piranha 3dd beat him to the punch :)

Too late... You beat me to the punch :P

Quote from: Mustangjeff on Apr 18, 2012, 02:35:43 PM

Quote from: Eva on Apr 18, 2012, 02:30:26 PM

Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:50:01 PM
Ah. That makes sense. I'd definitely check out a 3-D porn by Sir Ridley.

Actually, Ridley would have to invent a new format for such a project - 3Double-D   :P

Too late...  Piranha 3dd beat him to the punch :)

Clearly, you must be joking...  :D

(checks imdb...)

omg lol... now it makes perfect sense - David Hasselhof is in it  :laugh:

Once again, not a mention of Jon Spaiht's.  Once again Lindelof looking like a doofus with the knit beanie on his head.  He must have a closet full of these.  Evidently, he does not subscribe to the "bald and proud" philosophy.

And before someone chimes in...yes, I realize both Lindelof and Scott have mentioned Spaiht's contribution in the past.  However, this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.  It is an especially glaring omission, in any interview/dialogue featuring both Lindelof and Scott, describing the specific development of the Prometheus story and the script.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 18, 2012, 06:16:36 PM
Once again, not a mention of Jon Spaiht's.  Once again Lindelof looking like a doofus with the knit beanie on his head.  He must have a closet full of these.  Evidently, he does not subscribe to the "bald and proud" philosophy.

And before someone chimes in...yes, I realize both Lindelof and Scott have mentioned Spaiht's contribution in the past.  However, this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.  It is an especially glaring omission, in any interview/dialogue featuring both Lindelof and Scott, describing the specific development of the Prometheus story and the script.

It looked pretty chopped.  Who knows what was actually said.  That's not to say they did mention him.

QuoteOnce again, not a mention of Jon Spaiht's.

Once again, Lindelof has the name and currency...

QuoteOnce again Lindelof looking like a doofus with the knit beanie on his head.  He must have a closet full of these.  Evidently, he does not subscribe to the "bald and proud" philosophy.

...even if he falls squarely into the hipster stereotype.  He'd tell you about the bands he likes, but you've probably never heard of them.

Jesus...now we don't like Lindelof because of how he dresses. Poor guy can't win.

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 19, 2012, 01:25:28 AM
Jesus...now we don't like Lindelof because of how he dresses. Poor guy can't win.

I expressed my opinion that his choosen style of headwear makes him look like a doofus.  All things considered, the term "doofus" is a pretty tame, informal, and harmless epithet...especially as used in this context.

While I can't comment on Damon Lindelof quality as a person (although I bet he is a fine bloke), I do admit a cordial dislike of his professional resume, to date. 

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 19, 2012, 01:49:22 AM

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 19, 2012, 01:25:28 AM
Jesus...now we don't like Lindelof because of how he dresses. Poor guy can't win.

I expressed my opinion that his choosen style of headwear makes him look like a doofus.  All things considered, the term "doofus" is a pretty tame, informal, and harmless epithet...especially as used in this context.

While I can't comment on Damon Lindelof quality as a person (although I bet he is a fine bloke), I do admit a cordial dislike of his professional resume, to date.

I keep expecting you to end your posts with "You got that? Alright, we're going in."

Maybe it's just cold... like, everywhere he goes?

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 18, 2012, 06:16:36 PM
Once again, not a mention of Jon Spaiht's.  Once again Lindelof looking like a doofus with the knit beanie on his head.  He must have a closet full of these.  Evidently, he does not subscribe to the "bald and proud" philosophy.

And before someone chimes in...yes, I realize both Lindelof and Scott have mentioned Spaiht's contribution in the past.  However, this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.  It is an especially glaring omission, in any interview/dialogue featuring both Lindelof and Scott, describing the specific development of the Prometheus story and the script.

I think we all got it. Lindelof sucks, you hate him, you are not impressed with his work. Put it in the signature so you don't have to repeat yourself  in every article about him

Quote from: zuzuki on Apr 19, 2012, 06:24:54 AM
I think we all got it. Lindelof sucks, you hate him, you are not impressed with his work. Put it in the signature so you don't have to repeat yourself  in every article about him

No friggin' way.  He might send me back in time.

Or worse...release the smoke monster upon my ass. 

In fact, just to be safe, I have activated my Sonic Fence defensive perimeter.

The 'I hate Lindelof' schtick isa popular band wagon, that's based in absolutely nothing. Prometheus will be his litmus test. So far, he's passing.

I really want to remain sceptical (it's a wonder self defence mechanism) but these clips are wearing me down

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 19, 2012, 08:57:30 AM
The 'I hate Lindelof' schtick isa popular band wagon, that's based in absolutely nothing. Prometheus will be his litmus test. So far, he's passing.

Don't approve of the way he dresses
SCRIPT'S GONNA BE SHIT

Don't like his tweets
SCRIPT'S GONNA BE SHIT

i am also frustrated, that lindelof gets the fame instead of spaihts, during promotion. that's what i hate him for, too.
but deuterium, i think the essence, the groundwork of the script is by spaihts. lindelof didn't contribute that much.
edited some scenes and enhanced some sub-plots, but the ancient astronaut thing were conceived by spaihts all along.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 19, 2012, 06:52:50 AMNo friggin' way. He might send me back in time. Or worse...release the smoke monster upon my ass. In fact, just to be safe, I have activated my Sonic Fence defensive perimeter.

My gods that is depressing.

Quote from: Kol on Apr 19, 2012, 11:11:28 AMthe ancient astronaut thing were conceived by spaihts all along.

Is this known? I am not so sure. Either way, whoever came up with the 'ancient astronaut thing' is an idiot, and whoever came up with it as a plausible adjunct to the Alien universe is said idiot's idiotic friend.

Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 19, 2012, 11:41:05 AM
whoever came up with the 'ancient astronaut thing' is an idiot

::)

Quote from: Kol on Apr 19, 2012, 11:49:32 AM
::)

He's right, Kol. It's a really stupid idea. Prometheus will likely be an overall very good experience, but it has a major flaw in it's backstory using that as a springboard. It hurts believability.

Actually the ancient astronaut is quite plausible. I'm not sure why people piss on it, Erik Von Daniken's original work (Chariots of the Gods) may have been debunked but the subject is still one that is up for earnest speculation.

the problem people have with ancient aliens is that it's never been done well. except in 2001, and that was because because it wasn't really ancient aliens, it was ancient alien van nuemann probes. and it wasn't ancient aliens interacting with prehistorical human society or early antiquity, they were messing around with monkeys more or less. stargate ruined ancient aliens as a story if those aliens were interacting with actual humans sometime in the past. just totally ruined it.

i'd like this idea a lot better if it was handled in a more 2001-esque way. don't have them influence evolution directly or interact directly with ancient human society that'd just be a rip-off, but have them came to earth sometime in the far-off past and recognize there was the potential for intelligent life to evolve here, and leave a little present for us to find to direct us to them someday for their own nefarious purposes. we go find them, shit goes down.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 19, 2012, 07:11:11 PM
Actually the ancient astronaut is quite plausible. I'm not sure why people piss on it, Erik Von Daniken's original work (Chariots of the Gods) may have been debunked but the subject is still one that is up for earnest speculation.

Of course, anything is up for "earnest speculation".  Sometimes I earnestly speculate that my neighbor's cat is plotting to kill me, in order to steal my identity.  I also earnestly speculate that the Apollo Astronauts did not, in fact, return with lunar rocks, but rather large chunks of Swiss cheese.

The last movie that was inspired by von Däniken's work was AvP ... and we all know how that came out.  ;) Amazing how quickly people forget those things.

No seriously, I think Prometheus will be a great, entertaining but also thought-provoking ride (typical Ridley). Visually the film will probably blow most of us away and the 3d will be something of the best we've seen. As far as story goes... it's on very thin ice. The astronaut theory is nothing too fancy, but let me just remind you, that the story of the original alien itself was nothing too fancy either, yet what we got was cinema history!

So to be honest... I don't care how bad the backdrop to this movie is... in Ridley I trust and I think he's made enough movies so I don't have to prove anything here.

I think if people will accept, that Prometheus is its own franchise and tries to tackle far bigger philosophies than 7 space truckers in a ship fighting an alien lifeform, it will be embraced even by the most sceptical minds. People just need to see it as its own thing.

Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 18, 2012, 12:26:52 PM
Im liking that lower pitched "Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" inception esque sound.

Would be cool if it's in the movie.

From 0:33-0:40? I feel the same way :). Hope that (or something similar) makes its way into the film. It sounds very "ominous."

Yeah, that lower pitch sounds creepy. Hoping the soundtrack for this is decent.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 19, 2012, 07:11:11 PM
Actually the ancient astronaut is quite plausible. I'm not sure why people piss on it, Erik Von Daniken's original work (Chariots of the Gods) may have been debunked but the subject is still one that is up for earnest speculation.

No, see, it's not, and i'll explain why below.

Quote from: deepelemblues on Apr 19, 2012, 07:29:55 PM
the problem people have with ancient aliens is that it's never been done well. except in 2001, and that was because because it wasn't really ancient aliens, it was ancient alien van nuemann probes. and it wasn't ancient aliens interacting with prehistorical human society or early antiquity, they were messing around with monkeys more or less. stargate ruined ancient aliens as a story if those aliens were interacting with actual humans sometime in the past. just totally ruined it.

i'd like this idea a lot better if it was handled in a more 2001-esque way. don't have them influence evolution directly or interact directly with ancient human society that'd just be a rip-off, but have them came to earth sometime in the far-off past and recognize there was the potential for intelligent life to evolve here, and leave a little present for us to find to direct us to them someday for their own nefarious purposes. we go find them, shit goes down.

That's really not the problem with it either, and I beg to differ about 2001 really doing anything spectacular with the idea in the film. In the novel? Sure. Not the movie. And even then, it's silly to imply that one day, primitive ape-man just decided to start using tools because a black razor sharpener gave us brain power.

The problem is when it literally says "Aliens are our Gods." and they were literally unchanged for untold millennia when they first started playing with us until today. That, first off, flies in the face evolution. Any life that might have visited us eons ago would be so very different by today, if it even existed at all, that any "Prometheus" type of story would be highly improbable.

Then you of course go to what we know of our own evolutionary background. As I said in another thread, Earth tells us our own story in the rock. We know more or less the gist of our history, and there really isn't any "mystery" about how or why primitive man began to use tools, form tribes, and eventually build cities. We learned. It's quite easy to understand how we got from there, to here in the space of a few hundred thousand years. We didn't need any help. We, the human race, are capable of amazing things. Even if it takes us a long long time.

As someone once said, learning to harness fire and the wheel make the discovery of the microchip look like something done on a whim for us.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 19, 2012, 07:52:13 PM

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 19, 2012, 07:11:11 PM
Actually the ancient astronaut is quite plausible. I'm not sure why people piss on it, Erik Von Daniken's original work (Chariots of the Gods) may have been debunked but the subject is still one that is up for earnest speculation.

Of course, anything is up for "earnest speculation".  Sometimes I earnestly speculate that my neighbor's cat is plotting to kill me, in order to steal my identity.  I also earnestly speculate that the Apollo Astronauts did not, in fact, return with lunar rocks, but rather large chunks of Swiss cheese.

Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 19, 2012, 05:34:15 PM

Quote from: Kol on Apr 19, 2012, 11:49:32 AM
::)

He's right, Kol. It's a really stupid idea. Prometheus will likely be an overall very good experience, but it has a major flaw in it's backstory using that as a springboard. It hurts believability.

Pssst... it's not a documentary.

OpenMaw- the ancient astronaut theory actually isn't as implausible as you seem to think, it doesn't "fly in the face of evolution" in anyway (which the theory evolution itself still has it's kinks to work out) because beings evolve and adapt according to their environment, if there is no need to evolve, if they are not forced to evolve, they will not. Yes we understand the basic gist of how things got started on earth and with mankind, but theyre all just theories at the end of the day (which btw I suscribe to) based off what modern man has deduced from evidence we've found, but in no way does that actual evidence preclude the possibility of alien interference, obviously throughout the ages we have changed our ideas of how everything started based on new evidence and if you think that won't continue to happen you're kidding yourself. We know a lot, but not nearly everything. The human race essentially rules the earth, and we are one of many, many species on the planet, no other species before or after us has reached our level of cognition, we speculate dolphins are as smart as us based on the size of their brains, but if you've seen a dolphin in action-you know that's not the case. What makes us humans as a species so damn special? Why are there so many correlations between religions? Both past and present? Why have we had a concept of "god" since our inception? You can speculate why, but you don't know, because nobody really does.

Janek pilots the prometheus into the engineer ship to stop it for leaving for earth to unleash it's cargo. David is in the orriery (starmap room) communicating with the engineers/jockeys showing them earth and explaining it's importance. The engineer/jockeys suits are bio-organic, and are living organisms capable of changing to suit any environment.Weyland uses Shaw as a carrier of a creature (the proto-xeno) but a jockey/engineer attacks him with some acid. When we see the crew running outide in the trailer, they are on top of the temple, and the temple is actually a ship carrying the giant head.

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 19, 2012, 11:43:50 PMWhat makes us humans as a species so damn special? Why are there so many correlations between religions? Both past and present? Why have we had a concept of "god" since our inception? You can speculate why, but you don't know, because nobody really does.

The problem is that there are well understood and common sense answers to all of those questions, however AA proponents either don't understand them or outright choose to ignore them. I agree that alien intervention could be made to fit into known history in a semi-plausible - or at least less ridiculous - way, but it has become more and more clear that Prometheus is going the whole hog on a 'theory' that is plain old dumb.

It's like coming home to find your pet cat sitting on your kitchen bench next to a freshly baked chocolate cake. The type of logic behind AA might cause you to assume that your cat baked the cake, but because you aren't a complete idiot you wouldn't assume that at all. You would possibly assume that your spouse baked it or that your mother dropped it over, because those explanations actually make sense. Assuming that the Nazca lines are landing strips for alien spacecraft is even more stupid than assuming that your cat can bake a chocolate cake.

It's not the alien intervention idea I have a problem with, it's the Von Daniken idea.

I have to disagree with that cat analogy,but you could reverse it, we are fairly aware of a cats limitations, in regards to the nazca lines or the pyramids, we are fairly aware of the limitations of man at the time, we still don't know exactly how they accomplished what they did without the technology or knowledge we assume they didnt have. So possibly an outside more advanced force that we don't actually see (such as the wife who baked the cake) did it. I don't believe that at all but an argument could be made for it. Much more plausible than a cat baking a cake at least.

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 20, 2012, 12:33:17 AMI have to disagree with that cat analogy,but you could reverse it, we are fairly aware of a cats limitations, in regards to the nazca lines or the pyramids, we are fairly aware of the limitations of man at the time, we still don't know exactly how they accomplished what they did without the technology or knowledge we assume they didnt have. So possibly an outside more advanced force that we don't actually see (such as the wife who baked the cake) did it. I don't believe that at all but an argument could be made for it. Much more plausible than a cat baking a cake at least.

Well put, I see what you did there. ;) We do however know how and why the Nazca lines and the pyramids were created and both explanations are no way outside of mankind's limitations. Anyway, I think we can both agree that the alien intervention hypothesis can work, it's just my own opinion that the AA elements showing up in the Prometheus back story are dodgy.

But screw all that because... you know... Derelict! ;D

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 20, 2012, 12:33:17 AM
I have to disagree with that cat analogy,but you could reverse it, we are fairly aware of a cats limitations, in regards to the nazca lines or the pyramids, we are fairly aware of the limitations of man at the time, we still don't know exactly how they accomplished what they did without the technology or knowledge we assume they didnt have. So possibly an outside more advanced force that we don't actually see (such as the wife who baked the cake) did it. I don't believe that at all but an argument could be made for it. Much more plausible than a cat baking a cake at least.

with this example he shows you only how ridiculous he finds the ancient astronaut theory & your attempt to make it plausible or just relevant.
to be honest: i'm tired of these discussions about the AA-theory cos the most of us find it offensive in some way. at least they are nitpicking about. i personally wont speak that specific about it anymore, cos only a few of us take it at least a bit serious.

nobody can proof nietzsche's theory about the eternal recurrence (of the same) being true, but at least people recognize his intention and live with it a proper life. taking life by it's hand and the ambition of becoming superior. now is this a bad thing?

ps: nobody complained about the transformer movies and it strands of the AA-theory and that's a mainstream-movie, too.  :(

Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 20, 2012, 12:53:33 AM
But screw all that because... you know... Derelict! ;D

that is the most important thing, after all.

Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 20, 2012, 12:53:33 AM

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 20, 2012, 12:33:17 AMI have to disagree with that cat analogy,but you could reverse it, we are fairly aware of a cats limitations, in regards to the nazca lines or the pyramids, we are fairly aware of the limitations of man at the time, we still don't know exactly how they accomplished what they did without the technology or knowledge we assume they didnt have. So possibly an outside more advanced force that we don't actually see (such as the wife who baked the cake) did it. I don't believe that at all but an argument could be made for it. Much more plausible than a cat baking a cake at least.

Well put, I see what you did there. ;) We do however know how and why the Nazca lines and the pyramids were created and both explanations are no way outside of mankind's limitations. Anyway, I think we can both agree that the alien intervention hypothesis can work, it's just my own opinion that the AA elements showing up in the Prometheus back story are dodgy.

But screw all that because... you know... Derelict! ;D

For sure, it's of my opinion that it's a rational enough theory to be believable to me in a scifi movie. But different strokes for different folks. DERELICT!!

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 20, 2012, 01:21:39 AMFor sure, it's of my opinion that it's a rational enough theory to be believable to me in a scifi movie. But different strokes for different folks. DERELICT!!

A nice bookend. Onwards to June!

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

Considering the kind of fantastical things which have been represented in this film series, so far - including creatures which grow from the size of a snake to taller and stronger than a man in just a few hours, without apparently eating anything - the possibility that the evolution of humans might have possibly been manipulated by extraterrestrials?

Kind of really tame, all things considered.

If the other stuff never took you out of your willing suspension of disbelief, then something like that sure as hell won't. What matters is whether it's portrayed in an effective way.

QuoteKind of really tame, all things considered.

Srsly.

It's still fiction - not historical fact.  It all depends on how well it's executed in the context of the film.

Quote from: Xenomorphine on Apr 20, 2012, 01:29:19 AMIf the other stuff never took you out of your willing suspension of disbelief, then something like that sure as hell won't. What matters is whether it's portrayed in an effective way.

For me the difference is that with a healthy lashing of imagination all of those things could exist. The AA stuff can't, because it didn't happen and no amount of literary liberty can save it. Not saying that it's fatal, but IMO good fiction is built around historically accurate premises. I was hoping for a good science fiction story and I fear that I am not going to get that.

You know Jupiter didn't turn into Lucifer a few years back right?




;D

"but IMO good fiction is built around historically accurate premises"


That opinion disqualifies 2001: A Space Odysseyc, Cronenbergs The Fly, and dozens of other fantastic yet implausible science fiction films. Give it a rest Pachi, and go watch some NATURE documentaries ;) :)

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 20, 2012, 10:09:29 AM
"but IMO good fiction is built around historically accurate premises"


That opinion disqualifies 2001: A Space Odysseyc, Cronenbergs The Fly, and dozens of other fantastic yet implausible science fiction films. Give it a rest Pachi, and go watch some NATURE documentaries ;) :)

IMHO, ChrisP is arguing that good fiction (including science-fiction) does not affect significant changes to the established historical record.  Obviously, historical fiction involves fictional characters that may or may not interact with real historical figures and events.  However, these fictional characters weave a fictional thread through an otherwise rigid, immutable and monolithic structure (i.e. history).  Fictional characters do not change historical events...although the author's artistic license may allow their characters to influence and perhaps, in some cases, be the cause of certain important events.

Now, admittedly, the semantics of the terms "fiction" and "science-fiction" may be a bit open to interpretation.  Certainly, there is a rich field of literature which describe an "alternative history". Philip K. Dick's "The Man in the High Castle" is but one example.  Sci-fi stories involving time-travel many times generate an "alternative history".  However, these may be considered works of "fantasy", in the sense that they are not our history.

In the case of 2001:  A Space Odyssey, the fictional "visitation" by the black monolith, during "a day in the life" of our early homonid ancestors, did not leave any traces in the historical record, whatsoever.  So, in this case, this "Dawn of Man" sequence is completely neutral, when it comes to historical accuracy.

This is completely different from the claims of those that ascribe to the "ancient astronaut" pseudo-science.  From what we can infer from the Prometheus trailers, the "anicent astronauts" left not only their calling card, but also an invitation with detailed directions to their space party.  Furthermore, they apparently influenced and interacted with multiple, ancient human civilizations...as explained by Holloway in the debriefing.  This is a direct assault upon established Science, including Anthropology, Archaeology, Sociology, History and Cultural Analysis.  If rumors are correct, then Evolutionary and Molecular Biology will also be thrown under the proverbial bus.

Look, we all want this to be a great film.  However, I feel it is completely appropriate to question Ridley's judgement in directly linking his Alien/Prometheus universe in any way shape or form with human history and evolution.  It devalues the achievements of our ancestors (especially if taken to Von Daniken extremes), while at the same time paradoxically placing us on the cosmic center-stage once again.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 20, 2012, 05:36:48 PM

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 20, 2012, 10:09:29 AM
"but IMO good fiction is built around historically accurate premises"


That opinion disqualifies 2001: A Space Odysseyc, Cronenbergs The Fly, and dozens of other fantastic yet implausible science fiction films. Give it a rest Pachi, and go watch some NATURE documentaries ;) :)

IMHO, ChrisP is arguing that good fiction (including science-fiction) does not affect significant changes to the established historical record.  Obviously, historical fiction involves fictional characters that may or may not interact with real historical figures and events.  However, these fictional characters weave a fictional thread through an otherwise rigid, immutable and monolithic structure (i.e. history).  Fictional characters do not change historical events...although the author's artistic license may allow their characters to influence and perhaps, in some cases, be the cause of certain important events.

Now, admittedly, the semantics of the terms "fiction" and "science-fiction" may be a bit open to interpretation.  Certainly, there is a rich field of literature which describe an "alternative history". Philip K. Dick's "The Man in the High Castle" is but one example.  Sci-fi stories involving time-travel many times generate an "alternative history".  However, these may be considered works of "fantasy", in the sense that they are not our history.

In the case of 2001:  A Space Odyssey, the fictional "visitation" by the black monolith, during "a day in the life" of our early homonid ancestors, did not leave any traces in the historical record, whatsoever.  So, in this case, this "Dawn of Man" sequence is completely neutral, when it comes to historical accuracy.

This is completely different from the claims of those that ascribe to the "ancient astronaut" pseudo-science.  From what we can infer from the Prometheus trailers, the "anicent astronauts" left not only their calling card, but also an invitation with detailed directions to their space party.  Furthermore, they apparently influenced and interacted with multiple, ancient human civilizations...as explained by Holloway in the debriefing.  This is a direct assault upon established Science, including Anthropology, Archaeology, Sociology, History and Cultural Analysis.  If rumors are correct, then Evolutionary and Molecular Biology will also be thrown under the proverbial bus.

Look, we all want this to be a great film.  However, I feel it is completely appropriate to question Ridley's judgement in directly linking his Alien/Prometheus universe in any way shape or form with human history and evolution.  It devalues the achievements of our ancestors (especially if taken to Von Daniken extremes), while at the same time paradoxically placing us on the cosmic center-stage once again.

Honestly, the premise is just as feasible as any creationist theory, perhaps even more so. No one is gonna convince one another of anything on this thread. Its like a religious argument. Your opinion is that the Ancient Astronaut theory is completely impossible due to it "flying in the face" of various established sciences (which it does, but at the same time does not invalidate a single one, only calls for changes). I think it's possible because i don't have an attachment to the "value" of our ancestors achievements and like I said, science changes constantly, any scientist will tell you that in each respective field they have much more to figure out and learn, we DON'T know everything   So you think the AA theory is ridiculous, well I don't, a lot of people don't, do you think the bible is? Or the Quran? Try telling that to the people who believe in it. Basically what I'm saying is this is not "bad" science fiction in my mind just because it follows the AA theory, because at the end of the day it is somewhat plausible to me, people in the real world actually believe this idea. Who are you to tell them their beliefs are wrong? Just because you fully trust science doesnt mean you can't be open to other ideas.

The point is, it's not actually plausible, because it did not actually happen. :)

If we're going to go down "what if" territory. Sure. But we already know the human race evolved the way it did and why it did so. We didn't need help to get where we are. We did it ourselves across hundreds of centuries. Bit by bit.

That's the point I keep trying to get across to people in these threads.

We do know : Our collective history. We do know how DNA and genetics work (which is why I consider A:R's very premise to be completely stupid.)

We don't know whether a seven foot creature with acid for blood and a polarized silicone skin exists. It's impossible to really judge that by our sciences beyond the basic similarities it shares with terrestrial life. It's an unknown, an unknown surrounded by a film series that MOST of the time is compellingly visceral and feels realistic.


Some people seem to think that "plausible scientific explanation" requires, for those of us taking issue anyway, paragraphs of exposition explaining everything. There is the alternative as it was demonstrated in Alien. The Nostromo works because the characters never wink at the audience that "we're in science fiction." They just exist in their world, and in their world the Nostromo works. We don't know the science behind it, but it is presented in a reasonable fashion. Give or take a few anachronisms which can be overlooked for the sake of the story.

When the back story, the fundamental premise and back bone, relies on something we know to be scientifically incorrect, it hurts the overall film. Even when it's well executed the Ancient Astronaut theory is always going to work against Prometheus. I still think the film will be fantastic in pretty much every other regard though.

What I take issue with is the idea that because elements of the story of Prometheus doesn't fit in with actual historical evolution of the species (and planet) that it's some how weak, when in fact...it's a just a movie. It's made to be enjoyed, that's it. It's like people are taking a scalpel to this film, a film that NO ONE has seen and are dissecting what they know, or what they can guess and are then ruining the wonder of it for others. :(

From what I have learned, there is no solid evidence to back up any of the ancient astronaut theories. Its all just wild speculation, some of which flies in the face of established science.

Having said that, I am eager to learn Ridley Scott's take on the whole matter, as it relates to the movie. I hope they don't go overboard!  ;D

Quote
The problem is when it literally says "Aliens are our Gods." and they were literally unchanged for untold millennia when they first started playing with us until today. That, first off, flies in the face evolution. Any life that might have visited us eons ago would be so very different by today, if it even existed at all, that any "Prometheus" type of story would be highly improbable.

Evolution is a process of development over long periods of time due entirely to breeding selectively by nature. For starters, an alien organism could be so wildly different that its basic biological traits greatly twist our very notion of, well, biology and reproduction. For instance, would it have DNA? Would it have some other form of information storage or genetic structure?

Would it be carbon based? Silicon?

Your position 'assumes' much. That our very limited understanding of biology must transfer across the stars, as if it is some kind of immutable truth of nature. This is not so, if anything our understanding is at best anecdotal since: we're just one planet (and even here life is incredibly diverse) and we've never seen other forms of life.*

Quote
Then you of course go to what we know of our own evolutionary background. As I said in another thread, Earth tells us our own story in the rock. We know more or less the gist of our history, and there really isn't any "mystery" about how or why primitive man began to use tools, form tribes, and eventually build cities. We learned. It's quite easy to understand how we got from there, to here in the space of a few hundred thousand years. We didn't need any help. We, the human race, are capable of amazing things. Even if it takes us a long long time.

As someone once said, learning to harness fire and the wheel make the discovery of the microchip look like something done on a whim for us.

I also contest some of your points here. We have a limited understanding through the geological window we have established through the sciences that illuminates some of our history. However, human 'pre-history' is definitely real and the exact origins of our species is still being debated to this day. Certainly we are quite similar to other humanoid mammals like the great apes, so naturally we do assume (and arguably justifiably) that we descended from them. That isn't really in question, atleast not with the majority of 'ancient astronaut' theories.

What is in question is if this drastic cognitive development (and it IS drastic) was completely natural or perhaps guided. Again, it is something that is open to speculation and it is fun to discuss.  But this is not a 'closed book' like you would have it seem.

To behave that way is basically an affront to science, as we must be open minded and aware that our limited perception can at any moment be turned upside down by new discoveries- and it often is.

As for Prometheus's take on humans or life on earth in general- it remains to be seen. Did the Jockeys add/create the ideal conditions for basic cellular life and add that little 'drop' of perfect ingredients into the primordial soup?

That is a question which scientists to this day are hard pressed to answer. How non-biological components could assimilate in such a way where it would give rise to biological life.. Naturally. The famous miller experiment(s) attempted to answer this question, but was a failure.  So it is still a 'scientific mystery' that many find appealing and love to speculate about.



*In some ways I am playing Devil's Advocate here. Don't get me wrong, I believe that extraterrestrial origins to life on earth is plausible, enough that it warrants some level of consideration.

However, I am coming around to the belief that perhaps.. Biological life on earth is a result of panspermia. In that we have meteorites from Allen Hills, Antarctica which presumably shows Martian biomorphs (nanobacterial fossils, basically). This threw the scientific community into an uproar when it was brought forward in the late 80's early 90's. Scientists said "These are too small to be biological life!" "It came from a place and time on Mars where life surely could not have existed!"

And yet.. Many of these arguments have unravelled with time. We have discovered nanobacterial organisms. We have discovered archabacteria living in environments thought to be impossible for life... Like arsenic lakes and deep sea thermal vents. We have discovered organisms capable of surviving for prolonged periods in the vacuum of space, and exposure to intense solar radiation... As they are capable of RNA repair autonomously.

On the one hand we have to go off of what we know, since it's really all we have. On the other, though, what we know is so horribly little that we cannot be in such fierce opposition to new ideas that it inhibits the growth of knowledge and the widening of our understanding.

"And yet.. Many of these arguments have unravelled with time. We have discovered nanobacterial organisms. We have discovered archabacteria living in environments thought to be impossible for life... Like arsenic lakes and deep sea thermal vents. We have discovered organisms capable of surviving for prolonged periods in the vacuum of space, and exposure to intense solar radiation... As they are capable of RNA repair autonomously.

On the one hand we have to go off of what we know, since it's really all we have. On the other, though, what we know is so horribly little that we cannot be in such fierce opposition to new ideas that it inhibits the growth of knowledge and the widening of our understanding. "

Couldnt have said it better myself.

QuoteWe do know : Our collective history. We do know how DNA and genetics work (which is why I consider A:R's very premise to be completely stupid.)

:D

But of course the fact Resurrection simply follows on from what was set up 20 years earlier is completely ignored.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM

And yet.. Many of these arguments have unravelled with time. We have discovered nanobacterial organisms. We have discovered archabacteria living in environments thought to be impossible for life... Like arsenic lakes and deep sea thermal vents. We have discovered organisms capable of surviving for prolonged periods in the vacuum of space, and exposure to intense solar radiation... As they are capable of RNA repair autonomously.

On the one hand we have to go off of what we know, since it's really all we have. On the other, though, what we know is so horribly little that we cannot be in such fierce opposition to new ideas that it inhibits the growth of knowledge and the widening of our understanding.

Vulgotha, in terms of Evolution and Molecular Biology, please name me even one single example that undermines or contradicts the fundamental structure of the these Scientific Theories.  Specifically, what arguments have "unraveled with time"?  All  the examples you have cited, have simply extended and increased our knowledge of the diversity of Life, as well as the boundry conditions within which organic Life is possible.

Furthermore, with all due respect, your post contains some fundamental errors and/or misconceptions in terms of Evolutinary Theory.

Quote from: SM on Apr 20, 2012, 10:32:53 PM

QuoteWe do know : Our collective history. We do know how DNA and genetics work (which is why I consider A:R's very premise to be completely stupid.)

:D

But of course the fact Resurrection simply follows on from what was set up 20 years earlier is completely ignored.

What does that even mean, SM? I think you totally misunderstood me. The idea that you can clone Ripley and get a queen alien out of her is what i'm referring to. I don't recall Alien 3 ever setting up anything to do with cloning.  :)

If you're gonna let yourself be bogged down and confounded by that sort of tedium, then you best stay away from science fiction all together. It will only make you more angry. sheesh! ;) :) :o ::) :'( ;D :D

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 21, 2012, 02:06:53 AM
If you're gonna let yourself be bogged down and confounded by that sort of tedium, then you best stay away from science fiction all together. It will only make you more angry. sheesh! ;) :) :o ::) :'( ;D :D

The greats of science fiction do not suffer from premise breaker problems. They have some issues, yes, all films do. It's when they break your films premise with something blatantly wrong. There's also a reason certain films are successes with the same flaws and others aren't.

A classic example there is Top Gun vs Days of Thunder. A lot of people are NASCAR fans and hated DOT, not many people are Jet Pilots and Top Gun is a success. People will let a lot slide when they aren't very educated or into the subject at hand. Planetary history and human evolution are two subjects many people don't give too cruds about.

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 21, 2012, 02:06:53 AMIf you're gonna let yourself be bogged down and confounded by that sort of tedium, then you best stay away from science fiction all together. It will only make you more angry. sheesh! ;) :) :o ::) :'( ;D :D

Anger is not the emotion... unmitigated terror for a series that I love is more like it. The placing of humankind in some kind of important or privileged position in the Alien universe is a bad move IMO, because, to me at least, the first film setup the exact opposite. This was one of the great things about it.

Regardless of the story being believable or not, or the film being good or not, I feel that the AA angle is a horrible and cheap move by the story writers that is not only pure hogwash, but will also, in my own opinion, do terrible damage to the original films. I am hoping beyond hope that it is a red-herring, but I am pretty sure it won't be.

Like I said before, no one will convince anyone of anything in this thread. Some people find it plausible, others do not. You're entitled to your opinion. I personally not only don't mind but I like the idea, then again I also liked stargate. To each his own, I think we dont know enough to rule the possibility out completely, you do. I also don't have the opinion that we know everything about our past, as most real scientists will say in their respective fields that they have only scratched the surface. The theory of evolution itself evolves consistently as new evidence presents itself. 20 years ago water was thought to be almost non existent in the galaxy, when now it has proven almost abundant. The world used to be flat, and the center of the universe. You defend the intelligence of our ancestors yet those ancestors held rigidly to beliefs that have now been proven incorrect. I'm basically saying dealing in absolutes is tricky business.

Thank god he's a lone voice.

Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 21, 2012, 02:03:28 AM

Quote from: SM on Apr 20, 2012, 10:32:53 PM

QuoteWe do know : Our collective history. We do know how DNA and genetics work (which is why I consider A:R's very premise to be completely stupid.)

:D

But of course the fact Resurrection simply follows on from what was set up 20 years earlier is completely ignored.

What does that even mean, SM? I think you totally misunderstood me. The idea that you can clone Ripley and get a queen alien out of her is what i'm referring to. I don't recall Alien 3 ever setting up anything to do with cloning.  :)

No I understood fine.  The Alien accessing DNA of the host was invented for Alien - which is apparently all perfectly acceptable.  Resurrection says a bit more than that happens and there's host and Alien DNA mixing - but that's apparently stupid.

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 21, 2012, 02:49:57 AMThank god he's a lone voice.

My word, you are viciously protective of this film. I am pretty sure that there are other non-gushing fans out there who have similar concerns, but single me out if you must. Perhaps I should be banned for dissent?

I'm not a gushing fan. There's no need to polarize me in a separate camp. I'm cautiously optimistic...but getting hung up in this tedium is confounding to me. I'm just trying to understand it.

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 21, 2012, 03:22:04 AM
I'm not a gushing fan. There's no need to polarize me in a separate camp. I'm cautiously optimistic...

You sure as hell don't come across that way, Bethesda. :P Just sayin'.

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 21, 2012, 02:46:20 AM
The theory of evolution itself evolves consistently as new evidence presents itself.

As do almost all Scientific Theories.  In fact, this is baramoter showing a Scientific Theory is healthy, and an active area of study and new research.  I would also note, that all new evidence has expanded our understanding of Evolutionary processes, mostly related to the unit upon which Natural Selection primarly operates (at the cellular level, the individual organism, kin groups, and perhaps even larger groups -- at populations).  The consensus it that the primary agent upon which Natural Selection operates is the individual organism, but that it can operate on other levels, to a more limited degree.  However, these are subtle arguments and modifcations which expand the edifice of Evolutionary Theory, but in no way "change" the fundamental structure.

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 21, 2012, 02:46:20 AM
20 years ago water was thought to be almost non existent in the galaxy, when now it has proven almost abundant. The world used to be flat, and the center of the universe. You defend the intelligence of our ancestors yet those ancestors held rigidly to beliefs that have now been proven incorrect. I'm basically saying dealing in absolutes is tricky business.

I absolutely defend the intelligence of our ancient ancestors.  However, I don't deduct points for their pre-scientific beliefs.  You can't fault them for having non-scientific explanations for their natural world, when Science didn't even yet exist.

---

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 21, 2012, 02:49:57 AM
Thank god he's a lone voice.

I cordially beg to differ.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 20, 2012, 11:58:53 PM

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM

And yet.. Many of these arguments have unravelled with time. We have discovered nanobacterial organisms. We have discovered archabacteria living in environments thought to be impossible for life... Like arsenic lakes and deep sea thermal vents. We have discovered organisms capable of surviving for prolonged periods in the vacuum of space, and exposure to intense solar radiation... As they are capable of RNA repair autonomously.

On the one hand we have to go off of what we know, since it's really all we have. On the other, though, what we know is so horribly little that we cannot be in such fierce opposition to new ideas that it inhibits the growth of knowledge and the widening of our understanding.

Vulgotha, in terms of Evolution and Molecular Biology, please name me even one single example that undermines or contradicts the fundamental structure of the these Scientific Theories.  Specifically, what arguments have "unraveled with time"?  All  the examples you have cited, have simply extended and increased our knowledge of the diversity of Life, as well as the boundry conditions within which organic Life is possible.

Furthermore, with all due respect, your post contains some fundamental errors and/or misconceptions in terms of Evolutinary Theory.

Uh, the concept that nano-bacterial life couldn't exist- debunked. That life is far too 'fragile' to exist in particular environments - debunked. Life is far more resilient than we give it credit for, and we are discovering this all the time.

The more we know, the more we realize how little we know. And how wrong we were.

As for other forms of life- in particular non-carbon based- have a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry)

Not horribly thorough, but it reaffirms what I've been saying: We're not all that there is out there. To try and 'limit' extraterrestrial life based on life here on earth is... Well, naive. Not to insult you, I'm speaking broadly here.

You should also understand the context of my 'unravelling' statement. I was referring specifically to the allegations that the martian (supposed) biomorphs on the ALH meteorite could not possibly have been produced by living organisms.

"Extending the boundaries" is a good way to put it, but still the inescapable truth is that the old suppositions of life must be washed away when we move the goal posts. That life could live in an arsenic lake or a deep sea thermal vent was, previously, thought impossible. Yet we can quite clearly see this is not so.

I welcome you to point out any errors I've made in regards to evolutionary theory.

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 21, 2012, 03:22:04 AMI'm not a gushing fan. There's no need to polarize me in a separate camp. I'm cautiously optimistic...but getting hung up in this tedium is confounding to me. I'm just trying to understand it.

It's a discussion, but I can see that it's no longer a constructive one. To me these details aren't tedium but possibly a fundamental flaw in the logic of a story that I have waited for since I was ten years old, and dammit I just have to talk about that. I am not trying to ruin it for anyone, just to salve my anxiety about it with the opinions and counter arguments of other members, yours included.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 21, 2012, 03:25:11 AM

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 21, 2012, 02:46:20 AM
The theory of evolution itself evolves consistently as new evidence presents itself.

As do almost all Scientific Theories.  In fact, this is baramoter showing a Scientific Theory is healthy, and an active area of study and new research.  I would also note, that all new evidence has expanded our understanding of Evolutionary processes, mostly related to the unit upon which Natural Selection primarly operates (at the cellular level, the individual organism, kin groups, and perhaps even larger groups -- at populations).  The consensus it that the primary agent upon which Natural Selection operates is the individual organism, but that it can operate on other levels, to a more limited degree.  However, these are subtle arguments and modifcations which expand the edifice of Evolutionary Theory, but in no way "change" the fundamental structure.

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 21, 2012, 02:46:20 AM
20 years ago water was thought to be almost non existent in the galaxy, when now it has proven almost abundant. The world used to be flat, and the center of the universe. You defend the intelligence of our ancestors yet those ancestors held rigidly to beliefs that have now been proven incorrect. I'm basically saying dealing in absolutes is tricky business.

I absolutely defend the intelligence of our ancient ancestors.  However, I don't deduct points for their pre-scientific beliefs.  You can't fault them for having non-scientific explanations for their natural world, when Science didn't even yet exist.

---

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 21, 2012, 02:49:57 AM
Thank god he's a lone voice.

I cordially beg to differ.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I fully believe in evolutionary theory, in all probability I believe most of what you believe. Science teaches us not to deal in absolutes, that's why it's scientific theory. Religion deals with absolutes that's why they label everything "religious fact". I cant tell you how many times ive had discussions with evangelists who make the argument that science is theory and their beliefs are fact. And you appear to be doing the same thing..

Quote from: SM on Apr 21, 2012, 02:53:21 AM
No I understood fine.  The Alien accessing DNA of the host was invented for Alien - which is apparently all perfectly acceptable.  Resurrection says a bit more than that happens and there's host and Alien DNA mixing - but that's apparently stupid.

There's a distinct difference between the alien reading the host's genetic material and adapting certain traits to itself, and being cloned preggers with an alien. It does not work that way. No matter how you try to bend the science or think about it, no, it does not make any goddamn sense.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 21, 2012, 03:26:23 AM
Uh, the concept that nano-bacterial life couldn't exist- debunked. That life is far too 'fragile' to exist in particular environments - debunked.

Vulgotha, those were exactly what you said they were..."concepts", expectations, and general mind-sets held by many (not all) microbiologists.  They have nothing to do with the actual science behind Molecular Biology, and in no way contradict it's fundamental Theories.  These are cases of expanding the enviornmental boundry limits and conditions in which organic life is viable.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 21, 2012, 03:26:23 AM
The more we know, the more we realize how little we know. And how wrong we were.

I absolutely agree with the first part.  The second part is very much the exception to the rule, when it comes to fundamental principles.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 21, 2012, 03:26:23 AM
As for other forms of life- in particular non-carbon based- have a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry)

Quite familiar with this area, and have read many of the actual published articles.  Alternative carbon-based biochemistry is highly plausible, and in fact probable.  Non-carbon based complex life is a lot more problematic.  Not impossible, but, IMHO, unlikely.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 21, 2012, 03:26:23 AMWe're not all that there is out there. To try and 'limit' extraterrestrial life based on life here on earth is... Well, naive.

Possibly, but everything 'out there' is made of the same stuff. There are places on Earth that mimic the conditions of other planets, and you are right there is life in those places that would go against assumptions of where and how life can exist. The problem I think is that these forms of life are extremely simple. In order for life to evolve to a complexity equivalent to or greater than ourselves requires very specific conditions, and those conditions tend to result in life that is very similar to what we see on Earth.

Unless the whole carbon-based thing is legit, then shit just gets weird. ;D

Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 21, 2012, 03:46:25 AM

Quote from: SM on Apr 21, 2012, 02:53:21 AM
No I understood fine.  The Alien accessing DNA of the host was invented for Alien - which is apparently all perfectly acceptable.  Resurrection says a bit more than that happens and there's host and Alien DNA mixing - but that's apparently stupid.

There's a distinct difference between the alien reading the host's genetic material and adapting certain traits to itself, and being cloned preggers with an alien. It does not work that way. No matter how you try to bend the science or think about it, no, it does not make any goddamn sense.

Psst... A creature implanting something inside you, which develops from microscopic to 8' tall in less than 24 hours with no apparent food source does not work any way either.

But one mustn't miss out on a tiresome opportunity to kick Alien Resurrection.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM

I welcome you to point out any errors I've made in regards to evolutionary theory.

As long as you understand I am just trying to correct a few misconceptions.  I am not questioning your general knowledge, nor "picking" on you.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
Evolution is a process of development over long periods of time due entirely to breeding selectively by nature.

This is not an accurate description of the mechanism of Natural Selection.  Natural Selection has absolutely nothing to do with breeding or reproduction...except in the most indirect sense (which I will explain below).  Natural Selection is based upon three (3) undeniable facts:  a) Organisms produce more offspring than can naturally be supported.  b) Variation c) Heritability.

The implication of these observations lead to the syllogistic inference at the core of the Theory:  Natural Selection is the mechanism by which organisms that are fortuitously better adapted to changing local environments, on average, enjoy differential reproductive success.

Natural selection is a process that fundamentally operates upon an individual / organism, prior to reaching reproductve maturity.  This distinction may may subtle, but it is exactly backwards as to the way you stated it.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
For starters, an alien organism could be so wildly different that its basic biological traits greatly twist our very notion of, well, biology and reproduction. For instance, would it have DNA? Would it have some other form of information storage or genetic structure?

Would it be carbon based? Silicon?

Certainly, a totally alien organism will expand our understanding of non-terrestrial biological and (possibly) reproductive processes.  However,  how exactly would this be incompatible, "twist", or fundamentally change current Evolutionary, Chemistry and/or Biological Theory.  The answer is that it almost certainly will not...because the same Natural Laws that apply on Earth are absolutely expected to apply everywhere else in the Universe.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
Your position 'assumes' much. That our very limited understanding of biology must transfer across the stars, as if it is some kind of immutable truth of nature. This is not so, if anything our understanding is at best anecdotal since: we're just one planet (and even here life is incredibly diverse) and we've never seen other forms of life.*

While I concede that our scientific knowledge is, and will probably always remain incomlete...it does NOT FOLLOW that the physical laws that we see operating on Earth as well as in the heavens, do not apply equally throughout our observable Universe.  In fact, we scientists are so certain of this fact, that it has been elevated to a principle, called the Cosmological Principle:  At any given moment in time, the Universe is isotropic and homogeneous, and the Laws of Physics apply equally in all places.  Incidentally, Evolution via Natural Selection is considered a fundamental law of nature, and is fully expected to be a process that occurs throughout our physical Universe.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM

I also contest some of your points here. We have a limited understanding through the geological window we have established through the sciences that illuminates some of our history. However, human 'pre-history' is definitely real and the exact origins of our species is still being debated to this day. Certainly we are quite similar to other humanoid mammals like the great apes, so naturally we do assume (and arguably justifiably) that we descended from them. That isn't really in question, atleast not with the majority of 'ancient astronaut' theories.

Again, a major (if common) misunderstanding of human Evolution.  We did not descend from "great apes".   We both shared a common ancestor.  This is a completely different statement.  Today's "great apes" have evolved away from their common ancestor, as have Homo sapiens.  Morphological comparison, Phylogenetic Sytematics, and Molecular Biology (3 independent disciplines) have shown we are more closer related to chimpanzees and bonobos, than we are to Gorillas, which in turn are more closesly related to us than Orangutans.  In NO CASE are we direct descendents of any, but we all share a common ancestor.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
What is in question is if this drastic cognitive development (and it IS drastic) was completely natural or perhaps guided. Again, it is something that is open to speculation and it is fun to discuss.  But this is not a 'closed book' like you would have it seem.

As I have mentioned before, anything is open for imaginitive speculation...but that does not make it good science.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
To behave that way is basically an affront to science, as we must be open minded and aware that our limited perception can at any moment be turned upside down by new discoveries- and it often is.

It is true that, as with all real Science, a  Scientific Theory is entirely provisional, and has the potential to be falsified based upon even a single incompatible empirical experiment or observation that cannot be reconciled within the Theory.  However, with that said, please offer me what you believe to be examples of established modern Scientific Theories that have been turned upside down (which I interpret to mean falsified).

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
That is a question which scientists to this day are hard pressed to answer. How non-biological components could assimilate in such a way where it would give rise to biological life.. Naturally. The famous miller experiment(s) attempted to answer this question, but was a failure.  So it is still a 'scientific mystery' that many find appealing and love to speculate about.

Again, I hate to throw cold water on some of these popular misconceptions.  The Urey-Miller experiments were NEVER conceived to answer questions as to how abiotic chemistry could transform into biological life...nor made any claims to this effect.  The Urey-Miller experiments were conducted in order to understand the conditions that might explain how prebiotic, inorganic precursor chemicals could assemble into more complex organic compounds (e.g. amino acids).  And contrary to popular belief, these experiments were entirely successful...more so then even Urey and Miller realized at the time.

What does this have to do with Prometheus?

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 21, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
What does this have to do with Prometheus?

You have been participating all along...you tell me.   :P ;)

Quote from: SM on Apr 21, 2012, 04:24:23 AM
Psst... A creature implanting something inside you, which develops from microscopic to 8' tall in less than 24 hours with no apparent food source does not work any way either.

That actually depends on a lot of unknown variables. It's very very improbable. it's metabolism, what it's chemical make up is... I mean, we know scarce little about the facehugger, so we can't even know what the Alien itself is made out of. And all we have on the Hugger is "Tough little son of a bitch" and "Its shedding its cells(whatever those were made of) and replacing them with polarized silicon."

Even if we accept alien genetic material mixing with Ripley's DNA... You don't get a human being with a chestburster at the end of that. You get a freak of nature, or a human being that develops some awful freaking diseases.  (Some of those clones were probably more genetically plausible.)

Quote from: SM on Apr 21, 2012, 04:24:23 AM
But one mustn't miss out on a tiresome opportunity to kick Alien Resurrection.

Oh I gotcha now SM. I GOTCHUUU. You trying to be a white knight for A:R huh? I gotcha, I gotcha. It's okay, man. I can respect that. :)

...BUt to be fair. You are right. I can't. Though I don't really find it tiresome. :)

Quote from: Wobblyboddle77 on Apr 19, 2012, 11:52:52 PM
Janek pilots the prometheus into the engineer ship to stop it for leaving for earth to unleash it's cargo. David is in the orriery (starmap room) communicating with the engineers/jockeys showing them earth and explaining it's importance. The engineer/jockeys suits are bio-organic, and are living organisms capable of changing to suit any environment.Weyland uses Shaw as a carrier of a creature (the proto-xeno) but a jockey/engineer attacks him with some acid. When we see the crew running outide in the trailer, they are on top of the temple, and the temple is actually a ship carrying the giant head.

This was posted over on totalfilm forums. I think it's correct about Janek crashing Prometheus into the derelict and perhaps about David in the Orriery but the temple being a ship? nah, not on my watch. There are a ton of barmy rumours floating around such as Vickers being Weylands daughter and her "personal" reasoning for being on the ship is to ask the engineers to prolong her fathers life. I've heard the suits are living, breathing creatures which merge with the engineers to feed off their life force - there is a ton of rumours circulating. Wait till June. The answers will be there.

---

I am going to hazard a guess at what the link is between the final 8 minutes.

I believe the final 8 minutes will show the jockey landing on LV-426 and perhaps we will see his chest burst and perhaps see the jockey sending a signal from the ship as a warning to other jockeys not to approach but then I think Scott will then take us to place in the current time-line of the very first Alien with some dialogue about preparing a crew for the Nostromo in the same system that Promotheus took place.

Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 21, 2012, 05:22:36 AM
Even if we accept alien genetic material mixing with Ripley's DNA... You don't get a human being with a chestburster at the end of that. You get a freak of nature, or a human being that develops some awful freaking diseases.  (Some of those clones were probably more genetically plausible.)

And, or course, the greastest insult to Science (and anyone who has the most basic, rudimentary understanding of genetics and molecular biology), is the ludicrous notion that a "cloned" organism somehow carrys along accumulated, acquired hereditary knowledge within their genes.  However, this incredibly "bad science", was a fundamental aspect of "Alien Resurrection".

I think even Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was laughing from his grave.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 21, 2012, 04:37:27 AM

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM

I welcome you to point out any errors I've made in regards to evolutionary theory.

As long as you understand I am just trying to correct a few misconceptions.  I am not questioning your general knowledge, nor "picking" on you.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
Evolution is a process of development over long periods of time due entirely to breeding selectively by nature.

This is not an accurate description of the mechanism of Natural Selection.  Natural Selection has absolutely nothing to do with breeding or reproduction...except in the most indirect sense (which I will explain below).  Natural Selection is based upon three (3) undeniable facts:  a) Organisms produce more offspring than can naturally be supported.  b) Variation c) Heritability.

The implication of these observations lead to the syllogistic inference at the core of the Theory:  Natural Selection is the mechanism by which organisms that are fortuitously better adapted to changing local environments, on average, enjoy differential reproductive success.

Natural selection is a process that fundamentally operates upon an individual / organism, prior to reaching reproductve maturity.  This distinction may may subtle, but it is exactly backwards as to the way you stated it.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
For starters, an alien organism could be so wildly different that its basic biological traits greatly twist our very notion of, well, biology and reproduction. For instance, would it have DNA? Would it have some other form of information storage or genetic structure?

Would it be carbon based? Silicon?

Certainly, a totally alien organism will expand our understanding of non-terrestrial biological and (possibly) reproductive processes.  However,  how exactly would this be incompatible, "twist", or fundamentally change current Evolutionary, Chemistry and/or Biological Theory.  The answer is that it almost certainly will not...because the same Natural Laws that apply on Earth are absolutely expected to apply everywhere else in the Universe.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
Your position 'assumes' much. That our very limited understanding of biology must transfer across the stars, as if it is some kind of immutable truth of nature. This is not so, if anything our understanding is at best anecdotal since: we're just one planet (and even here life is incredibly diverse) and we've never seen other forms of life.*

While I concede that our scientific knowledge is, and will probably always remain incomlete...it does NOT FOLLOW that the physical laws that we see operating on Earth as well as in the heavens, do not apply equally throughout our observable Universe.  In fact, we scientists are so certain of this fact, that it has been elevated to a principle, called the Cosmological Principle:  At any given moment in time, the Universe is isotropic and homogeneous, and the Laws of Physics apply equally in all places.  Incidentally, Evolution via Natural Selection is considered a fundamental law of nature, and is fully expected to be a process that occurs throughout our physical Universe.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM

I also contest some of your points here. We have a limited understanding through the geological window we have established through the sciences that illuminates some of our history. However, human 'pre-history' is definitely real and the exact origins of our species is still being debated to this day. Certainly we are quite similar to other humanoid mammals like the great apes, so naturally we do assume (and arguably justifiably) that we descended from them. That isn't really in question, atleast not with the majority of 'ancient astronaut' theories.

Again, a major (if common) misunderstanding of human Evolution.  We did not descend from "great apes".   We both shared a common ancestor.  This is a completely different statement.  Today's "great apes" have evolved away from their common ancestor, as have Homo sapiens.  Morphological comparison, Phylogenetic Sytematics, and Molecular Biology (3 independent disciplines) have shown we are more closer related to chimpanzees and bonobos, than we are to Gorillas, which in turn are more closesly related to us than Orangutans.  In NO CASE are we direct descendents of any, but we all share a common ancestor.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
What is in question is if this drastic cognitive development (and it IS drastic) was completely natural or perhaps guided. Again, it is something that is open to speculation and it is fun to discuss.  But this is not a 'closed book' like you would have it seem.

As I have mentioned before, anything is open for imaginitive speculation...but that does not make it good science.

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
To behave that way is basically an affront to science, as we must be open minded and aware that our limited perception can at any moment be turned upside down by new discoveries- and it often is.

It is true that, as with all real Science, a  Scientific Theory is entirely provisional, and has the potential to be falsified based upon even a single incompatible empirical experiment or observation that cannot be reconciled within the Theory.  However, with that said, please offer me what you believe to be examples of established modern Scientific Theories that have been turned upside down (which I interpret to mean falsified).

Quote from: Vulgotha on Apr 20, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
That is a question which scientists to this day are hard pressed to answer. How non-biological components could assimilate in such a way where it would give rise to biological life.. Naturally. The famous miller experiment(s) attempted to answer this question, but was a failure.  So it is still a 'scientific mystery' that many find appealing and love to speculate about.

Again, I hate to throw cold water on some of these popular misconceptions.  The Urey-Miller experiments were NEVER conceived to answer questions as to how abiotic chemistry could transform into biological life...nor made any claims to this effect.  The Urey-Miller experiments were conducted in order to understand the conditions that might explain how prebiotic, inorganic precursor chemicals could assemble into more complex organic compounds (e.g. amino acids).  And contrary to popular belief, these experiments were entirely successful...more so then even Urey and Miller realized at the time.

This thread is getting tiring. Uh let's see, you just pointed out the factual flaws in this guys post, yet the basic points of his argument (and mine) still stand. You cannot rule out the possibility of AA, if you are truly a scientific man you can't. You can say its extremely unlikely and it's "bad science" all you want, you still can't rule it out. End of discussion.
Also you mentioned how you can't fault our ancestors because "science didn't exist yet", yet it did, seeing how knowledgeable you are on the subject I would've thought you'd known that. Science has always existed. And here are some theories proven wrong-Phlogiston theory, expanding earth theory, Spontaneous generation theory, eintstein's static universe theory, the list goes on. Ever since science has existed (which is essentially since the birth of man) its beliefs have been ever changing, not a little, but fundamentally.
You can hold tight your own beliefs and opinion but that doesn't make it so.

I'm not tired of this thread!  ;D

AA theory is purely speculation. None of it is really scientific theory, correct? So the question remains: will Ridley be able to translate that into a movie worth watching more than once? Fun, suspense, terror, mystery... all wrapped up into a 3D mind bender!

Meh, I made a few slip ups. I didn't mean to imply that we directly descended from the modern apes, I should have been more clear. We are related and descended from a similar ape-like ancestor.

The miller experiment set out to try and establish a way in which non-biological components could, in a particular atmosphere, create basic amino acids. It was flawed in a few ways, not the least of which being that we now know the atmosphere was different than what they were targeting.

"The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]"

So I'm not sure why you're nit picking here- I was right. It was about testing the abiological origins of life in a particular environment through purely natural processes.

Apparently, though, the experiment has cropped up in relevance again due to newer findings. I concede the point there, though that's kind of inconsequential.

In general your posts are extremely anal. You're nit picking for the sake of nit picking- like saying "natural selection is not about breeding, except in the most indirect sense." Well no crap?

To be honest I'm very put off with your demeanor in this conversation. It'd be like me saying that looking at the sun will cause blindness, and you'd correct me by saying "Only in the most indirect sense, the sun itself does not cause the harm it is the excess amount of solar radiation damaging the sensitive structure of the eye."

Yes, thank you. I am very glad this 'misconception' was cleared up lol.

It's clear you fancy yourself some kind of scientist or evolutionary biologist (of some stripe). I'm not going to risk further derailment of this thread and agitation, but I will part with this:

The bigger or smaller you get into science, whatever the field, the more our pretty conceptions of reality fray and start to fall apart. 

I'll leave you with a quote by a man I hold in high esteem, Paul Davies (winner of the Faraday and Templeton prize): "Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled."

The Mandelbrot fractal.

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.misterx.ca%2FFRACTALS%2F800px-Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg&hash=9a82ef34d3223ff33839f952636c3e339f628911)

A picture of infinite complexity with no designer or purpose, and yet this mathematical image has 'existed' for all eternity, and it will continue to exist for all eternity.

Each pixel 'value' in the image represents an iteration over many computation steps (generations) through a recursive mathematical equation. The colour, and therefore essentially the resulting 'structure', is determined by a simple boundary condition on the behaviour of the numbers as they iterate through the generations. Therefore, the final outcome at each (x,y) point on the image is the accumulation of all the previous generations of values at each (x,y) point.

But, the resulting final structure of the image (at a given resolution or scale) is entirely CHAOTIC - not even a God could predict it in a single empirical step - even though each pixel in the image is only 'driven' by a simple rule:

Z(n+1) = Z(n)^2 + c

There is nothing random about the rule, and yet an image of infinite complexity emerges all by itself. The higher the resolution and the more generations of the algorithm, the more complex the image becomes.

This is the essence of Chaos Theory and it provides an insight into the complexity and diverse beauty of the natural universe, without the need for direct intervention of a God or extra-terrestrial engineer.

Simple rules give rise to complex objects.

Evolution is blind, but it describes the diverse behaviour and nature of objects once a 'pattern' has been established and it can successfully propagate over many generations.

Chaos Theory provides a means by which pattern can spontaneously emerge in the first place.

Natural processes and boundary conditions, organic chemistry, rates of chemical reactions, diffusion, and fundamental forces will all give rise to vast and diverse complexity, each of which can be considered a beautiful natural wonder. 

Like the Mandelbrot fractal.

No Ancient Astronaut required.

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.misterx.ca%2FFRACTALS%2F800px-Mandel_zoom_08_satellite_antenna.jpg&hash=19b258cffdae64f40d44a50cecefcf0a8d53f5f5)

The problem is, it abides by 'rules' which came into existence in the first place... Highly complex, sophisticated, ethereal laws (or parameters). Seemingly without reason or cause, this is a conundrum for scientists today and the reason why Paul Davies asserts that the current scientific community is ascribing to an 'absurd model' of the universe.

I'll quote him verbatim on this:

"A. The Absurd UniverseThis is probably the majority position among scientists. According to this point of view, the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happen to permit life. It could have been otherwise, but what we see is what we get. Had it been different, we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all - at least none that would make sense to us. There is no God, no designer, no teleological principle, no destiny. Life in general, and human beings in particular, are an irrelevant embellishment in a vast and meaningless cosmos, the existence of which is an unfathomable mystery. The advantage of this position is that it is easy to hold - easy to the point of being a cop-out. If there is no deeper meaning or scheme, there is no point in searching for one. In particular, there is no point in seeking links between life, mind, and cosmos: according to this view, there IS no connection, apart from the trivial one that life has emerged from the cosmos and mind has emerged from life, purely by accident. The disadvantage of the absurd universe view is that science cannot be expected to uncover new and deeper layers of order or further connections between natural phenomena. If there is no coherent scheme of things, then the success of science can be pursued only with a completely unjustified faith that the methods used hitherto will continue to uncover reasonlessly existing order beneath the surface appearance of things. The fact that life exists, seemingly against vast odds, is attributed to an extraordinary accident. And appealing to luck, like appealing to miracles, is not a very satisfactory explanation. That life has evolved mind has to be accepted as another stupendous accident of history. The fact that some minds are capable of understanding the universe is likewise either dismissed as yet another fluke, or tied to vague notions that  brains have evolved to recognize patterns, and that - again for no reason - the deep patterns of physics and cosmology resemble the patterns of the everyday world on our planet (which in fact they mostly don't)."

There is a deep relationship between mathematics and physics. This is evident to everyone- but it's an unremarkable remark on first blush isn't it? We assume this and don't pay it any attention. The problem is, there's no reason at all why mathematics can be used to uncode and describe the universe which surrounds us (and that fractal) and yet it does.
. Science has to buck up to the challenge and attempt to answer these mysteries without resorting to childish arguments revolving around miracles or probability, because: "..Appealing to luck, like appealing to miracles, is not a very satisfactory explanation."

Chaos Theory is all about the after effects of very particular initial conditions.. How they reverberate and build upon each other. That fractal is one end result. The issue becomes the origins of those conditions, the very framework with which they are constructed upon.

This is where the separate (this is a whole other can of worms) schools of philosophy and science begin to blur.. Where we start placing ourselves far outside the realm of empiricism and the scientific method in order to find the answers we so desperately seek.

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 22, 2012, 04:14:24 PM
This thread is getting tiring. Uh let's see, you just pointed out the factual flaws in this guys post, yet the basic points of his argument (and mine) still stand. You cannot rule out the possibility of AA, if you are truly a scientific man you can't. You can say its extremely unlikely and it's "bad science" all you want, you still can't rule it out. End of discussion.

You'll have to forgive me, but that's really quite easy to explain. In scientific circles they have this thing called 'common sense' where it should be obvious you don't have to say something is flat-out wrong and completely stupid, because everyone knows that and stops trying to force it to fit, just because they like it.

It's a "valid theory" in the same way that my theory that the Earth is in fact made of vanilla pudding is a valid theory.

No man of science would have to say "You don't breath rusty screws." Because science demonstrates pretty accurately that isn't what we breath. No, nobody "rules that out," except, ya know, vicariously through the fact that no credible scientist who follows the scientific method would come to that conclusion or hold such a conclusion because it's not supported by FACTS.

Similiarly, the AA theory is not supported by the facts. It uses we-don't-knows-so-it-must-be-aliensisms, and even then stretching the "we don't know" part and purposely ignoring already understood facts of certain era's in our history.

This is how that theory tends to work. The pyramids.

There's no way man could have built the pyramids - That's the opener, and it's not true. It's also an insult to all the engineering geniuses the human race has produced over the millennia.
This is really bizarre - gets you hooked.
Could it have been aliens? - DUHN DUHN DUHNNNNN....
Look at these vague humanoid drawings on this wall! - ALIENS OMFG@$!!

Nothing about the way the theory draws it's conclusions in any of the places I've seen it applied is scientific.

Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 22, 2012, 11:22:57 PM
This is how that theory tends to work. The pyramids.

There's no way man could have built the pyramids - That's the opener, and it's not true. It's also an insult to all the engineering geniuses the human race has produced over the millennia.
This is really bizarre - gets you hooked.
Could it have been aliens? - DUHN DUHN DUHNNNNN....
Look at these vague humanoid drawings on this wall! - ALIENS OMFG@$!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 22, 2012, 11:22:57 PM
There's no way man could have built the pyramids - That's the opener, and it's not true. It's also an insult to all the engineering geniuses the human race has produced over the millennia.
This is really bizarre - gets you hooked.
Could it have been aliens? - DUHN DUHN DUHNNNNN....
Look at these vague humanoid drawings on this wall! - ALIENS OMFG@$!!

But it was aliens!! Look!

Spoiler

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-V0ezEzFSazc%2FTuOO2V02ORI%2FAAAAAAAAC-Y%2F778woEiqLak%2Fs1600%2FDid%2BAliens%2BBuild%2BThe%2BPyramids.jpg&hash=1d3fa88c7b78431d1236428f33991edc9afa6e6e)
  :P ;)

[close]

lol Eva

my god I was posting in other thread about this.

Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 19, 2012, 11:12:47 AM

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 19, 2012, 08:59:10 AMPachi....so, now that you've seen the film....oh yeah...:)

It's not about the quality of the film, it's about the plausibility of the story. Saying that something might happen is different from saying that something did happen.

Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 19, 2012, 09:07:11 AMTake for example the so called noncoding dna and the possible influence in evolution patterns. How a cosmic specie take a hand with this?

Noncoding DNA in any species is a hangover from that species evolution. It's like hair; we don't need it, but we keep growing the shit.

oks but that doesnt prove dna to be (or not) altered by ET species at some point. Theres a lot to discover in noncoding dna.

Anyway I dont think R. Scott wait 30 years to come up with a wizard story about evolution. For what is showed yet, this green goo seems to has some relevance for this evolution story.

So we are talking in microorganic levels.

And if we all bought the alien incredible rapid life cycle, we may assume this green goo to have some rapid capacity of simbiotic mating with another organism.

For example, the human neocortex is one, if not the most rapid evolutionary organ (in a mayor animal) recorded history.
that isn´t explained yet.

Yeumyang is concept of reality.

There is no yeumyang, only that which exists under these conditions.

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F0.tqn.com%2Fd%2Ftaoism%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F-%2F-%2F-%2FyinYang.gif&hash=e61e6aa4b5235e91a1e60ba930e7fc3a3996cf11)

Quote from: Eva on Apr 22, 2012, 11:37:03 PM
But it was aliens!! Look!

Spoiler

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-V0ezEzFSazc%2FTuOO2V02ORI%2FAAAAAAAAC-Y%2F778woEiqLak%2Fs1600%2FDid%2BAliens%2BBuild%2BThe%2BPyramids.jpg&hash=1d3fa88c7b78431d1236428f33991edc9afa6e6e)
  :P ;)

[close]

You've convinced me. I am now a believer.  :)

I, personally believe in evolution. intelligence and life origins, i think both are the mayor secrets this days. im inclined more to the stoned ape theory than the ancient astronaut one however.

Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 22, 2012, 11:22:57 PM

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 22, 2012, 04:14:24 PM
This thread is getting tiring. Uh let's see, you just pointed out the factual flaws in this guys post, yet the basic points of his argument (and mine) still stand. You cannot rule out the possibility of AA, if you are truly a scientific man you can't. You can say its extremely unlikely and it's "bad science" all you want, you still can't rule it out. End of discussion.

You'll have to forgive me, but that's really quite easy to explain. In scientific circles they have this thing called 'common sense' where it should be obvious you don't have to say something is flat-out wrong and completely stupid, because everyone knows that and stops trying to force it to fit, just because they like it.

It's a "valid theory" in the same way that my theory that the Earth is in fact made of vanilla pudding is a valid theory.

No man of science would have to say "You don't breath rusty screws." Because science demonstrates pretty accurately that isn't what we breath. No, nobody "rules that out," except, ya know, vicariously through the fact that no credible scientist who follows the scientific method would come to that conclusion or hold such a conclusion because it's not supported by FACTS.

Similiarly, the AA theory is not supported by the facts. It uses we-don't-knows-so-it-must-be-aliensisms, and even then stretching the "we don't know" part and purposely ignoring already understood facts of certain era's in our history.

This is how that theory tends to work. The pyramids.

There's no way man could have built the pyramids - That's the opener, and it's not true. It's also an insult to all the engineering geniuses the human race has produced over the millennia.
This is really bizarre - gets you hooked.
Could it have been aliens? - DUHN DUHN DUHNNNNN....
Look at these vague humanoid drawings on this wall! - ALIENS OMFG@$!!

Nothing about the way the theory draws it's conclusions in any of the places I've seen it applied is scientific.

First off, if your trying to tell me we know the history of earth and the exact events that happened as well as we know the components of oxygen or the present day material of which the earth is made out of, then theres no way to argue with you. Common sense my ass. That's literally your sole argument here, seriously explain to me why it's such common sense? Please prove to me that, our anscestors started using tools and then eventually voila we got our civilization, common sense right? That's not up for debate or question at all right? You're just not getting it, we can only ever have a rough idea of the past and ancient civilizations, you will never know what ancient Rome was like without actually having been there and not having any eyewitness accounts, you can hypothesize from the ruins and evidence you find but you'll never know what it was really like, what it smelled like, what it felt like. You're thinking inside of a very limited box, that all we know is true and all we've hypothesized is correct. Please have some humility. We know practically nothing in the scheme of things, THAT is common sense.

Capuchin monkeys in Brazil use rocks as tools to smash open palm nuts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4#noexternalembed-ws)


Farewell, Ancient Astronut.

Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 23, 2012, 01:17:44 AM
Capuchin monkeys in Brazil use rocks as tools to smash open palm nuts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4#noexternalembed-ws)


Farewell, Ancient Astronut.

No shit, The funny thing is you're actually supporting my argument, did capuchin monkeys just develop this trait recently or have they been doing it all along? If so why the hell aren't they ruling the world with us

Amen Capovin!

Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 23, 2012, 01:17:44 AM
Capuchin monkeys in Brazil use rocks as tools to smash open palm nuts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4#noexternalembed-ws)


Farewell, Ancient Astronut.

so as birds. hell, a dog can do that. that just prove animals have some level of intuition. but eons of animal species appear and vanish without evidence of another species as complex as human.

there´s no explanation for this yet in this evolution theory.

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 23, 2012, 01:31:46 AM

Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 23, 2012, 01:17:44 AM
Capuchin monkeys in Brazil use rocks as tools to smash open palm nuts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4#noexternalembed-ws)


Farewell, Ancient Astronut.

No shit, The funny thing is you're actually supporting my argument, did capuchin monkeys just develop this trait recently or have they been doing it all along? If so why the hell aren't they ruling the world with us

So because you can't be bothered to read, or because you don't know you automatically jump to ALIENS?

The one that is actually supported by science is that the our behaviour developed as things about us changed. Our ancestors started walking upright, started using basic tools, started using fire when it was available, eventually figured out how to make fire with sparks (probably by observing it over time, accidentally, etc.) Our vocal cords slowly developed to be able to generate words.

You have to understand that just ONE of those steps probably took 10s of thousands of years to come to be on it's own. We see this behavior in our fellow simians, but you have to understand that they have not yet developed the brains capable of doing the higher things yet. Give them another 200,000 years and they might. If they don't go instinct. Heck they might even develop that behavior faster if we go extinct in the time being.

There are other species that existed back when man first showed up that had the same potential we did, but they fell by the way side. We didn't. Not because of aliens, but because we just happened to follow the right evolutionary path. The path that lead us here. Our species learned to do things that saved it, probably just barely at times, to live on. Remember, by comparison to our cousins in nature, we are actually much weaker physically by default. We lost that physical advantage in favor of intelligence, more brain power.

Many modern humans also have traces of neanderthal DNA. There was plenty of inter-breeding.  ;D

That's still a theory, and not a fact.

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 23, 2012, 02:58:44 AM
That's still a theory, and not a fact.

You want facts? I have seen monkeys in Brazil doing things to themselves that I cannot describe here.

Doing things like what?

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 23, 2012, 03:05:00 AM
Doing things like what?

XXX
(not PG-13)

XXX???? Lolz....describing monkeys having sexual intercourse would hardly be unauthorized. Lolz :)

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zoobar.com.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2Fanother-monkey-drinking-a-beer.jpg&hash=00708554157f4734701c97306a91a2dd2ccf71d0)

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 23, 2012, 01:31:46 AMNo shit, The funny thing is you're actually supporting my argument, did capuchin monkeys just develop this trait recently or have they been doing it all along? If so why the hell aren't they ruling the world with us.

And you have just illustrated my earlier point perfectly. If the back story of Prometheus requires this kind of twisted logic to make any sense then its a f**king bad story. f**k it all, I'm off to get plastered with SM's buddy up there.

Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 23, 2012, 01:36:38 AM
so as birds. hell, a dog can do that. that just prove animals have some level of intuition. but eons of animal species appear and vanish without evidence of another species as complex as human.

there´s no explanation for this yet in this evolution theory.

The bolded statment is a fallacious argument.
The rise of intelligence and consciousness in early homonids does not require any "special" explanation within Evolutionary Theory, versus any other adaptation that conferred a fitnesss/survival advantage for a particular organism, due to changing local conditions.  Human consciousness was not a "goal" of Evolution, and ascribing any special "direction" or outcome for it is ill conceived.

The simple fact is, that increasing intelligence conferred specific, selective advantages in some early primates (who happen to be our direct ancestors), due to the challenges of their particular environment.  Meanwhile, the development of greater intelligence did not confer any special selective advantages for most other primates, due to their unique environments.  Intelligence, as an adaptative solution to the challenge of Natural Selection is no better and no worse than any other adaptation, such as the venom of a pit viper, or the exquisite hydrodynamic shape of a dolphin.

Furthermore, increasing intelligence within our hominid ancestors had to confer a selective advantage, along each and every step of the way.

Interestingly, there is compelling research to suggest convergent (independant) evolution of a degree of cognitive intelligence in completely unrelated species:  Primates (particularly the great apes), Elephants, Cetaceans, Corvids, domestic Dogs, Cephalopods, etc.

The following species have been acknowleged to have passed the MRS (Mirror Response Test), which is a fundamental test for self-awareness / self-recognition, and implies a highly developed degree of cognitive intelligence:  Humans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Orangutans, Gorillas, Dolphins, Orcas, Elephants, European Magpies.

Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 23, 2012, 02:48:35 AM

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 23, 2012, 01:31:46 AM

Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 23, 2012, 01:17:44 AM
Capuchin monkeys in Brazil use rocks as tools to smash open palm nuts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4#noexternalembed-ws)


Farewell, Ancient Astronut.

No shit, The funny thing is you're actually supporting my argument, did capuchin monkeys just develop this trait recently or have they been doing it all along? If so why the hell aren't they ruling the world with us

So because you can't be bothered to read, or because you don't know you automatically jump to ALIENS?

The one that is actually supported by science is that the our behaviour developed as things about us changed. Our ancestors started walking upright, started using basic tools, started using fire when it was available, eventually figured out how to make fire with sparks (probably by observing it over time, accidentally, etc.) Our vocal cords slowly developed to be able to generate words.

You have to understand that just ONE of those steps probably took 10s of thousands of years to come to be on it's own. We see this behavior in our fellow simians, but you have to understand that they have not yet developed the brains capable of doing the higher things yet. Give them another 200,000 years and they might. If they don't go instinct. Heck they might even develop that behavior faster if we go extinct in the time being.

There are other species that existed back when man first showed up that had the same potential we did, but they fell by the way side. We didn't. Not because of aliens, but because we just happened to follow the right evolutionary path. The path that lead us here. Our species learned to do things that saved it, probably just barely at times, to live on. Remember, by comparison to our cousins in nature, we are actually much weaker physically by default. We lost that physical advantage in favor of intelligence, more brain power.

Hmm did I say anywhere it was because of Aliens? No because I don't believe it was. I'm simply stating it's a POSSIBILITY, and there are enough things unexplained to warrant that. The burden of proof is not on me. But your rational of we just "happened" to follow the right path, irks me a little. There's such a massive amount of coincidences to have gotten us to the point we are now. If that doesn't make you scratch your head and ask "why" I don't know what to say. Just luck? It just happens? I'm sorry, not good enough. I guess being inquisitive is just my nature. I know how science hypothesizes our development, you missed the point, why did we "happen" to follow the path, why just us?

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 23, 2012, 04:28:28 AM
Hmm did I say anywhere it was because of Aliens? No because I don't believe it was. I'm simply stating it's a POSSIBILITY

It's also a possibility that I'm actually Ridley Scott, trollin' this board. Yup, definite possibility that should be seriously considered!

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 23, 2012, 04:34:08 AM

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 23, 2012, 04:28:28 AM
Hmm did I say anywhere it was because of Aliens? No because I don't believe it was. I'm simply stating it's a POSSIBILITY

It's also a possibility that I'm actually Ridley Scott, trollin' this board. Yup, definite possibility that should be seriously considered!

But ... we already know you aren't a real red head.

Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Apr 23, 2012, 04:36:16 AM
But ... we already know you aren't a real red head.

Do you? Or do you merely know what I want you to think?

Spoiler

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodreporter.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F01%2Fscott_2011_a_p.jpg&hash=2e9927a205022234f9fbdb3e7aea5ecbba459da2)

[close]

Then sign your own damn Alien script and move on the Cameron!  ;)

Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Apr 23, 2012, 04:41:40 AM
Then sign your own damn Alien script and move on the Cameron!  ;)

All a clever ruse to gain the board's trust while I covertly market my latest moneymaker. And Cameron can bite the other end of my cigar.

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com%2Fimages02%2F132%2Fce17a817068d4cbf9ea01ec01e0e45cb%2Fl.jpg&hash=c81c891b512dcbbc24abcf2c521ef30d9f994add)

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 23, 2012, 04:47:03 AM

Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Apr 23, 2012, 04:41:40 AM
Then sign your own damn Alien script and move on the Cameron!  ;)

All a clever ruse to gain the board's trust while I covertly market my latest moneymaker. And Cameron can bite the other end of my cigar.

http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/132/ce17a817068d4cbf9ea01ec01e0e45cb/l.jpg

Either way, red head or not, Ridley or Cvalda ...

Spoiler

My Body is ready.

Spoiler

So's my wallet.

[close]

[close]

Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Apr 23, 2012, 04:55:45 AM
Either way, red head or not, Ridley or Cvalda ...

Spoiler

My Body is ready.

Spoiler

So's my wallet.

[close]

[close]

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi43.tinypic.com%2F10eiz29.jpg&hash=30f45b98ae15e1022bd171b42a92ae2eddc5a69e)

---

Quote from: Space Sweeper on Apr 23, 2012, 04:57:58 AM

Spoiler

Just for the record, I always thought she was Winona Ryder trolling the boards.

[close]

Quote from: Space Sweeper on Apr 23, 2012, 04:57:58 AM

Spoiler

Just for the record, I always thought she was Winona Ryder trolling the boards.

[close]

I can't believe I ...

Spoiler

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg28.imageshack.us%2Fimg28%2F9061%2Fcalljohner.png&hash=9e940fea32ac34e91389318ba161829f3a6c2249)

[close]

Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Apr 23, 2012, 05:05:16 AM
I can't believe I ...

Spoiler

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg28.imageshack.us%2Fimg28%2F9061%2Fcalljohner.png&hash=9e940fea32ac34e91389318ba161829f3a6c2249)

[close]

Spoiler

Spoiler

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi43.tinypic.com%2Fws9pl.jpg&hash=414a16988e2ea69d5b2693de79f8dbbe7ef71fd6)

[close]

[close]

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 23, 2012, 04:28:28 AM
Hmm did I say anywhere it was because of Aliens? No because I don't believe it was. I'm simply stating it's a POSSIBILITY, and there are enough things unexplained to warrant that. The burden of proof is not on me. But your rational of we just "happened" to follow the right path, irks me a little. There's such a massive amount of coincidences to have gotten us to the point we are now. If that doesn't make you scratch your head and ask "why" I don't know what to say. Just luck? It just happens? I'm sorry, not good enough. I guess being inquisitive is just my nature. I know how science hypothesizes our development, you missed the point, why did we "happen" to follow the path, why just us?

Capovin, contingency is an integral feature of Evolution via Natural Selection.  Refer to my previous reply post #111.  There is no goal or ultimate "direction" of Evolution towards developing organisms with greater intelligence, finally resulting in Homo sapiens.  Wind the "tape of Life" back a few million years, and hit "replay", and it is entirely possible (perhaps even probable) that nothing remotely resembling human intelligence and consciousness would have arisen.  The specific contingencies that were required, all along the process, are incalculable.  Although not completely accurate, you could substitute the term "coincidence" for "contingency", here, without seriously affecting the argument.  Alternatively, going back even further, if certain mass extinctions didn't occur, or any number of other contingencies...it is entirely possible that a "human" level of intelligence and consciousness might have arisen millions of years ago, in some other species.

Note that I am speaking exclusively on scientific terms, here.  My personal Catholic beliefs add a much richer and deeper layer of nuance to this picture.  However, religious faith and belief does not have a place in a purely scientific argument.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 23, 2012, 03:59:20 AM

Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 23, 2012, 01:36:38 AM
so as birds. hell, a dog can do that. that just prove animals have some level of intuition. but eons of animal species appear and vanish without evidence of another species as complex as human.

there´s no explanation for this yet in this evolution theory.

The bolded statment is a fallacious argument.
The rise of intelligence and consciousness in early homonids does not require any "special" explanation within Evolutionary Theory, versus any other adaptation that conferred a fitnesss/survival advantage for a particular organism, due to changing local conditions.  Human consciousness was not a "goal" of Evolution, and ascribing any special "direction" or outcome for it is ill conceived.

The simple fact is, that increasing intelligence conferred specific, selective advantages in some early primates (who happen to be our direct ancestors), due to the challenges of their particular environment.  Meanwhile, the development of greater intelligence did not confer any special selective advantages for most other primates, due to their unique environments.  Intelligence, as an adaptative solution to the challenge of Natural Selection is no better and no worse than any other adaptation, such as the venom of a pit viper, or the exquisite hydrodynamic shape of a dolphin.

Furthermore, increasing intelligence within our hominid ancestors had to confer a selective advantage, along each and every step of the way.

Interestingly, there is compelling research to suggest convergent (independant) evolution of a degree of cognitive intelligence in completely unrelated species:  Primates (particularly the great apes), Elephants, Cetaceans, Corvids, domestic Dogs, Cephalopods, etc.

The following species have been acknowleged to have passed the MRS (Mirror Response Test), which is a fundamental test for self-awareness / self-recognition, and implies a highly developed degree of cognitive intelligence:  Humans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Orangutans, Gorillas, Dolphins, Orcas, Elephants, European Magpies.

Intelligence is not just another way of adaptative recourse. I mean physically, is as beauty as complex as every example you bring.

But, the level of human race intelligence has no parallel. You can say everything was part of evolution, but as far as today there are just hypothesis of how human intelligence evolved. So there is not a fallacy argument. Is not explained yet.

Apart from this, it is impossible to probe (or not) if ET take a hand with DNA.

So the possibility is there.

The possibility is the same as human race itself put life and conditions in another planet and help it evolute. Do you think we could do it? I think yes.

*evolve

Quote from: Space Sweeper on Apr 23, 2012, 04:57:58 AM

Spoiler

Just for the record, I always thought she was Winona Ryder trolling the boards.

[close]

And shoplifting from imdb. ;)

Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 23, 2012, 07:12:27 AM
Intelligence is not just another way of adaptative recourse. I mean physically, is as beauty as complex as every example you bring.

But, the level of human race intelligence has no parallel. You can say everything was part of evolution, but as far as today there are just hypothesis of how human intelligence evolved. So there is not a fallacy argument. Is not explained yet.

Apart from this, it is impossible to probe (or not) if ET take a hand with DNA.

So the possibility is there.

The possibility is the same as human race itself put life and conditions in another planet and help it evolute. Do you think we could do it? I think yes.

We could certainly could try to drop animals that already exist onto another world, or drop some kind of bacteria onto an alien world and let it thrive. We already deal in artificial selection with pets, livestock, etc... That's not the issue with the idea.

The issue with the idea is that it tries to explain things that don't really need another explanation. Like where the pyramids came from, or how we developed speech, or civilization. It totally ignores and rejects all the hard work human beings have put in over the centuries, all the good fortune, and all the people who died trying to learn things from our very beginnings right on through to present day.  I mean, it's quite literally based on bullshit and ignorance.

Did it ever occur to you that our design is the thing that makes us special? Our bodies have naturally evolved. We were the fortunate ones. Why is that hard to understand? One species had to be. It could just as easily be the apes evolving the better brain and the ability to stand up straight while we were locked in cages playing pictionary and drawing with crayons. Which, by the way? There's your answer. We're not that far from some of our neighbors. As I said earlier, things like the microchip, quantum physics, and landing a man on the moon almost seem like whims for us when you compare them to the basic concept of intelligence. Apes, Dolphins, other animals on this planet do in fact have quite substantial intelligence. They're limited by how they've evolved. They are built to do other things.

Which brings us to a better question... What do you think holds the second smartest animal back from being right there with us?

Their design. Dolphins are limited by their design. If they had hands and the ability to forge things from fire they too could probably be an advanced civilization. In terms of the billions of years on this Earth, they are a blink of an eye away from being on our playing field. Apes, too, are not that far removed from us. They have the intelligence of small children. That's more profound than people give credit. It's so easy for us to take for granted how the small things are actually very important. Very ironic, even, that David himself says "Big things have small beginnings" yet the theory of an alien coming down and giving us these gifts seems like just another cultist new age religion than an actual serious scientific concept. It's basically saying humans, and all of our perceived accomplishments are basically chalked up to an alien sticking his finger in the primordial ooze and stirring every few centuries until we were ripe.

Quote

Which brings us to a better question... What do you think holds the second smartest animal back from being right there with us?

My answer to this question is that mankind holds back the second smartest animal from being right there with us.

Maybe it's the caffeine kicking in but I've begun to fantasize that maybe all those beached whales and mammals that we push back into sea were actually trying to evolve into becoming land creatures and we are interfering with the course of nature.

Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 23, 2012, 11:19:31 AMMaybe it's the caffeine kicking in but I've begun to fantasize that maybe all those beached whales and mammals that we push back into sea were actually trying to evolve into becoming land creatures and we are interfering with the course of nature.

Could be, except for the fact that they all die after beaching themselves. And we don't push them back, we blow them up, because that's just hilarious (http://youtu.be/1_t44siFyb4).

Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 23, 2012, 11:19:31 AM
Maybe it's the caffeine kicking in but I've begun to fantasize that maybe all those beached whales and mammals that we push back into sea were actually trying to evolve into becoming land creatures and we are interfering with the course of nature.

They kinda need the water.

I like ChrisPachi's answer though.

Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 23, 2012, 11:45:52 AM
Could be, except for the fact that they all die after beaching themselves. And we don't push them back, we blow them up, because that's just hilarious (http://youtu.be/1_t44siFyb4).

This is just so...wrong, on so many levels.   :o

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 23, 2012, 03:24:29 PM

Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 23, 2012, 11:45:52 AM
Could be, except for the fact that they all die after beaching themselves. And we don't push them back, we blow them up, because that's just hilarious (http://youtu.be/1_t44siFyb4).

This is just so...wrong, on so many levels.   :o

Ironically, if we don't blow them up they kind of do it themselves (http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/04/exploding_sperm_whale.php).

Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 23, 2012, 03:36:52 PM
Ironically, if we don't blow them up they kind of do it themselves (http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/04/exploding_sperm_whale.php).

LOL.  I remember seeing footage of the aftermath from that Taiwanese "suicide bomber" whale.

In all seriousness, it is incredibly sad to realize how often these wonderful animals beach themselves.  Yes, sometimes they can be saved, and that makes for a great story...but I suspect that in the vast majority of cases (world-wide), these poor creatures die a slow death.  :'(

By the way, I believe that explosives are still sometimes used to destroy whale carcasses.  However, the clean-up crew usually has the good sense to tow it out to sea, before blowing it up into tiny bits.  ::)

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 23, 2012, 05:16:35 AM

Quote from: Capovin on Apr 23, 2012, 04:28:28 AM
Hmm did I say anywhere it was because of Aliens? No because I don't believe it was. I'm simply stating it's a POSSIBILITY, and there are enough things unexplained to warrant that. The burden of proof is not on me. But your rational of we just "happened" to follow the right path, irks me a little. There's such a massive amount of coincidences to have gotten us to the point we are now. If that doesn't make you scratch your head and ask "why" I don't know what to say. Just luck? It just happens? I'm sorry, not good enough. I guess being inquisitive is just my nature. I know how science hypothesizes our development, you missed the point, why did we "happen" to follow the path, why just us?

Capovin, contingency is an integral feature of Evolution via Natural Selection.  Refer to my previous reply post #111.  There is no goal or ultimate "direction" of Evolution towards developing organisms with greater intelligence, finally resulting in Homo sapiens.  Wind the "tape of Life" back a few million years, and hit "replay", and it is entirely possible (perhaps even probable) that nothing remotely resembling human intelligence and consciousness would have arisen.  The specific contingencies that were required, all along the process, are incalculable.  Although not completely accurate, you could substitute the term "coincidence" for "contingency", here, without seriously affecting the argument.  Alternatively, going back even further, if certain mass extinctions didn't occur, or any number of other contingencies...it is entirely possible that a "human" level of intelligence and consciousness might have arisen millions of years ago, in some other species.

Note that I am speaking exclusively on scientific terms, here.  My personal Catholic beliefs add a much richer and deeper layer of nuance to this picture.  However, religious faith and belief does not have a place in a purely scientific argument.

I see what youre saying, but I personally believe (and I will break out if the scientific argument guidlines here) things happen for a reason, I've seen evidence in my life of it both subtle and not so subtle at all, now you don't have to believe that, but I do, more than I believe anything else really, because it's not secondhand information, it's my own personal experience. And it goes to follow that I don't believe much in coincidence. However in regards to your post, I speculate that's possible, maybe another species did evolve to our intelligence and we just have no record, but so far in the here and now (which is all one can truly know) we are the only and forgive me if I'm curious about it and am not satisfied with the scientific explanation. Just as I'm not satisfied with the big bang theory (which is a whole other discussion) I am also curious as to how youve reconciled Catholicism with your strict adherence to these beliefs. I imagine there's a lot of "take what you want and leave the rest" involved or no?

And open maw

"The issue with the idea is that it tries to explain things that don't really need another explanation. Like where the pyramids came from, or how we developed speech, or civilization. It totally ignores and rejects all the hard work human beings have put in over the centuries, all the good fortune, and all the people who died trying to learn things from our very beginnings right on through to present day.  I mean, it's quite literally based on bullshit and ignorance.

Did it ever occur to you that our design is the thing that makes us special? Our bodies have naturally evolved. We were the fortunate ones. Why is that hard to understand? One species had to be. It could just as easily be the apes evolving the better brain and the ability to stand up straight while we were locked in cages playing pictionary and drawing with crayons. Which, by the way? There's your answer. We're not that far from some of our neighbors. As I said earlier, things like the microchip, quantum physics, and landing a man on the moon almost seem like whims for us when you compare them to the basic concept of intelligence. Apes, Dolphins, other animals on this planet do in fact have quite substantial intelligence. They're limited by how they've evolved. They are built to do other things."

So any alternatives to our established history comes out of "bullshit and ignorance" you take for example the pyramids. We have found the quarries, the tools used to make them but even still you act like we know exactly how we built the pyramids, when we straight up don't.  Like I said I'm not trying to prove Aliens did it, I'm just simply pointing out, if there were in fact aliens visiting earth, then it's POSSIBLE they helped out.
In fact let's just assume for a minute (purely hypothetical) that aliens do exist, and have visited us in the past. Now the question is, did they interact or not interact with us? They could just as easily been observers and had absolutely no interaction with us, but if I knew Aliens did exist and visited us in the past I would be more inclined to believe it was a possibility that they helped us out.

And to your next question "did it ever occur to you it was our design" first off, i dont like your tone, its a bit patronizing, secondly yes of course, isn't that what this is all about? How exactly did we become that "design", just through the process of evolution it was bound to happen? Or we are just very lucky? Coincidence? This is not a question out of ignorance i simply do not think "evolution and a shitload of coincidences" is an all encompassing satisfactory explanation. Like I said above I don't buy that. You may, I don't. But like I said much earlier on no one will convince each other of anything in this thread. You want to hold on to your beliefs so badly. I don't even believe AA "theory", I'm just stating it's a possibility.

---

And here "The issue with the idea is that it tries to explain things that don't really need another explanation."  if we took everything at face value we would never progress, you're basically saying "close the book on that one, no room for other explanations anymore" no, that humans themselves did all these things is the most likely situation given our current knowledge but let's say twenty years from now we find a flying saucer buried 200 feet below the sphinx, are you going to say "I still think humans did it all" or are you going to change your beliefs. Fact is, we make new discoveries every day, I'm not saying that's gonna happen but it is a possibility. You don't know what our future discoveries might be, and we definitely haven't discovered everything there is to discover. It's a possibility, and a far more probable one than the earth being made of pudding or breathing nails. Give it a rest.

Behind all of this is this question...Where did it begin. What birthed the stars? What bore matter? The AA theory is just as plausible as the God theory in a way. I don't so much believe in the AA theory in terms of them helping with the creation of humanity, rather, it makes more sense if we were visited and technology was helped along just a bit.

The issue with the idea is that it tries to explain things that don't really need another explanation.
[/quote]

Alright, using the law of parsimony, you concede to evolution the two most important and still unsolved concepts on earth - being that, life itself and intelligence. (life is conceded to abiogenesis).

But, as C. Sagan and L. Shklovsky states, there should be serious consideration of paleocontact aka AA. And the basis of paleocontact should be taken in a more scientific way since is an intriguing and real possibility. As Crick&Orwell´s Directed Panspermia.

Hell, even Dawkins admits a possibility at Intelligent Design. So you see this are not bullshit ignorance.

So is Directed Panspermia/ID, abiogeneses/evolution or god. Maybe a mix of them all. Until science reach a proper answer, i guess we can agree to stay confort in the beliefs we have.

I very much doubt they would agree with this twisting of words. There are other kinds of contact with extraterrestrial life, sir, such as the impact of a meteorite that could have created a surge in life on the planet. That wouldn't require any such sentient being to do anything at all, and in fact it is very possible to have occurred not once, but many times. Rocks from space carrying all sorts of micro life that managed to survive the impact eons ago.

Related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rekVhaK6wfI#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rekVhaK6wfI#ws)

Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 24, 2012, 02:54:12 AM
Related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rekVhaK6wfI#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rekVhaK6wfI#ws)

Thanks for that, Valaquen.  Interesting documentary.

Speaking as a scientist who is also a person of faith, IMHO the documentary was a bit slanted in favor of Science at the expense of religious Faith...despite dealing with matters that are truly beyond the purview of Science.  I am the first to champion the scientific method, as a means to explore and explain our natural world, and by extension, our physical Universe.  However, there exist limits to empirical, observational science, especially when it comes to Cosmology (my discipline).  It is a bit disingenuous to imply that theoretical physicists hold any special authority, as it relates to the actual origin / creation of our Universe, when such arguments ultimately distill down to metaphysics.

Many "celebrity" theoretical scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Leonard Susskind, Roger Penrose, etc., are avowed atheists.  Certainly, this "belief" (and it is a belief) has no bearing on their scientific contributions, which are undeniably meritorious.  However, it is precisely when they step beyond the boundries of science, and comment on matters that are beyond the limits of scientific observation and testing, that they stumble.

By definition, the Universe contains everything that is physical, and nothing that is non physical.  Space and time, are example of physical constructs.  The Universe contains space and time, but does not exist in space and time.  This is a fundamental principle of modern Cosmology/Astrophysics.  All physical objects are open to scientific scrutiny.  It is precisely the non-physical that is the arena of Faith and Religion.  Now, one can certainly deny the existence of anything non-physical.  However, IMHO, such a position is paradoxically non-scientific.  At best, one can only state that science can neither explore nor comment on such matters.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 24, 2012, 06:44:56 PM

Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 24, 2012, 02:54:12 AM
Related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rekVhaK6wfI#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rekVhaK6wfI#ws)

Thanks for that, Valaquen.  Interesting documentary.

Speaking as a scientist who is also a person of faith, IMHO the documentary was a bit slanted in favor of Science at the expense of religious Faith...despite dealing with matters that are truly beyond the purview of Science.  I am the first to champion the scientific method, as a means to explore and explain our natural world, and by extension, our physical Universe.  However, there exist limits to empirical, observational science, especially when it comes to Cosmology (my discipline).  It is a bit disingenuous to imply that theoretical physicists hold any special authority, as it relates to the actual origin / creation of our Universe, when such arguments ultimately distill down to metaphysics.

Many "celebrity" theoretical scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Leonard Susskind, Roger Penrose, etc., are avowed atheists.  Certainly, this "belief" (and it is a belief) has no bearing on their scientific contributions, which are undeniably meritorious.  However, it is precisely when they step beyond the boundries of science, and comment on matters that are beyond the limits of scientific observation and testing, that they stumble.

By definition, the Universe contains everything that is physical, and nothing that is non physical.  Space and time, are example of physical constructs.  The Universe contains space and time, but does not exist in space and time.  This is a fundamental principle of modern Cosmology/Astrophysics.  All physical objects are open to scientific scrutiny.  It is precisely the non-physical that is the arena of Faith and Religion.  Now, one can certainly deny the existence of anything non-physical.  However, IMHO, such a position is paradoxically non-scientific.  At best, one can only state that science can neither explore nor comment on such matters.

Now this I agree with and can totally get behind

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 24, 2012, 06:44:56 PMI am the first to champion the scientific method, as a means to explore and explain our natural world, and by extension, our physical Universe. [...] The Universe contains space and time, but does not exist in space and time.

If you don't mind I would love to pick your brains on this. To my thinking, if space and time and everything therein can be accurately explained by mathematical methods then surely the only reliable way we can imagine a landscape outside of the universe is by mathematical reasoning? Obviously the laws of physics go to shit at the boundaries of the universe, but could a robust mathematical theory of what goes on beyond that boundary be meaningful at all?

Ridley Scott sure does like using the word evolve. I think in every interview I have seen so far he has said it about 10 times.

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 23, 2012, 07:19:24 PM
Behind all of this is this question...Where did it begin. What birthed the stars? What bore matter? The AA theory is just as plausible as the God theory in a way. I don't so much believe in the AA theory in terms of them helping with the creation of humanity, rather, it makes more sense if we were visited and technology was helped along just a bit.

Supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies birth stars. Matter is the energy that permeates the universe and always was always is and always will be. Nobody could of created it because they themselves would have had to be made of it prior.  This is not hard to understand or even perceive, just hard to accept for those attached co-dependently to the Matrix of bullshit.  AA theory is far from plausible, it is as rediculous as the host of ancient aliens on the History Channel.  The God theory is just as rediculous unless you consider God to be the place where all energy exists as One (which in fact the originators of the idea of "God" consider it to be, ((not the catholic church or related factions)) ) before the big bang invented time and space.

QuoteIt is precisely the non-physical that is the arena of Faith and Religion.  Now, one can certainly deny the existence of anything non-physical.  However, IMHO, such a position is paradoxically non-scientific.  At best, one can only state that science can neither explore nor comment on such matters.

The Buddha Christ and others would disagree with you.  Belief in something without an existential foundation on which to base it is bad science, bad religion, and bad mental fung shui.  The idea of God comes from the experience of something which exists in perceivable reality by someone who experiences it. The aim of religion (originally) is to provide you with the practical means of experiencing this aspect of reality by removing that which inhibits it within you.

Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 25, 2012, 03:10:32 PM

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 24, 2012, 06:44:56 PMI am the first to champion the scientific method, as a means to explore and explain our natural world, and by extension, our physical Universe. [...] The Universe contains space and time, but does not exist in space and time.

If you don't mind I would love to pick your brains on this. To my thinking, if space and time and everything therein can be accurately explained by mathematical methods then surely the only reliable way we can imagine a landscape outside of the universe is by mathematical reasoning? Obviously the laws of physics go to shit at the boundaries of the universe, but could a robust mathematical theory of what goes on beyond that boundary be meaningful at all?

Hi Chris, sorry for the late response...

Your question underlies a very deep, philosophical debate that has been going on for centuries.  The question is whether Mathematics is purely a construction of the human mind, or exists as an objective reality.  I happen to come down on the side with those who believe it exists on its own, regardless of human consciousness (mathematical realism).  In other words, mathematical objects/entities/constructs exists independent of the human mind.  We don't invent mathematics, but rather "discover" it.  Realists view Mathematical enties as existing a priori or human experience.

Conversely, there is a school of thought that asserts all abstract entities, including numbers, mathematical functions, etc., are "fictions" that do not have an objective existence.  Fictionalists reject the truth of the statement that "2 + 2 = 4", because it presumes the existence of abstract mathematical entities (numbers), which they deny.  It is kind of a crazy and subtle argument, but it is consistent.  Fictionalist view mathematical statements as false in reality, but true in the "fiction" of the story (in this case, the story of human mathematics).  An analogy would be the statement "Luke Skywalker is a jedi knight".  This statement is true within the fiction of George Lucas' Star Wars story, but is strictly speaking false in reality, because jedi knight's don't exist.  Fictionalists argue that abstract entities do not exist in space and time, and have no causal powers.  As such, they are utterly unlike any entities that we know about.  Of course, the main challenge to mathematical fictionalism is the general applicability of mathematics to our world of experience, and the specifically to it's utility in scientific inquiry and describing our natural world.

Ultimately, the question boils down to:

A)  Is mathematics invented, or discovered?
B)  Can abstract objects exist outside of space and time?

One other point, Chris.  You may have been using the word "boundary" as a metaphor...but in case you meant it in a physical sense, I just wanted to clarify that our Universe has no physical boundary.  Current cosmological observation/evidence indicates our observable (local) Universe's geometry is flat (k=0, Omega =1).  The global topology of our Universe is another issue, and without getting into specifics, is much more complicated.  One possible topology could be infinite and boundaryless (e.g. Euclidian flat space) or a finite, Compact space (e.g, the surface of a sphere).  Adding to the subtlety, an boundaryless flat space can still be topologically finite and Compact.  A torus is a case of a topologically flat, compact manifold.

However, in all cases, there exists no physical boundary or "edge". 

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 26, 2012, 09:06:34 PM

Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 25, 2012, 03:10:32 PM

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 24, 2012, 06:44:56 PMI am the first to champion the scientific method, as a means to explore and explain our natural world, and by extension, our physical Universe. [...] The Universe contains space and time, but does not exist in space and time.

If you don't mind I would love to pick your brains on this. To my thinking, if space and time and everything therein can be accurately explained by mathematical methods then surely the only reliable way we can imagine a landscape outside of the universe is by mathematical reasoning? Obviously the laws of physics go to shit at the boundaries of the universe, but could a robust mathematical theory of what goes on beyond that boundary be meaningful at all?

Hi Chris, sorry for the late response...

Your question underlies a very deep, philosophical debate that has been going on for centuries.  The question is whether Mathematics is purely a construction of the human mind, or exists as an objective reality.  I happen to come down on the side with those who believe it exists on its own, regardless of human consciousness (mathematical realism).  In other words, mathematical objects/entities/constructs exists independent of the human mind.  We don't invent mathematics, but rather "discover" it.  Realists view Mathematical enties as existing a priori or human experience.

Conversely, there is a school of thought that asserts all abstract entities, including numbers, mathematical functions, etc., are "fictions" that do not have an objective existence.  Fictionalists reject the truth of the statement that "2 + 2 = 4", because it presumes the existence of abstract mathematical entities (numbers), which they deny.  It is kind of a crazy and subtle argument, but it is consistent.  Fictionalist view mathematical statements as false in reality, but true in the "fiction" of the story (in this case, the story of human mathematics).  An analogy would be the statement "Luke Skywalker is a jedi knight".  This statement is true within the fiction of George Lucas' Star Wars story, but is strictly speaking false in reality, because jedi knight's don't exist.  Fictionalists argue that abstract entities do not exist in space and time, and have no causal powers.  As such, they are utterly unlike any entities that we know about.  Of course, the main challenge to mathematical fictionalism is the general applicability of mathematics to our world of experience, and the specifically to it's utility in scientific inquiry and describing our natural world.

Ultimately, the question boils down to:

A)  Is mathematics invented, or discovered?
B)  Can abstract objects exist outside of space and time?

One other point, Chris.  You may have been using the word "boundary" as a metaphor...but in case you meant it in a physical sense, I just wanted to clarify that our Universe has no physical boundary.  Current cosmological observation/evidence indicates our observable (local) Universe's geometry is flat (k=0, Omega =1).  The global topology of our Universe is another issue, and without getting into specifics, is much more complicated.  One possible topology could be infinite and boundaryless (e.g. Euclidian flat space) or a finite, Compact space (e.g, the surface of a sphere).  Adding to the subtlety, an boundaryless flat space can still be topologically finite and Compact.  A torus is a case of a topologically flat, compact manifold.

However, in all cases, there exists no physical boundary or "edge".

Interesting read. Funny, the paradox of abstract entities not existing in space and time. (or having causal powers)

"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists."

A fascinating subject, thanks for the in-depth reply! I have had a similar discussion with a good friend who works as a theoretical neurophysicist and he is also in the realist camp, so I'll chalk that up to a win on the realists side, for me anyway. ;)

I guess the crux of my question was point B; whether mathematical objects can have any meaning when used to describe something 'not in' the universe. This might be terribly simplistic, but if you think of mathematics as the study of the relationship between quantities, then the idea of quantity might be meaningless beyond the universe, but it can also be thought of as the study of patterns, so maybe in this latter case it could have some meaning.

And I meant 'boundary' literally, assuming in my layman way that a black hole could be thought of as such a boundary, and that the 'outer edge' of the universe might be viewed the same way, just in reverse. This was based on a theory about white holes that I remember reading and the speculation that it might be a way to imagine the 'inner surface' of the universe. I guess it's moot though, because in any case nothing inside the universe can even get outside of it. I italicize 'inside' and 'outside' because I understand that these terms are totally insufficient in this context.

Anyway this is way off topic but hopefully some other members find it as fascinating as I do. Thanks again.

Touching a bit more on the abstract entities not having causal powers part...

God does not meddle in the affairs of humans because God's gift is free will.

Yet this approach bestows much power unto mankind, given the possibilities of free will.

Quote from: Predaker on Apr 27, 2012, 12:31:34 AM
Touching a bit more on the abstract entities not having causal powers part...

God does not meddle in the affairs of humans because God's gift is free will.

Yet this approach bestows much power unto mankind, given the possibilities of free will.

Hello, Predaker,

This is a specific  argument I have made many, many times on this forum.  So, personally, I am an absolute agreement.

It was MAN that wrote that Gods gift is free will. The architecture, and personality of God has been entirely contructed by man.

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 27, 2012, 01:30:11 AM
It was MAN that wrote that Gods gift is free will. The architecture, and personality of God has been entirely contructed by man.

It is a curious thing, that many people can be perfectly comfortable with the arbitrary admission and utilization of diverse,  abstract "constructions" such as mathematics, ideas, thoughts, intuitions, feelings, and all kinds of phenomological concepts...which transcend our physical world (i.e are non-physical), yet at the same time deny the reality and existence of a divine Creator, i.e. God.

The opposite view is that, while man is certainly a finite (and fallible) being, Man's knowledge of an absolutely infinite God comes not only through Divine revelation, but also through innate reason, logic, and reflection on experience...all of which exercise the grace of Free Will.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 27, 2012, 03:01:18 AM
It is a curious thing, that many people can be perfectly comfortable with the arbitrary admission and utilization of diverse,  abstract "constructions" such as mathematics, ideas, thoughts, intuitions, feelings, and all kinds of phenomological concepts...which transcend our physical world (i.e are non-physical), yet at the same time deny the reality and existence of a divine Creator, i.e. God.

It is a curious thing that anyone would believe there should even be need for a God, when mathematics, ideas, thoughts, intuitions, feelings and all kinds of phenomenological concepts successfully highlight that the Universe gets along on its own fine, thanks. ;D

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 27, 2012, 03:01:18 AM

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 27, 2012, 01:30:11 AM
It was MAN that wrote that Gods gift is free will. The architecture, and personality of God has been entirely contructed by man.

It is a curious thing, that many people can be perfectly comfortable with the arbitrary admission and utilization of diverse,  abstract "constructions" such as mathematics, ideas, thoughts, intuitions, feelings, and all kinds of phenomological concepts...which transcend our physical world (i.e are non-physical), yet at the same time deny the reality and existence of a divine Creator, i.e. God.

The opposite view is that, while man is certainly a finite (and fallible) being, Man's knowledge of an absolutely infinite God comes not only through Divine revelation, but also through innate reason, logic, and reflection on experience...all of which exercise the grace of Free Will.

To be fair Deut, the things you sound off have solidified physical and documented proof. For God, not so much. Two family's can pray for their lives to get better, the next day one gets hit with a flood, the other gets a cheque in the mail. I certainly don't want to turn this into a religious debate, and I do respect other peoples beliefs even though I myself am agnostic. Mostly i'm just addressing that one point. I think that's where the distinction lies. Nobody has yet to find God's "foot print." There's a lot of meta stuff, lots of double talk that implies the proof of the divine, but nothing solid. Nothing empirical like you'd find in actual science research.

But you know what? That's not really what religion is about. Religion shouldn't try to fit itself into science, and it shouldn't feel the need to justify it's existence. Those who believe, should do so with confidence. If God is real, I very much doubt he's going to let us know from down here in any precise fashion. That would destroy the whole point of being alive to begin with.

The understanding and philosophy of the/a divine creator has only come about through the writings of man. I'm actually a believer in God, but the god I believe in does not have a religious affiliation and is a different voice and color depending on who's communicating with it. God has been burdened with the confines of religion and religious doctrine, all of it carefully selected to craft an image a message with the motive of control.

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 27, 2012, 03:04:27 AM
It is a curious thing that anyone would believe there should even be need for a God, when mathematics, ideas, thoughts, intuitions, feelings and all kinds of phenomenological concepts successfully highlight that the Universe gets along on its own fine, thanks. ;D

Hi Cvalda,

Who is to say it does?  If the Universe is radically contingent, which I believe, then the existence of an Ex Nihilo creative agent (Supreme Being) is arguably both a necessary and sufficent condition.  Have you read your St. Thomas Aquinas?  Or, if a more contemporary, non-secular philosopher is more your taste, how about Mortimer J. Adler?  ;)

Of course, I respect your beliefs, either way

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 27, 2012, 04:07:27 AM
Of course, I respect your beliefs, either way

Likewise, Deut-y. You know I'm just having fun with you. ;)

And no, I've read neither--but judging from what I've just skimmed doing respective Google searches, I don't think any of their writings are going to sway me from my state of heathen-ry. ;D

Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 27, 2012, 03:28:17 AM
If God is real, I very much doubt he's going to let us know from down here in any precise fashion. That would destroy the whole point of being alive to begin with.

Absolutely, OpenMaw, and specifically because it would nullify the existence of Free Will.

---

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 27, 2012, 04:10:20 AM
I don't think any of their writings are going to sway me from my state of heathen-ry. ;D

  8)

I want you to know, I give generously to the Save the Pagans Foundation!

...or is it Save the Penguins?  I better look at my cancelled checks.    ;)

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 27, 2012, 04:15:53 AM
Absolutely, OpenMaw, and specifically because it would nullify the existence of Free Will.

...so why did he come down to Earth all the time and pay people visits left, right and center in the Bible, demanding their worship? I guess his priorities abruptly changed when humans invented footwear slightly more advanced than sandals. :D

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 27, 2012, 04:25:39 AM
...so why did he come down to Earth all the time and pay people visits left, right and center in the Bible, demanding their worship? I guess his priorities abruptly changed when humans invented footwear slightly more advanced than sandals. :D

No no no we were having a nice conversation! No. No! Bad. SHAME. BOO! *Hiss* *Spit*

I guess OpenMaw is a militant sandal enthusiast. :laugh:

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 27, 2012, 04:38:42 AM
I guess OpenMaw is a militant sandal enthusiast. :laugh:

Actually, I think sandals should burn in Hell. Along with crocs, and capri pants.


I bet Damon Lindelof wears crocs, and sandals.

Spoiler

and capri pants.

[close]

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi18.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb126%2FDeuterium%2FBriansmum.jpg&hash=43067045488130e965da16d5ce6adf629cae3687)

Oh, come on, let's go to the stoning!

Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 27, 2012, 04:43:02 AM
I bet Damon Lindelof wears crocs, and sandals.

Spoiler

and capri pants.

[close]

I bet Haolloway is a tragic character.  ;) :laugh:

Quote from: Space Sweeper on Apr 27, 2012, 04:46:44 AM
I bet Halloway is a tragic character.  ;) :laugh:

Sweepums...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

It's Holloway.

[close]

[close]

[close]

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSHmQUiKkVpBofaIrAoZav-A4fFFDEjlSCxiwXSdGM7015j4AY1mfyogjjd&hash=4eef820082125c08cb76f34de413ca7d4a959e37)

Sandals!  f**k yeah!

And f**k those f**king Gourd splitters!!!

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 27, 2012, 04:49:39 AM

Quote from: Space Sweeper on Apr 27, 2012, 04:46:44 AM
I bet Halloway is a tragic character.  ;) :laugh:

Sweepums...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

It's Holloway.

[close]

[close]

[close]

...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi49.tinypic.com%2F2r20njr.jpg&hash=2c6ba6315975ebc1cce095e69b4fd80ca6692845)

[close]

[close]

[close]

I'm sure there was something LOL-worthy in them spoiler tags, Sweeps.

But it ain't showing up.

It's a close up of the unicorn face palm from forum sig. I LOL'd hard.

Thanks for the laughs. Yall rock my socks.

Edit: oops. It changed.

Quote from: Predaker on Apr 27, 2012, 05:04:12 AM
Edit: oops. It changed.

Spoiler

"Changed into what?"

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F2e4g7j9.png&hash=06c46750b4af08e6f6303f76f1aa4fbd39bc7872)

[close]

Spoiler

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi49.tinypic.com%2F2r20njr.jpg&hash=2c6ba6315975ebc1cce095e69b4fd80ca6692845)
X2 for my double fail.

[close]

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 27, 2012, 05:09:27 AM

Quote from: Predaker on Apr 27, 2012, 05:04:12 AM
Edit: oops. It changed.

Spoiler

"Changed into what?"

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F2e4g7j9.png&hash=06c46750b4af08e6f6303f76f1aa4fbd39bc7872)

[close]

Changed into this.  Vicker's thought she should be more comfortable, what with giant Space Tapirs running around...especially if some of them might be eligible bachelors.

Spoiler

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi18.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb126%2FDeuterium%2FCharlize-Theron-Hot3.jpg&hash=6accd6663bc8e2a23b786cbdbc3fe03704582af4)

[close]

Deuterium has just been waiting for the right moment to post a skimpy Charlize photo--admit it ;D

We all do.

We all do.

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 27, 2012, 05:26:28 AM
Deuterium has just been waiting for the right moment to post a skimpy Charlize photo--admit it ;D

GUILTY AS CHARGED!

I shall submit to a firm spanking from Charlize, to make amends...of course.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 27, 2012, 05:30:24 AM
I shall submit to a firm spanking from Charlize, to make amends...of course.

She'd probably be into that. Among other things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8zcBZZ0Lf4#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8zcBZZ0Lf4#noexternalembed-ws)

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 27, 2012, 05:33:22 AM

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 27, 2012, 05:30:24 AM
I shall submit to a firm spanking from Charlize, to make amends...of course.

She'd probably be into that. Among other things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8zcBZZ0Lf4#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8zcBZZ0Lf4#noexternalembed-ws)

My God it's uncanny how much the two of you have in common.

Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Apr 27, 2012, 05:57:08 AM
My God it's uncanny how much the two of you have in common.

Nonsense. I'm not a blonde.

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 27, 2012, 05:09:27 AM

Quote from: Predaker on Apr 27, 2012, 05:04:12 AM
Edit: oops. It changed.

Spoiler

"Changed into what?"

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F2e4g7j9.png&hash=06c46750b4af08e6f6303f76f1aa4fbd39bc7872)

[close]

i downloaded the 1080p versions of the trailers onto my computer but it still isn't as crystal clear as that screencap, how did you do that?

Did you rip them from Youtube or download from Apple? I use the 1080p Apple Trailers version. :)

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 27, 2012, 06:06:43 AM

Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Apr 27, 2012, 05:57:08 AM
My God it's uncanny how much the two of you have in common.

Nonsense. I'm not a blonde.

At this rate, I cannot keep up with your Tonks like hair.

Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Apr 27, 2012, 05:57:08 AM

Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 27, 2012, 05:33:22 AM

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 27, 2012, 05:30:24 AM
I shall submit to a firm spanking from Charlize, to make amends...of course.

She'd probably be into that. Among other things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8zcBZZ0Lf4#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8zcBZZ0Lf4#noexternalembed-ws)

My God it's uncanny how much the two of you have in common.

Some one just watched Parks and Recreation ;)