Evolution vs. Creationism

[ughaibu]

Rocket Art: You are simply proposing another avenue of denial. Why not accept the evidence? Presumably you're a functioning human being, and that implies that for the vast majority of your behaviour you accept and rely on the evidence, what's so scary about evolution?

[rocket art]

Rocket Art: You are simply proposing another avenue of denial. Why not accept the evidence? Presumably you're a functioning human being, and that implies that for the vast majority of your behaviour you accept and rely on the evidence, what's so scary about evolution?

 

Deny? What I believe is the Evolution of Consciousness. And you may not deny the probability of extraterrestrials, what's so scary about them?

[ughaibu]

The probability of extraterrestrial life I would rate at nearly 100%, the probability of "extraterrestrial intervention" at 0%.

[sanctus]

Why ughaibu? I agree on the probability of extraterrestrial life beeing 100%, but not with your 0%. I mean if you are sure that there are non terrestrial lifeforms how can you be sure that they are not further evolved than we? For this reason I can't say 0% but neither 100%, i just admit the possibility.

[ughaibu]

Sanctus: Where are they? Where's the (preferably genetic) evidence that they intervened? How do they explain evolution? How did they get here? etc. . .

[sanctus]

You know it's the usual thing you can't prove that something is impossible, so I admit the possibility. About your questions there are some good books and some trash books which can give some answers,but they are always from people you don't know how thrustworthy they are as their really convinced. One book I don't classify as trash books is the from Erich Von Däniken German title: "Erinnerungen an die Zukunft", but also this one is not always to be taken seriously, but he has some nice interpretation.

 

Ps: I guess you have to start a new thread if we want to discuss this.

[ughaibu]

I understand that it's a possibility, but I rate it's probability at 0%. As there is no evidence, that I'm aware of, to suggest such an occurence, I distrust the motivation for the speculation.

[rocket art]

I understand that it's a possibility, but I rate it's probability at 0%. As there is no evidence, that I'm aware of, to suggest such an occurence, I distrust the motivation for the speculation.

 

You may be referring the probability of zero to about 11 quarantined millennia. Probe beyond that, and such may not be the case.

 

I've been contemplating about making a thread about these issues or continuing it with the 'Parallel Dimension..' thread already started, many things need to be tackled. Perhaps I may soon. This is in line with the Ideal Past that I seek to discuss with.

[rocket art]

I posted idea to the thread that may link between the 11 millennia and the ground plan of the Egyptian pyramids. Further discussions about these may be continued there.

[infamous]

The probability of extraterrestrial life I would rate at nearly 100%, the probability of "extraterrestrial intervention" at 0%.

With all due respect ughaibu, that sounds a little too much like absolutism from my point of view. If one dosen't allow for the slightest possibility, even if only remotely so, they then eliminate the necessity to explore. I will grant you that the probability of "extraterestrial intervention" appears to be very slight to say the least. Nevertheless, prehistoric means; "before man was recording" and before that, man wasn't even here. So how do we know for sure what was taking place in his absence?

 

My own personal opinion; "extraterrestrial intervention" about .02% but not 0%....................................Infy

[ughaibu]

On the other hand, the probability of extraterrestrials, with the capability of visiting Earth, keeping records is rather high. I would assess the chances of such extraterrestrials neither recording nor wanting their intervention to be knowable, as far less than 0.02%. 0.02% is a one in five thousand chance, how do you arrive at such a high probability without any indicative evidence?

[infamous]

On the other hand, the probability of extraterrestrials, with the capability of visiting Earth, keeping records is rather high. I would assess the chances of such extraterrestrials neither recording nor wanting their intervention to be knowable, as far less than 0.02%. 0.02% is a one in five thousand chance, how do you arrive at such a high probability without any indicative evidence?

OK you win, let's make it .000000002%. Now I'll ask you an equivalent question. How do you arrive at 0%?.......................................Infy

[ughaibu]

There is no evidence to suggest such an occurence and as far as I'm aware there is no conceivable technology, according to accepted physical theories, that would reasonably account for an undetectable visit. I agree that the possibility exists, I rate it's probability at 0% because I think that it's negligible.

[infamous]

There is no evidence to suggest such an occurence and as far as I'm aware there is no conceivable technology, according to accepted physical theories, that would reasonably account for an undetectable visit. I agree that the possibility exists, I rate it's probability at 0% because I think that it's negligible.

We can agree on everything except one thing ughaibu, 0% and negligible do not mean the same thing. Zero is an absolute and leaves no room to wiggle.

 

Absolutely.........

 

......................Infy

[ughaibu]

If there is a horse race with an infinite number of runners, I believe the probability of any one horse winning is zero, yet the race will have a winner (I'm open to correction on this). There are proofs that 0.999.... equals 1, on this occasion 0% seems to me to be the conventionally correct term, again I'm open to correction, in any case it's the most convenient term for expressing a negligible probability.

[infamous]

If there is a horse race with an infinite number of runners, I believe the probability of any one horse winning is zero, yet the race will have a winner (I'm open to correction on this). There are proofs that 0.999.... equals 1, on this occasion 0% seems to me to be the conventionally correct term, again I'm open to correction, in any case it's the most convenient term for expressing a negligible probability.

I think you're missing the point ughaibu. Have you ever heard the expression, "There are no absolutes". One can be very certain without resorting to the position of being positive. If science were positive, there would be no reason to search beyond it.......

 

I fear you may think I'm disagreeing with your position when in fact, I'm only trying to make a point regarding scientific investigation.

 

It's never a bad thing to leave yourself a little slack concerning any of your convictions my friend.................................................Infy

[ughaibu]

I get your point, but science does have absolutes, such as zero Kelvin and the speed of light. According to accepted physical theories a visit from extraterrestrials is, as far as I know, not a reasonable possibility.

But you have a point, I apologise for any misunderstanding caused by my injudicious use of "0%" and hope that it was understood as intended ie 'infinitesimally small'.