UFO announcement

[Rapture_Rising]

Listening to my local breakfast radio show this morning and on a short rumor segment (this is usally done for a laugh) someone said that the US government is getting ready to announce something on UFOs. Usally i dont believe these but doing some further research today, something came up, ex government officials will announce something on UFOs on Larry King Live on November 12

All i want to know is there any truth in this or is every UFO nut over reacting.

PS. im not a UFO nut, i have seen a few thing i cant explain in the sky but i am nowhere near obsessed as other people would be (i just find the topic interesting)

[Jiminator]

so lets google larry king live ufo 2009 (the 2009 was a google suggestion)

we get some goodies like
"YouTube - Larry King Live, 07-18-08, UFO's, Pt ..."
"YouTube - 2009: YEAR OF UFO DISCLOSURE?"
"The Larry King Live UFO program scheduled for July 3, 2009 has been postponed due to the anticipated extended coverage relating to the death of Michael...."
"Jun 22, 2009 ... there was a statement by The Vatican saying that they felt it was ok to believe in aliens and UFO's and life elsewhere in out galaxy."

thank god obama is in office, now we will find out everything. or wasn't that what they said about clinton?

[Ironside]

I thought the gov was holding on to that card for the fire sale??

[wayskobfssae]

Actually, if we really have been doing R&D with alien gear, we're getting very close to a great time to hold a little exhibition.

A nice message to all the new Nuclear Power Wannabe nations who are trying to reinitiate the cold war:

http://www.behold-the-rage.com/images/id4_2.jpg

WE HAVE THIS. **** OFF.

[NUKEMDAVE]

You may find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnX9kzj4cqQ

There's five parts I believe.

[Ironside]

Actually, if we really have been doing R&D with alien gear, we're getting very close to a great time to hold a little exhibition.

A nice message to all the new Nuclear Power Wannabe nations who are trying to reinitiate the cold war:

http://www.behold-the-rage.com/images/id4_2.jpg

WE HAVE THIS. **** OFF.

Another winning post :D

You may find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnX9kzj4cqQ

There's five parts I believe.

Interesting, Im listening to it now.

[NutWrench]

This is my favorite fake UFO clip . . . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVPmbddGgt4&NR=1)

[Jiminator]

This is my favorite fake UFO clip . . . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVPmbddGgt4&NR=1)
well, the palmtrees being cloned does not mean it is not real....



:P

[Waiter]

So ... mayhaps the next November 12?

[Ironside]

Haha like they would tell us. There would be a deep psychological impact on the populations and also this would be devastating to many world religions. I dont think the people deserve to know anyway, maybe after the flush.

[Jiminator]

remember the mars meteorite that they originally thought was proof of life on mars? that was a bit shocking for some people.

[Ironside]

remember the mars meteorite that they originally thought was proof of life on mars? that was a bit shocking for some people.

These people think that biology only happens here on earth, total retards and they dont belong in the 21st century.

[wayskobfssae]

I always kinda had this idea that Orson Wells taught the government that the populous couldn't handle the existence of E.T. life. When the War of the Worlds radio broadcast happened, there was chaos erupting all over the place.

[Rider]

Wouldn't that have been because the aliens where actually attacking us?

[Jiminator]

lol, that would have been some funny shit. Really the whole concept of aliens attacking earth for resources is probably stupid. anyone that had the technology for that could probably grow their own food. as for resources, unless they needed to be grown, it would probably be a million times easier to just go to the asteroid belt and grab whatever you were looking for.

[wayskobfssae]

lol, that would have been some funny shit. Really the whole concept of aliens attacking earth for resources is probably stupid. anyone that had the technology for that could probably grow their own food. as for resources, unless they needed to be grown, it would probably be a million times easier to just go to the asteroid belt and grab whatever you were looking for.

Well in the radio show, there was no speculation about why they were attacking... only that they were here. And as we know with our wars, a resource shortage is certainly not the only excuse we can think of for slaughtering our neighbors. I see no reason to think it would be any different for aliens. A Martian Jihad? Why the heck not? Maybe their holy book says "Slay all sentient life that doesn't have tentacles."

That aside though, coming from Mars, an invasion probably would cost less than trying to re-terraform a planet.

[Jiminator]

Nah, I was speaking more of a general context. With conventional spacecraft you would have a lot of limitations imposed based on the gravity well of the planet. It might be fine if you just need to go in and grab up a bunch of people for their version of hamburger snacks. For things like "resources" - ie: iron, gold, various elements, etc, it might be better to mine asteroids.

[Nessus]

I heard this guy Scott call the Art Bell show one night a few years back and they were talking about aliens and let me tell you this, there were some strange happenings in the desert that night.

[crunchy superman]

I heard this guy Scott call the Art Bell show one night a few years back and they were talking about aliens and let me tell you this, there were some strange happenings in the desert that night.

hahaha :D

[Ironside]

I heard this guy Scott call the Art Bell show one night a few years back and they were talking about aliens and let me tell you this, there were some strange happenings in the desert that night.

oh god no. bad memories of a krap game.

[Steve]

These people think that biology only happens here on earth, total retards and they dont belong in the 21st century.

Most people think the earth is only 6000 years old. So, I'm not surprised.

[Jiminator]

come on man, everyone knows that god planted the dinosaur bones just to mess with peoples minds

[wayskobfssae]

I did not!!! :flame:

[Ironside]

So did anyone lube up their ass for this big UFO announcement?

[Sang]

Did you? In some other thread you seemed like the biggest UFO nut around :D

[Ironside]

Did you? In some other thread you seemed like the biggest UFO nut around :D
Who me? Dude I dont know what your smoking there is NO WAY aliens exist!!

[wayskobfssae]

Who me? Dude I dont know what your smoking there is NO WAY aliens exist!!

Is that because Earth is the center of the universe?

[TerminX]

Who me? Dude I dont know what your smoking there is NO WAY aliens exist!!
Why not? Obviously, over billions of years, we evolved from single celled organisms into humans, so it's definitely not unreasonable to believe that somewhere else in the universe the same thing has happened or is happening.

[Duke's New Chainsaw]

That's not what his original post said. ;)

[Bludd]

Don't listen to Ironside. He believes that 2012 nonsense too.

[Duke's New Chainsaw]

You must be that internet cop!

[Steve]

Who me? Dude I dont know what your smoking there is NO WAY aliens exist!!

It's completely plausible that they do. I'm not taking about that area 51, UFO, probe up your ass crazy people talk. There are too many stars\planets out there to definitely say they don't exist.

[Ironside]

Is that because Earth is the center of the universe?

Earth is the universe. The stars and stuff, all bull shit. trust me dude, i smoked dope once.

[wayskobfssae]

Yeah, the sky used to be all black. Then I started shooting bullets into the air and they made holes in the sky for light to shine through. I'm so glad there wasn't water back there, or we'd be in deep shit now.

[Rider]

Why not? Obviously, over billions of years, we evolved from single celled organisms into humans,

Dangerous waters this is, but there's pretty strong proof suggesting that's not possible. If it where it wouldn't be impossible for there to be alien life though.

[wayskobfssae]

Dangerous waters this is, but there's pretty strong proof suggesting that's not possible.

Well, not unless individual cells somehow have more intelligence than we think - to the point that they develop bodies the way we develop automobiles. I've pondered over it a number of times, and mutations... fine. But the creation of an entire optic system for instance, all by trial & error/blind luck? The optic nerve, the iris, retina, pupil, all at once enabling a creature to see? Comeon now...

[Jiminator]

Dangerous waters this is, but there's pretty strong proof suggesting that's not possible. If it where it wouldn't be impossible for there to be alien life though.
eh, you get into the nature of "what is life" "why does anything exist"

given that there are billions of universes I don't see how it could NOT happen. Yeah, the scientists have done their little studies based on star stability, habitation zones, and so forth, but those are only to define life in some fasion as we know it, ie: life - something that supports a self-sustaining biology and reproductive processes.

I happen to believe everything is alive, everthing is aware. just the things we are aware of and the things we can respond to differ. As humans we have memory and ego, which is great, but not everything. Take a look at any self-sustaining process - I think they are all alive. Eventually they all die. That is the nature of our physical universe.

[wayskobfssae]

Virii don't conform to science's definition of what a life-form is.

Officially, they aren't alive. I think it's safe to say that our definition of life is far too narrow.

[Sang]

The optic nerve, the iris, retina, pupil, all at once enabling a creature to see? Comeon now...

Don't be silly, the ability to see has evolved in stages spanning quite the couple of years. It's not like those unevolved creatures went to sleep one day and then BAM! humans!

Over billions upon billions of years there has simply been gradual progression depending on environmental factors.

I do wonder if apes are ever going to evolve to something like us humans.. Would definitely get interesting.

[wayskobfssae]

Don't be silly, the ability to see has evolved in stages spanning quite the couple of years. It's not like those unevolved creatures went to sleep one day and then BAM! humans!

Over billions upon billions of years there has simply been gradual progression depending on environmental factors.

I do wonder if apes are ever going to evolve to something like us humans.. Would definitely get interesting.

Yeah, but how can vision gradually progress via natural selection? A partial optic system is of no use to an organism just like a motherboard and CPU are useless without an internal bus. The "half-way to having eyes" organism has no advantages over one that hasn't developed them at all. This means it has no greater chance at survival and no greater chance at reproducing.

About the ape thing, I've wondered that one a number of times. A second species capable of industrial development would be quite interesting... though we'd probably end up destroying it before it even had a chance at getting started.

[Pansa]

Well, not unless individual cells somehow have more intelligence than we think - to the point that they develop bodies the way we develop automobiles. I've pondered over it a number of times, and mutations... fine. But the creation of an entire optic system for instance, all by trial & error/blind luck? The optic nerve, the iris, retina, pupil, all at once enabling a creature to see? Comeon now...
actualy for eyes there is afaik a pretty strong "narative" to which steps it went.
In one giant picture, don't know if its still around though.

basicly its about when lenses came into play, what basic lenses do/did, and many steps between what we would maybe interpret as "different design".

Im not bummed with the evolution past single cell's, any doubt about that falters at my(our) incapability to actualy understand big numbers...
we can calculate (with) them, but we do not understand them.
the number of possible itterations is immens.
and the fact that more diversity comes in pushes after destructive sessions gives credens to the whole concept as well.

what i still have trouble with is chemical evolution, because most biomolecules REALY don'T like long chains, and the thermodynamics are just OFF...
From that perspective the "evolution/inteligent design" debate REALY looks stupid, because on THAT level, nobody discusses chemical evolution seperate from "normal" evolution.

single cells rarly could be concidered inteligent.

a good sensory analogy is the following.
take a orchester. in this analogy success is measured in audience, in evolution in "survival/ offspring"
lets say you have 5 people, they play what they want individualy, almost random. there is a small chance that they play something thats sounds "together". if it does, they got an audience, if not, not.
the way evolution works, everything thats got no audience dies of. the trick is, that everyone forms a band.. and if it works, they keep playing that way.
and even tell there kids to play that way.
but as kids are, they play a bit different, but are fundamentaly formed by their parenst.

sometimes 2 bands find by accident that if they are playing on the same stage (by accident) that they get even more listeners.
an example would be our cells powerplants. they are actualy bacteria by nature... or better were way back... so way back that almost all higher things have em.

the trick here is to see that it doesn't need any "inteligence" it just needs a rigorous external critique, either the audience, or "reality".

how many things die each day, because it "just tried something".
not even specificly people who THINK, animals that pounce into deadly plumets...
its the 1000 monkeys writing shakesspear...

as for aliens:
either life here is natural, which implies that under the same condition, history would repeat itself.
or
life here is in anyway "artificial" which defines that assuming that the "creator" didn't do it twice, or doesn'T have a home itself, is a ridiculous notion.

for me there is no question about LIFE outside earth, and assuming we are the fastes is hugely selfcentric, so chances are that there are planets with earlier stages , and probably some with higher.
But even assuming there are higher civilisations, i doubt they'll find us.
its like 2 people meeting in the whole of new york with neither streetnames nor maps nor cellphones.
but you may shout loudly.... good luck ^^

although we are getting close to be able to "see" sound on far away planets, but even then.... which ones first? data is million of years old....
even if we FOUND a planet, WITH higher life forms ... when WE see that. they are all dead... probably^^

in the end, its all about huge numbers, and our incapabillity to relate to them, some more , some less.

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 PM ----------

Yeah, but how can vision gradually progress via natural selection? A partial optic system is of no use to an organism just like a motherboard and CPU are useless without an internal bus. The "half-way to having eyes" organism has no advantages over one that hasn't developed them at all. This means it has no greater chance at survival and no greater chance at reproducing.

About the ape thing, I've wondered that one a number of times. A second species capable of industrial development would be quite interesting... though we'd probably end up destroying it before it even had a chance at getting started.

well, think about seeing, i mean philosophicly, what is the minimum to qualify for "seeing" and how advanced on that concept is OUR eye? i mean we got quite a bit... colour, stereo optics, focus, movementdetection as reflex build in... (build in protection against overexposure or other harms)
and than think what we still lack that other itterations have. (spectrum, field of vision, range of focus and resolution, protection against higher thresholds (like looking directly into the sun)


some organisms just know "light" somewhere. they have no focus, no lenses nothing, just some photosensors on one side.
and "some" is already an evolutionary step, because they allow you turn yourself and figure out a direction ^^
aso aso, your problem is that you think an eye can't have incremental steps to work better^^.

And remember for any positive change, millions of failures died blind^^.

another thing thats to obscure to be designed.
there are two parts of you body (loosly) that have the same receptors, namly a kind of chemical receptor. they are in your nose, and help you smell, and they are on your spermcells... oO

[Jiminator]

about the evolution thingy, and if 'apes' will evolve to something human. I think there are a lot of misconceptions there. In terms of evolution, everything that exists on this world is the "final product". So we had ape like creatures as part of our ancestors, same as the apes of today have had. We did not evolve from apes. The difference is probably that when the branch started to split the "man" branch developed the intelligence to kill anything they found threatening to them. You see that in our societies today, how different schools, cities, countries, ideologies will go to war to destroy the other. I think that is why you have a huge gap between the species. for the same reasons you will probably never see an ape develop intelligence. because it then becomes a threat. mankind is very good at eradicating threats.

[Ironside]

About the ape thing, I've wondered that one a number of times. A second species capable of industrial development would be quite interesting... though we'd probably end up destroying it before it even had a chance at getting started.


Didnt we kill off all the pro magma humanoids? My history is real rusty but Iam sure that the modern humanoids killed off all the other sub humanoids to where were the only ones left now. hey trust me man, I seen a commercial for a documentary once.

[Rider]

One of the major obstacles for Evolution being anywhere near scientific is that, so far, it's just as realistic as dragons or fairies. It *could* be true. We've never observed it, we have no proof of it existence, but our theories indicate that there's no proof against it either and we can theorize on how it would've fit into that which we DO know.

It's a little silly really.

[Rapture_Rising]

One of the major obstacles for Evolution being anywhere near scientific is that, so far, it's just as realistic as dragons or fairies. It *could* be true. We've never observed it, we have no proof of it existence, but our theories indicate that there's no proof against it either and we can theorize on how it would've fit into that which we DO know.

It's a little silly really.

I dont want to be disrespectful if you are religeous but Evolution makes more sense then Creationisim. The only reason it hasnt been observed yet is becuase we are looking at it through a human time scale but these things take millions of years.

And i see that i simple thread of a rumor of an announcement of UFO's has turned in to a debate of Evolution vs Creationisim.

[Sang]

we have no proof of it existence

Actually there's plenty of evidence.

[IceColdDuke]

All lies have some basis for truth. Ancient civilizations have legands and stories of people/gods coming in and doing some mystical things. Jesus for example did some crazy things according to the Bible. Now wether you believe that Jesus was real or not, or the son of god or not is irrelivant. What if that was true and he was just an Alien? I don't personally think that but what if the theory around the Egyptians were true? That Pharaohs where really Aliens?(AKA Stargate).

The point is that these stories have stood the test of time, which means they have some truth behind them so its relativelly believable.

The way the Universe evolved, Humans are a mathmatical mistake but its stupid and arrogant to assume that that mistake could only happen once.

[Pansa]

One of the major obstacles for Evolution being anywhere near scientific is that, so far, it's just as realistic as dragons or fairies. It *could* be true. We've never observed it, we have no proof of it existence, but our theories indicate that there's no proof against it either and we can theorize on how it would've fit into that which we DO know.

It's a little silly really.
i would like to respectfully disagree with you.
not on the proof part, but on the "as realistic as dragons or fairies" part.

we KNOW : how bacteria change over generations due to nonidentical copies.
we KNOW that every "living" thing we looked at makes these errors.
And we know what significant forms these "errors" can take.
and we know about selection, either from a horticultural background (weedkiller) chickens (genderselection in breedingfarms), and the result of rigirous selection.

its not a myth at least since severe DNA studies are possible.
IS that proof? No, but evolution is a basicly very simple concept, explaining all the different facts that are proven.

If you want to believe that god send a liveseed and is in anway the creator of "the way life works" thats fine by me. But interpreting genesis in any way litteral is beyond any rational concept at this point. i do not want to attack anyone for believing it, just questioning the rationality of that. :dopefish:
Darwins best stuff is called "origin of species", not origin of life, there is a subtle but fundamental difference.

[Rider]

Actually there's plenty of evidence.

Humanity has never witnessed any form of Macro Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_evolution).

Also, it's amusing how everyone's bringing God into this where I was merely debating the factuality of evolution.

[Ironside]

Some of you people need to unlearn what you have learned. I can barely stand to read some of these posts.

Darwin was science while Moses was beliefs. both of these are a great benefit but separated by facts. With the exception of one None of you have presented facts yet.

[Rapture_Rising]

Also, it's amusing how everyone's bringing God into this where I was merely debating the factuality of evolution.

With creationisim and evolution the only candidates on the theory of how we got here. becuase you didnt mention god you are sure implying it.

Humanity has never witnessed any form of Macro Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_evolution).

Evolution is not sudden. Evolution is occurring all the time, as an extremely gradual, incremental process. Evolution usually requires millions of years to cause obvious or dramatic changes, and any major evolutionary change requires thousands of intermediary transitional forms. However, an organism can only be called "transitional" in retrospect, looking back over countless millennia; evolution does not make long-term plans, and is only guided by short-term, opportunistic selection on an individual level.

[Ironside]

yeah you cant bag evolution without looking like a wacko these days. sorry pal wrong century.

[Rapture_Rising]

One question that has been bugging me is that why cant science and religion be one and the same.

Everyone has a right to what they believe in without ridicule but Religious people think that everyone who believes in evolution are wrong and blasphemous and people of science believe that people who believe in creationisim are crazy or whackos.

Evolution doesn't prove or disprove God or other devine beings.

In my opinion religion is science and science is religion, both go hand in hand but being humans we think that only one is right.

Just think about it - If you were god, you would create a self sustaining universe that can run with little to no intervention in any way (evolution and natural selection).

This is a very sensitive topic where no one is right and no one is wrong.

[Ironside]

Well the theory evolution throws off the theory of creation. The bible through its complexity says that the world is 6 thousand years old. Evolution through the science of carbon dating says the world is 4.6 billion years old. So there you have the biggest conflict between the two.

[wayskobfssae]

Just think about it - If you were god, you would create a self sustaining universe that can run with little to no intervention in any way (evolution and natural selection).

After I started writing programs, when I looked back at the stuff I learned in school, it really bewildered me how much some things reminded me of something I might've written for a video game. The one that comes to mind most is the Elements. That just changing the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an atom can cause it to behave completely different.

Well the theory evolution throws off the theory of creation. The bible through its complexity says that the world is 6 thousand years old. Evolution through the science of carbon dating says the world is 4.6 billion years old. So there you have the biggest conflict between the two.

You can use a lot of examples to help the case of evolution...

Carbon dating is NOT one of them.

Im not bummed with the evolution past single cell's, any doubt about that falters at my(our) incapability to actualy understand big numbers...we can calculate (with) them, but we do not understand them.
the number of possible itterations is immens.
and the fact that more diversity comes in pushes after destructive sessions gives credens to the whole concept as well.

some organisms just know "light" somewhere. they have no focus, no lenses nothing, just some photosensors on one side.
and "some" is already an evolutionary step, because they allow you turn yourself and figure out a direction ^^
aso aso, your problem is that you think an eye can't have incremental steps to work better^^.

Aye, the numbers thing is the hugest hurdle, and the time required is so ridiculously huge, that even if we're really careful about it, humanity will probably be a distant memory on this planet long before we'd have a chance to retrospectively see something that evolved.

One thing I've really been waiting on is some kind of computer model for evolution. It'd be really cool to create a simulation with single-celled organisms and then watch them evolve at thousands of generations per second. And every time the simulation is restarted, you wind up with an entirely different world in the end.

another thing thats to obscure to be designed.
there are two parts of you body (loosly) that have the same receptors, namly a kind of chemical receptor. they are in your nose, and help you smell, and they are on your spermcells... oO

Well, I wouldn't go so far with that one. With the ways that we end up finding alternate uses for things that were never designed for such, it's really not that weird. Not saying it proves intelligence, but it certainly doesn't hurt it.

[Ironside]

It is in this thread.
Carbon dating is IN! The earth is 4.6 billion years old.

[Rapture_Rising]

If believing that the earth is 6000 years old and this gives them comfort and helps them sleep at night then everyone should respect that. the true wackos are the religious ones who thinks its acceptible to have 19 kids and numerous wives

[wayskobfssae]

the true wackos are the religious ones who thinks its acceptible to have 19 kids and numerous wives

Sadly, there's non-religious people who follow that tradition too.

[SpamViking]

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/76/1113762983.jpg
Approves of this thread.

[Pansa]

Humanity has never witnessed any form of Macro Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_evolution).

Also, it's amusing how everyone's bringing God into this where I was merely debating the factuality of evolution.

Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale

From your wiki link. Since the distinction is purely interlectual (because the distinction is based on purely arbitrary nomenclature).

And actualy god is mentioned in this thread more in a "what didn'T he do" context, and not in a "religous people are nuts" way.
If people want to believe in god, thats realy realy fine by me, im just of the opinion that one shouldn't believe god creates ones breakfast buns, if there is conclusive evidence to suggest the existence of a bakery.
as for instance seeing the buns being brought by a car thats says "we bake buns for your breakfast, and evidence that the adress where this supposed "bakery" should be gets delivered masses of flower, milk and eggs daily.

at this point its not rational to assume god makes them. its as unrational to conclude that because believe was wrong in THIS instance, it shows that any believe is fundamentaly wrong.

people need to significantly reinvent the concept of adjusting ones believe on new information in general, if someone tells you that a portion of your knowledge is faulty doesn'T mean everyone thinks you are an idiot, its the aggressive defence of something obviously NOT as simple, that makes people look foolish.


You can use a lot of examples to help the case of evolution...

Carbon dating is NOT one of them.
disagree, carbondating is an essential tool to establish a timeline, which is nescesairy to evaluate whether different instances of what we think of as evolutionary examples fits the same "timeparadigm"

the whole portion about cataclysmic events and boom in diversity and family trees are in dire need of "timestamps" to make sense (which was first for instance)

One thing I've really been waiting on is some kind of computer model for evolution. It'd be really cool to create a simulation with single-celled organisms and then watch them evolve at thousands of generations per second. And every time the simulation is restarted, you wind up with an entirely different world in the end.

there where some games that tried to show hereditary traits "creatures" in the beginning did.
But This kind of simulation is hardly proof, and regularily gets attacked, because in the end they only proove that ones theory can be put into action, and if you are lucky that your theory produces a reality similiar to ours.
Manmade simulation can'T prove that reality IS like the simulation, because it logicly only proves that you can get the "same" results, And logicly 2 different ways can have the same outcome.
Which doesn'T put evolutionists further ahead than they are now (because the theory exist whether you recreated it via simulation or not ^^)

But i read a quote about the "right wing" of american politics lately:
"Thats the people who refute Evolution but believe in social darwinism"

[Rider]

From your wiki link. Since the distinction is purely interlectual (because the distinction is based on purely arbitrary

It may be defined as a purely intellectual difference, but that's not the reality of it. The reality is that one we've seen, the other we haven't. It seems evolution has been heralded as "the scientific answer", though I have yet to see the science at work here when there's a pretty fundamental flaw, such as the complete absence of direct evidence.

[Rapture_Rising]

It may be defined as a purely intellectual difference, but that's not the reality of it. The reality is that one we've seen, the other we haven't. It seems evolution has been heralded as "the scientific answer", though I have yet to see the science at work here when there's a pretty fundamental flaw, such as the complete absence of direct evidence.

What? are you talking about evolution or religion.

Read this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6895084.ece) and tell me that we are not some sort of reletives to monkeys.

[Pansa]

It may be defined as a purely intellectual difference, but that's not the reality of it. The reality is that one we've seen, the other we haven't. It seems evolution has been heralded as "the scientific answer", though I have yet to see the science at work here when there's a pretty fundamental flaw, such as the complete absence of direct evidence.

they are the same, the only difference is a definition on a system we invented ourselfes, a system thats come into questioning since we started DNA cartographing.

Dna doesn't KNOW the difference in "observed" hirarchy. And Dna data have found lots of facts that contradict said hirarchy.

direct evidence is overated in specific contexts, and a technical problem elevated to a refute. Direct proof is beyond our timespan to achive.
enough baseevidence of how dna defines living existence , and how dna changes through generations combined with factual knowlege about selection in generell defines the behavior in long timespans, and that accidentaly describes what we witness. Could we do with conclusive proof, in which we try to create an isolated system of non automotive bacteria and harshly kill 90% regulary with a directionaly impulse to see if the "grow feet" for a couple of thousan years?
Is this realy nescesairy to proove what we can !savely! assume from our knowledge about "information heritage" and mutations?
the scientific argument here is "randomness with harsh selection yields complex systems" and that is "true"

is there proof that everything came from one single cell?
maybe 8 different cells where dropped on the planet?
or maybe every couple of million years they came back and dropped their "latest" experiment here? i whichs same timeframe what we know about biochemistry happend paralell? because these mechanisms are all real. and prooven.

of course you can argue "just because evolution is the conclusive effect of what we KNOW shortterm, that doesn't mean it is the only thing that happend"

---------- Post added at 12:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------

What? are you talking about evolution or religion.

Read this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6895084.ece) and tell me that we are not some sort of reletives to monkeys.
we were talking about the classification system.

he argued that macroevolution isn'T proven, as opposed to microevolution i suppose. The difference in the two being defined in the level of hirarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) it occurs.

My argument is that that hirarchy is purely interlectual and manmade, and is discussed regulary since we have models to compare Dna.
And that a proof in one defines the proof in the other.
I get the thoughtprocess to make this destinction, but its based on a faulty perspective because this shift from what we would call one species to another is gradualy, and we are witnessing these graduals based on DNA evidence right now.

Another problem for people is a missconception in relevance. what we concidere higher lifeforms isn'T the natural norm, biomasswise the very simple almost machine like things are.

[ReadOnly]

the true wackos are the religious ones who thinks its acceptible to have 19 kids and numerous wives

Why is this not acceptible if wifes know and don't mind? And if the guy is able to support all the wifes and kids. I mean, if everyone in the family is happy then what's the problem?

[Pansa]

Why is this not acceptible if wifes know and don't mind? And if the guy is able to support all the wifes and kids. I mean, if everyone in the family is happy then what's the problem?
from a scocial point of systemcreation you are right, there could be made an argument though, that our biological gender dispersion better acompanies a near 1:1 ration.

That is btw no argument for monogamy, just against imbalanced gender rotations. systems where groups would vouch to each other are in that respect different from the "classical" polygamous one male several femal concept.

Mind you, thats no "its wrong" argument, but reserving several females to one male in a almost equal birthrate system creates social tention which one might philosphicly find "worse".

[Sang]

Mind you, thats no "its wrong" argument, but reserving several females to one male in a almost equal birthrate system creates social tention which one might philosphicly find "worse".

You're saying one guy with more than one wife would create social tension, yes?

I think that'll only occur if plenty of people are unhappy with that system or if they were happier with a different system..

Unfortunately polygamy tends to be thought of as that Saudi-Arabian oppression crap. But hey, 1 guy with multiple wives - or for that matter, one woman with multiple husbands - why not, if everyone agrees with it? And if you don't, nothing stops you from terminating the relationship.

Or we could just cut the crap and say polygamy exists in some cultures because men just think it's hot to bang multiple ladies.

[Pansa]

You're saying one guy with more than one wife would create social tension, yes?

technicly yes, but negiable.
I was talking if it was a common form. which it isn't, but then again isn't the understanding of it being moraly questionabel part of the reason why?

Additionaly im by far no fan of solutions that solve something as long as you are the only one doing it. "downsizing" is such a concept.
if concidering right and wrong, just looking for direct impact of YOUR action isn'T realy a great moral foundation, the better is to look for problems if people would do it as well.

So i was talking demographic problems if overall unbalanced polygamous relationships where the norm.

AS for multi offspring families:
having alot of children in itself isn'T a problem, as long as its sustainable.
Just ignoring birthcontroll and than failing to supervise or care for either interlectualy nor financialy is.

[Jiminator]

the problem with the 19 to 1 theory is you have 18 males with nothing and no prospects. It creates social instability. True that males die off at a faster rate than females. But that may not compensate.

[wayskobfssae]

from a scocial point of systemcreation you are right, there could be made an argument though, that our biological gender dispersion better acompanies a near 1:1 ration.

That is btw no argument for monogamy, just against imbalanced gender rotations. systems where groups would vouch to each other are in that respect different from the "classical" polygamous one male several femal concept.

The overpopulation issues don't help either. Things are bad enough. We certainly wouldn't need the Pope waking up tomorrow and decreeing, "You must all have at least 5 children, or you'll go to Hell."

I do remember having a discussion somewhere about this issue though. The gender imbalance in reproductive importance with regard to quantity of offspring is rather interesting, and (unfortunately) suggests that polygamy is more natural.

As an example, a tribe consisting of 50 men and 1 women is doomed. A tribe consisting of 50 women and 1 man can double its population within a single year. Granted what gets born a couple generations down may not be doing so well, but strictly from a survivability standpoint, that tribe with only 1 guy stands a much better chance. So perhaps its really not so shocking that numerous cultures endorse harems.

If we ever became a truly "evolutionist" society, we'd probably be all for it.

[Pansa]

As an example, a tribe consisting of 50 men and 1 women is doomed. A tribe consisting of 50 women and 1 man can double its population within a single year. Granted what gets born a couple generations down may not be doing so well, but strictly from a survivability standpoint, that tribe with only 1 guy stands a much better chance. So perhaps its really not so shocking that numerous cultures endorse harems.

be that as it may, this still can only work if it is reflected in the birthrates of the offspring.
otherwise you are left with alot of frustrated and unhappy males.
ANd im not implying that this doesn't "work", there are several animal examples of that type of selforganisation.
But i am of the position that we should strife for rules of society with a less drastic darwinistic aproach.
Again, not even saying that we all should just have one partner, just that that kind of tribal mateing hirarchy leaves alot of people unhappy if its not balanced.

[IceColdDuke]

Well the theory evolution throws off the theory of creation. The bible through its complexity says that the world is 6 thousand years old. Evolution through the science of carbon dating says the world is 4.6 billion years old. So there you have the biggest conflict between the two.

Correct me if im wrong but we have never really witnessed cells evolving either, or at the very least creating genetic mutations required to make Aps evolve into Humans. And remember the translation errors, I doubt the people that wrote the bible had the same numerical system that we do today, granted there is only one way to count, but I don't see relying on obvious mis-translations that litter the bible to prove there is no god, or that what is in the bible is false.

The point is there are gaps in the bible and gaps in the theory of evolution I don't see why they both can't be correct, and people fail to see if you want the bigger picture you have to look outside of your box.

[Pansa]

Correct me if im wrong but we have never really witnessed cells evolving either, or at the very least creating genetic mutations required to make Aps evolve into Humans.
well we witness how bacteria "develope" immunities to drugs, which basicly is evolution "in small" , don't be confused with the same nomenclature for humans.
developing an immunity for us means, that a subsystem of us has learned how to target this intruder.

if bacterea "develope immunities" it basicly means you killed almost all of them , but one generation who "didn'T get it as bad" got random offspring that doesn't care.
this isn't REALY an active reaction, in most cases this is passive, meaning its just random trys and errors, and whoever not dies has to have done something right.

as for gaps in the theory, the only gaps i see at the moment are the real beginnings of life, but that wasn't darwins initial theory.
Another hot iron are some specific theorys about specific relations and timelines , the specific linkage between ape and human included.
the original -> savanah idea doesn'T seem to have panned out.
http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.ht ml
is an interesting watch on that.
the general notion of evolution which originaly was a taxonomic study has since found its establishment in biochemistry, where we have found mechanisms nescesairy and condusive to "make evolution work".

the fundamental notion imho realy isn't up to debate. if you have text, and the text gets altered in incremental random steps, after an almost indefinite number of steps you can have any text thats possible...
if you then consequently rigorously delete everything you do not like, you stay with alot of text you like..

its not that complicated. we desing software that does that for us.

[Rider]

they are the same, the only difference is a definition on a system we invented ourselfes,

I'm gonna stop you right there, the difference being that one (micro) we see almost on a daily basis, the other (macro) which has only been theorized on existing, but lacks any real proof.

And adding "on a long enough time-line" doesn't make it any more scientifically sound.

[JobivanHiob]

I want to believe! ;)


:)

[Pansa]

I'm gonna stop you right there, the difference being that one (micro) we see almost on a daily basis, the other (macro) which has only been theorized on existing, but lacks any real proof.

And adding "on a long enough time-line" doesn't make it any more scientifically sound.
But actualy proposing these two categories has to be contingent on any kind of descernable difference in the theorys behind both, and on a genetical level there is none save the timeframe.

if you split two groups long enough with different surroundings several steps of microevolution, thats macroevolution per definition. they are the same...

[Rider]

We’ve defined micro-evolution as a change in gene frequency in a population and a population as a group of organisms that share a common gene pool—like all the individuals of one beetle species living on a particular mountaintop.

This is an excerpt on the definition of micro-evolution (source (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html)) Note how it mentions changes in gene frequency. The problem with this definition is that there is no sign of an increase of complexity in a creatures gene structure. Mutation (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/mutations/) merely changes the available information, leading to different traits. It would not explain how a creature evolved a new pair of senses, a new limb or anything like that.

They may very well be the same thing, but that definitely hurts the plausibility of evolution right there.

[Pansa]

This is an excerpt on the definition of micro-evolution (source (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html)) Note how it mentions changes in gene frequency. The problem with this definition is that there is no sign of an increase of complexity in a creatures gene structure. Mutation (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/mutations/) merely changes the available information, leading to different traits. It would not explain how a creature evolved a new pair of senses, a new limb or anything like that.

They may very well be the same thing, but that definitely hurts the plausibility of evolution right there.

i had to look on that page for a while to find that specific contents, but you underly a missconception probably due to the grafics, that missrepresent the contents.

3 of the 4 mentioned mechanisms CAN increase BP count, especialy if they accidentaly don'T do like they are supposed to.

down syndrom kleinefelter syndrom and several others are mechanisms to severly increase a persons genetic material overall, the fact that they are "worse" from our perspective doesn't change that fact.

faulty crossover , additionmutation , deletion aso can create new patterns and delete old ones VERY fast, and a range of medical problems are of that sort. thats evolution and selection, but so far mostly selection ^^ the fact that these beings aren'T functional and most of them die already before actualy seeing "life" still shows the mechanism.

additionaly note that neither the speciation nor the macro evolution chapter have a seperate "mechanism" chapter, not due to the lack of ideas, but because the mechanisms are identical.

same problem with the second link, "just changing the information thats there" isn't true to begin with due to mechansims copying false blocks for instance, but even in mutations if you add one , substract somewhere else or switch often enough severe changes in the biochemical outcome occur, often so drastic that the resulting organsims isn't functional anymore.
one change can incapacitate several proteins, or reenable dormant ones, or just plainly skip building some.

your cells activly shift genes in and out of readframes, the genetic material for you immunsystem does so regulary for each different type of antibody cell.

[IceColdDuke]

its not that complicated. we desing software that does that for us.

Software is only as good as the people writing the code. Bacteria is a really good example of proof of genetic mutations when there is a outside variable being intruduced, that still doesn't proof that cells that evolve with no outside inteference to make an ape evolve into humans.

What do I mean by this?

For example if you take too much of Anti-Biotics they become useless, you have to intake the pills they have less and less effect each time(when your expoised to Radiation, and you have kids your give have alot of uglly mutations). Its not like Apes took any pills and made them evolve into humans, and I doubt they got exposed to radiation, and if they did isn't it your job to proove that :).

[Pansa]

Software is only as good as the people writing the code. Bacteria is a really good example of proof of genetic mutations when there is a outside variable being intruduced, that still doesn't proof that cells that evolve with no outside inteference to make an ape evolve into humans.


1. i was only bringing the software example for the technical example of rapid random "trys" harshly selected, in softwareengineering learning algorythms do exactly that. of course how good they do that is contingent on the quality of the programmer.
2. Why would you propose proof has to be without "outside variables".
Pressure on an organism is 50% of rapid evolution (the "selection" part).
thats where things like the cambrian explosion happen ^^.
there is no "no pressure" zone for any living thing for an extended period of time, especialy not in timespans that evolution is measurable happening.

the questions about humans to apes IS a question about pressures, and a probable habitat change still is the most likely "pressure" that drove that experiment. take a look at the tedvideo i posted above.
its not anti religious or anything, its scientific paradigms clashing ^^.


What do I mean by this?

For example if you take too much of Anti-Biotics they become useless, you have to intake the pills they have less and less effect each time(when your expoised to Radiation, and you have kids your give have alot of uglly mutations). Its not like Apes took any pills and made them evolve into humans, and I doubt they got exposed to radiation, and if they did isn't it your job to proove that .
you seem to missunderstand how immunitys are developed.
There is rarely a mechanism in place that activly works towards the medication.
Typicly immunitys are developed because the bacteria aren't exposed to enough of it, to kill EVERYone.
the resulting bacteria repopulate and die off again and again, until one of them doesn't (even WITH the corect doses).
This usualy happens if the target of the drug changes form. There is no feedback to the medication activly reforming the offspring to counteract that specific problem.

The only effect the drug has apart from being the selector against mutations are measured is the fact that if you thin the herd, the rest starts replicating more, since they have more resources and space available.

Taking aside the enhanced productionrate AND direct dna interaction, the chance of a bacteria to become immune to a medicine is equaly high with or without that madicine actualy existing yet. the difference is the selection.
In a scenario where a bacteria gets immune to something that doesn'T exist(yet) the change has no influence at best, and is detremental to the hosts chances at worst.
the difference between the two scenarios simply is the selection part. with the medication the immune/resistent one is BETTER, and therfore this "meme" gets carried on, in abscence the resistent one may be ugly , or dumb, or slower than his fellow comrades and die of.

Take sickle cell anemia. its a deformation of red bloodcells. On the "normal" side, these people have a worse oxygen capacity, therefore are worse of compared to a "normal" person with comparable attributes. worse at hard labor, worse at living in high terain, or thicker blood at equal respirationrates.
On the otherhand they are immune to maleria...

there was no person who mutated TO be immune to malaria, one kid just was immune one day. and a couple of thousands died precariage because THEIR deformed cells would have been immune to maleria, but also where immune to oxygen^^.

Radiation obviously is a different chapter, but since exposure to sunlight is radiation as well, that too is part of the many different pressures put on individual organisms.
So despite the fact that certain pressures can have a DIRECT effect on the rate at which something evolves (usualy if it DIRECTLY interacts with the host dna. Any pressure has an impact on what is good or not.
Habitat, nutrition, co hosts, climate, predators , toxins of any kind, and even infections.

the problem with that is, you can'T see traits that aren't activly selected against.
if YOU where immune to the swine flu, nobody would notice. maybe your restdesign was so bad that you don't get to procreate... tough luck. it only works if the carrier has no major disadvantages.

after that its statistics again, how likely is it that your "dormant" immunity (in absence of the problem) is acompanied by a relevant current one? if not, you get selected against, even if in 2 years you would have been the one guy everyone would have liked to mate with.

[Rider]

down syndrom kleinefelter syndrom and several others are mechanisms to severly increase a persons genetic material overall, the fact that they are "worse" from our perspective doesn't change that fact.

An increase of genetic material is not an increase in complexity. They are 2 very different things.

[Pansa]

An increase of genetic material is not an increase in complexity. They are 2 very different things.
And thats why i wrote several seperate things.
"storage space" gets added by for instance faulty crossovers.
and content in this space is created by mutation.
complexity overall is shifted by mutation enabling or disabling promotors, shifting reading frames or just by altering minimal aminoacids in a protein.
The latter for instance can massivly alter the chemical properties, as for instance reaction equilibrii, which in several scenarios can make the difference in reaction direction, several encymes doing exact opposites from each other not only correlate in aminoacid sequence but also are conservated in the dna coding for the AAS (and since several genetic triplets can code for the same amino acid, thats not a nescesairy thing)

And complexity is realy a wrong nomicer here, neither pure length nor density nor genecount corelate to what we concidere complexity.

Im not realy shure what specific process of change you think doesn't have its process detailed.
different species vary from each other in chromosome count, genome lenght and content (number of genes, and regulatory placement).

there are several documented ways for each to vary. If prove in this case means that despite witnessing the shortterm effect, with analytic footwork done, and the absolute implication that if the former is correct the latter ARE the longterm effects, which have been postulated on limited taxonomy research 200 years ago, and repostulated on biochemical research you STILL need taxonomic evidence of witnessing the process in situ, than i'd advise you against ever looking into chemical evolution ^^.

There is something like theoretical proof, something especialy math is known for. if you have proven the mechanisms which define the concept of shortterm and longtermeffects and you witness the shorttermeffects and you can show longtermeffects by comparing genetic drift with forensic evidence, thats enough. thats called deductive reasoning, and yes many people suck at it, therefore caution is needed as is with statistics, if done right, its sufficient.

[Rider]

I feel at this point I must break off. I'm not nearly well versed enough to provide you with some decent arguments as genetics isn't exactly my field of expertise. I'm aware of some of the struggling points of evolution (such as time, and there being sufficient 'evidence' that the Earth isn't nearly as old as some claim) but as I have no in-depth knowledge of each area I couldn't bring the point home.

Guess I should've thought of that beforehand, but oh well :)

[Ironside]

The whole idea is to believe in what you want and who gives a rats ass about the next guys beliefs.

please Just answer one question rider, do you think everything was created in 7 days?

---------- Post added at 10:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------

in otherwords do you you believe what the bible says in genesis?

[ReadOnly]

What's a "day" when there was no solar system?

[Pansa]

What's a "day" when there was no solar system?
the same length of time it is now.

I feel at this point I must break off. I'm not nearly well versed enough to provide you with some decent arguments as genetics isn't exactly my field of expertise. I'm aware of some of the struggling points of evolution (such as time, and there being sufficient 'evidence' that the Earth isn't nearly as old as some claim) but as I have no in-depth knowledge of each area I couldn't bring the point home.

Guess I should've thought of that beforehand, but oh well :)
Well its still helpfull to seperate missunderstanding from overinterpretation.

Im far from gulping down everything that scientists dictate, and alot of people overestimate their data, especialy in SPECIFIC timelines there is alot of guessing going on, but fossils aren'T realy that common.

I feel it is vitaly important to look at aswell the bottom up aproaches of biochemistry as the topdown approach of taxonomy.
what , how , and which way are distinctive different question.

Im just saying, if you know what a excavator is , and you see an excavator dig a small hole, and you see a giant whole, surrounded by excavators, its not reasonable to assume the OTHER excevators are spectators to an act of god. even if you couldn'T distinktivly say when exactly it was dug, how long it took, or which excavator did what part.

My lengthy posting isn'T meant to attack or diminish you, but to scan what i concidere to be a missconception, and try to explain.

And i still would rather know, what specificly you meant with complexity in genetic material, which you think we have no mechanism to propose for.

The biggest problem with evolution is, that it answers nothing realy.
what it doesn't explain are the two most fundamental questions.
WHY is the universe the way it is, that life is technicly possible at all.
because if you could be an external observer to the universe, you probably would concidere earth a "failure in measurment" rather than "normal".

And the other , how the heck did life "boot up" on this planet. BEcause although i have no trouble in believing in evolution, chemical evolution is just... weird. normal evolution is almost simplisticly straightforward,
if you have something that can replicate itself, but not flawlessly, you will get differences, and differences can be "judged".

chemical evolution is the question of "how do you get a selfreplicating system, and where did it get the energy from, to replicate"
its the new true "chicken and egg" problem. (since darwin answered the original one in passing) ^^

what im saying is people KNEW that things fall down before newton found the exact numbers. they didn'T just BELIEVE things fall down.the problem evolution faces today is a numberproblem, not a problem in process.
and the numbers are off, because our factual ability to "go back in time" is rather limited to very random probes, for which we don't know ALLE variables (for instances c14 is a great rough estimate, but since its contingent on the notion that the portion in every living object at the time of its demise is constant AND that the decay isn constant as well, even IF this is true for the majority of testobjects, single deviations pose problems)

[GOK]

http://yanai.blackmage.org/sky2/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/evolution.gif

[Duke's New Chainsaw]

OH SNAP!

God did it again!

[ZuljinRaynor]

What's a "day" when there was no solar system?
the same length of time it is now.
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9027/1495f.jpg

[Pansa]

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9027/1495f.jpg

just saying, thats not a good one of those^^.
Its not mentioned that he sat out to do it in 7 days, so he gets started, and used the same "time" for his first increment as it takes for the rotation.
Coincidence or poetic symetry? who cares^^.

[ZuljinRaynor]

just saying, jes it is a good one of dose^^

[evanazzo]

One of my favourite philosoraptors ever,

[Ironside]

have you ever noticed that people who want to believe in the bible turn off their brains and shove rocks in their ears when you bring up stuff like evolution and carbon dating? Some of the best people I know are into creation but when you bring up astrobiology, carbon dating or evolution they instantly turn into a 3rd grade idiot.

Dont get me wrong I love people who love god but I wish there was room in their beliefs for evolution or the notion of the biology of a planet takes far longer then what ancient man thought.

[Jiminator]

Eh, people are afraid of pissing off "the man". Has worked for over 2000 years to keep people in line.

[Ironside]

Dude Ive seen pictures these people have drawn that have had dinosaurs in noahs ark. "Since the world is only 6000 yrs old noah obviously had dinosaurs in the ark, their bones scattered around the planet is direct proof of this!"

get a rope.

[Danule]

Yeah, but how can vision gradually progress via natural selection? A partial optic system is of no use to an organism just like a motherboard and CPU are useless without an internal bus. The "half-way to having eyes" organism has no advantages over one that hasn't developed them at all. This means it has no greater chance at survival and no greater chance at reproducing.

About the ape thing, I've wondered that one a number of times. A second species capable of industrial development would be quite interesting... though we'd probably end up destroying it before it even had a chance at getting started.

i dont think you understand evolution...

[ZuljinRaynor]

have you ever noticed that people who want to believe in the bible turn off their brains and shove rocks in their ears when you bring up stuff like evolution and carbon dating? Some of the best people I know are into creation but when you bring up astrobiology, carbon dating or evolution they instantly turn into a 3rd grade idiot.

Dont get me wrong I love people who love god but I wish there was room in their beliefs for evolution or the notion of the biology of a planet takes far longer then what ancient man thought.

Sounds like that Huckabee guy that wanted to be President.

[Nessus]

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9027/1495f.jpg


Silly goose, the first thing he created was our solar system so that's how he measured out the rest of the 6 days.

[ZuljinRaynor]

Solar System has nothing to do with Earth Days though.

[Jiminator]

eh, the whole 7 days thingy was based on the number of fingers they had, they just were not very good at counting back then....

[Ironside]

Hebrews had prophecies about it, the last 1000 years would be spent in peace just like the seventh day sabbath is supposed to be spent during the seventh thousand years period the earth will be at peace because the evil satan will be chained up. Iam sure at least one of you ;) would love for me to go into it further but I dont care to share anymore. I wont go any further to say that there was only 7 thousand years of creation for us humans and then the end of the world. But all thats from the POEMS out of the bible.

[Jiminator]

hrm, that kind of sucks, because the chinese have 6000 years of history. I guess it will be buh-bye for everthing soon. and here I was worried about the sun eventually cooling and expanding to encompass the orbit of the earth in a few billion years...

[Ironside]

I wouldn't worry too much over it...your time on earth, the moments you have will be lost in time like tears in the rain, this is true for everything. Kiss your ass goodbye now cause tomorrow you may not get the chance.

[Nessus]

Solar System has nothing to do with Earth Days though.

Why not? The earth is in our the solar system so as soon as he created that there would be a measure for a day.

[wayskobfssae]

Silly goose, the first thing he created was our solar system so that's how he measured out the rest of the 6 days.

Aha, but the Earth's mass was not immediately static. As more matter came together, Earth's rate of rotation would've changed (and it's still changing).

And I'm just being a bastard now, cuz that element of the debate really never bothered me one way or the other. Just pointing it out though... :D

[Jiminator]

I wouldn't worry too much over it...your time on earth, the moments you have will be lost in time like tears in the rain, this is true for everything. Kiss your ass goodbye now cause tomorrow you may not get the chance.

you might have missed something in my comments...

[NutWrench]

This thread needs moar UFOs.

[ZuljinRaynor]

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4120/xcomufodefense.jpg

KILLZ TEH ALIUNZ

[Pansa]

Aha, but the Earth's mass was not immediately static. As more matter came together, Earth's rate of rotation would've changed (and it's still changing).

And I'm just being a bastard now, cuz that element of the debate really never bothered me one way or the other. Just pointing it out though... :D

what are you on about, hes god? Don't at your sience shmiance into my world creation^^.

I still maintain that " a day" is just a specific measure of time, and therefor the definition of that increment can at any later time be used to reference that timespan. As in 24 hours. Its not like he is anouncing before hand, that he is going to take 7 days.
Like you would tell an alien: "i believe my god created everything in the timespan that it takes my planet 6 times to revolve around itself"

[Ironside]

The universe is teaming with intelligent humanoids who become in themselves gods of creation. the universe or god if you will, made it possible for the whole show to be spawned again and again and again and again etc, etc. Intelligent life IS the sexual organs of the universe and it dose spawn many many many many children.

[wayskobfssae]

The universe is teaming with intelligent humanoids who become in themselves gods of creation. the universe or god if you will, made it possible for the whole show to be spawned again and again and again and again etc, etc. Intelligent life IS the sexual organs of the universe and it dose spawn many many many many children.

wat http://www.fragglerockforever.com/blank.gif

[Ironside]

You must connect to the consciousness of god/the multiverse. Humanoids can do this quite well. You will find other beings there, think of them as angles. /passes the dmt tea.

[wayskobfssae]

You must connect to the consciousness of god/the multiverse. Humanoids can do this quite well. You will find other beings there, think of them as angles. /passes the dmt tea.

Will they appear as acute, obtuse, or right angles?

[Ironside]

that was a typo so I went with it.

[Sang]

what a nice topic^^

[Mikko Sandt]

what a nice topic^^

A playground for religious and UFO nuts. Now all we need is a few conspiracy nuts, the worst of the entire bunch of nuts.

[wayskobfssae]

A playground for religious and UFO nuts. Now all we need is a few conspiracy nuts, the worst of the entire bunch of nuts.

And that would make the skeptics.... nutcrackers?

[Ironside]

t least you can talk about in here without anyone going too far out there. The net is full of bullshit, some very well presented bullshit too at times and I cant hardly stand this topic in most forums but everyone here seems level headed enough to have a decent conversation.

[Hudson]

*puts on his robe and wizard cap*

[DerricktheW]

So... whatever happened with this UFO announcement?

Not to derail this derailed thread.

[Jiminator]

they obviously meant nov 12 2010

[DerricktheW]

Nov 12th is the new Oct 14th

[Duke's New Chainsaw]

I'm tired of them delaying it every year!!!!

:flame:

[Steve]

It's...it's like DNF all over again man!

[Duke's New Chainsaw]

I know!

:(

[Rapture_Rising]

they're laughing at us

[Ironside]

least they could do is give us a screenshot.

[Duke's New Chainsaw]

I bet it would be fake.

[wayskobfssae]

Not to derail this derailed thread.

It didn't derail. It evolved.

[Ironside]

Im sure there is Alien Police that police the galaxy that make sure there is no hostile takeovers of inhabited planets. They could blow up stars if they wanted too. They would watch us and help us but destroy us? No. It would be like destroying a very rare fruit tree non existent anywhere else. Im sure they have/will help us attain tech that would change the world forever. Like the microwave? Who invented that?

[Steve]

Like the microwave? Who invented that?

I know. IT'S LIKE A MOTHERFUXING MYSTERY, RIGHT?!

:eek:

[Ironside]

Oh yeah I forgot to say that my mates were out camping and everyone there saw a ufo, my good mate wasn't that surprised cuz we have seen them before but he was glad that a few other people seen it this time. Everyone that came back believes they saw something out of this world. :dopefish:

---------- Post added at 09:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

I know. IT'S LIKE A MOTHERFUXING MYSTERY, RIGHT?!

:eek:

well it was until i googled it.

[Rider]

Nov 12th is the new Oct 14th

Why, what was on Oct 14th? Y'know, besides my birthday... ;)

[Jiminator]

until there is proof otherwise, inter-galactic space travel is just a fantasy :)

[wayskobfssae]

until there is proof otherwise, inter-galactic space travel is just a fantasy :)

It could just be inter-planetary... :D

[prophecy holder]

until there is proof otherwise, inter-galactic space travel is just a fantasy :)

How else can you explain Rosie O'donald? Must be an alien. ;)

[Jiminator]

exe shared this on another forum, appropriate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE

[Duke's New Chainsaw]

ZOMG!! (http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93237?fp=1) :eek:

[Rapture_Rising]

WTF was that. According to the news article i saw this on, thousands of people reported this to the authorities. the video looks legit but some photos look like they have been faked.

[Jokke_r]

It's a failed launch of an experimental russian intercontinental ballistic missile called Bulava http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava which is designed to circumvent any sort of missile shield the US has, unfortunately the Bulava ICBM has not had a good track record so far.

The missile in question was fired from a nuclear sub outside the coast of Norway but failed during the third stage and began spewing out fuel which caused the rocket so spiral out of control. The strange spiral shape is caused by ejected fuel being vaporized in the low pressure atmosphere, it's illuminated by the sun from behind the horizon (sunrise was only an hour after this incident).

The Russians have confirmed the test and warnings were passed out for ships in the area prior to the launch.

In other words: Nothing to see here, move along.

Here's a visualization:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx8i5EfmYU4

[Rapture_Rising]

Thats one explanation, But if you look at the video, the object in question is to stable to be a out of control Russian rocket as the sprials were to perfect, If the rocket exploded where is the big fireball? in the video it just dissappears leaving a huge smoke ring. Why wasnt the object getting larger as the rocket would have been traveling towards the cameraman?

I am not saying i believe that this is truly a UFO but some possible explainations are more ridiculous then the possibility of alien life somewhere in the universe.

Anyway, this video leaves more questions then answers.

[KaiserSoze]

The Hadron collider was just fired up a few days ago as well I do believe. Coincidence?

There are many scientists who believe(d) that the collider would end up creating things like black holes, etc.

I'm not buying the "failed missile" story either.

[Jokke_r]

Don't even bother, people smarter than you and me have already concluded that this is the case, all the evidence points towards it. Also it would not be getting bigger seeing as it's high up in the upper atmosphere, it's a huge spiral and it could be seen from some hundred miles away. The upper atmosphere is extremely low pressure and therefore wind is minimal, the spiral would therefore not be disturbed. Also you can't say the object is too stable to be an out of control rocket, how can you know that? you're an expert on rockets are you now? I doubt it, also the rocket didn't explode, also why would there have been a huge fireball? There was no warhead on it and it was on it's third stage meaning there was not that much fuel left, and that which was left was being leaked out from the side. And of course it will just disappear when the fuel inside the rocket has all been ejected the spiral will quickly vanish as the vapor/gas quickly dissipates in the low pressure environment.

---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 PM ----------

The Hadron collider was just fired up a few days ago as well I do believe. Coincidence?

There are many scientists who believe(d) that the collider would end up creating things like black holes, etc.

I'm not buying the "failed missile" story either.

Please, that is retarded. Why would an underground proton collision in Switzerland cause a black hole in the upper atmosphere in northern Norway?
Besides there is no evidence for a black hole seeing as all the evidence points to the rocket. ALSO, nothing that will occur in the LHC will be any different than what happens REGULARLY in the upper atmosphere when high energy cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, the only difference is that the LHC does it in a controlled environment which we are able to monitor.

Seriously people, skepticism doesn't mean you discard the official scientifically agreed upon theory and without question believe the most ridiculous retarded theory that's out there. Skepticism goes both ways. Also even if we didn't have the undeniable evidence for the rocket it would still be the most logical explanation.

[Ironside]

Um, the portal/wormhole that was opened in the video was awesome, well done aliens bravo. Any comments about how the video is stupid and fake will be met with a ignored post, face it the video is cool.

[Jokke_r]

Um, the portal/wormhole that was opened in the video was awesome, well done aliens bravo. Any comments about how the video is stupid and fake will be met with a ignored post, face it the video is cool.

Huh? The video is not fake, all the material is real, but what you're seeing is not a portal or anything, it's just dissipating gases. Anyone with a High School physics education should be able to quite easily explain that light phenomenon as dissipating fuel vapor/gas from a spinning rocket in high altitude.

[Ironside]

No we choose to believe it was of extraterrestrial origin but appreciate your flinging attempt to stay in the 20th century. :)

[Jokke_r]

I'm having a hard time to determine if you're serious or not, I've seen people with crazier ideas who were dead serious. Choosing to believe anything is the completely wrong approach to everything. It's illogical and will most often than not lead to falsehoods.
I can choose to believe in pink unicorns but that doesn't make it any more true.

The evidence speaks for itself.

[Rapture_Rising]

It was a UFO, Im saying that its NOT little green men coming to observe our planet but it is still unidentified flying object, Alien or manmade we will never know.

But you are probably right with the rocket.

Rocket or UFO there is no denying that its still a cool video and would have been awesome to see.

[Jokke_r]

But it's not unidentified, we know what it is, we know who launched it and from where and we know what went wrong we know the physics involved in the phenomena. Nothing about this is unknown or unidentified.

I do believe that there is or has been or will be extraterrestrial life in the universe on other planets, but i do not believe that they have ever visited us simply because of physical limitation or even the probability that they existed near enough to us to travel here or even in remotely the same time span as humans have existed. Faster than light travel is not allowed within special relativity, it has to do with the fundamental concepts of space and time, in which one way to look at it is that the reason why objects with mass cannot reach the speed of light is because EVERYTHING in the universe is already moving at the speed of light, massive objects just take a bit longer route through the 4th dimension whereas massless particles/waves like photons don't move in the 4th dimension therefore achieving the ultimate speed limit which is one unit of space per unit of time, seeing as space-time posits that space and time are the same, interchangeable then traditional measurements of speed being distance/time doesn't really tell the whole picture, if space is time and time is space then there can only be one speed which everything moves at, they only appear moving at different speeds since we're looking at 4 dimensional motion in three dimensions.

However, i do accept the possibility that an old derelict alien spacecraft which might have been drifting through space for maybe thousands of years might have sometime crashed on our planet even if the probability is ASTRONOMICALLY small.

[Ironside]

Dude you need to catch up, traveling from point a to point b in a straight line is not how it works. Do you not know of wormholes? They are a natural occurrence in the universe and connect the fabrics of space that are folds and layers. Someday in the distant future man would have figured out to control wormholes to travel through. Did you know that we have recently already begun our investigation of these elusive wormholes?

[Jokke_r]

There is no conclusive evidence that wormhole travel is possible let alone that they exist in reality other than some mathematical calculations on a whiteboard.

[Ironside]

They exist. When will you realize that our galaxy is teaming with life? Quantum physics and super heavy atomic elements will bring us to gravity manipulation which is the secret to interstellar travel. Cant you see around the corner at what were about to achieve?

[Jokke_r]

it's not about "seeing" it's about knowing the facts. The probability that alien life has visited out planet is extremely small people have actually done the math on this. Probability of planets that support life in a solar system, probability that the life is intelligent, probability that they have achieved space travel, probability that they live near us to travel here, probability that they even exist remotely within the same time span as humans. As you can see the probability becomes smaller and smaller. So it's not for me to realize anything, it's for you to realize that reality is not like star trek.

Also you have no evidence at all to be able to conclude that super heavy elements will unlock gravity manipulation, that's again just sci-fi, it has no bearing in reality, just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. We don't even understand how gravity works or what it is. You definitely need a reality check.

[Ironside]

they dont have to live near us to travel here. you should catch up in the ufology verse then you would be better armed at appearing smarter then everyone.

[Jokke_r]

Hah ufology, thats funny. People like you don't think about this scientifically, it's like a religion.

[Dopefish7590]

There is a HUGE difference between speculation of odds and religion... Don't confuse the two.

Also you have no evidence at all to be able to conclude that super heavy elements will unlock gravity manipulation, that's again just sci-fi, it has no bearing in reality, just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. We don't even understand how gravity works or what it is. You definitely need a reality check.

Actually, we do know scientifically what and how gravity works... It is a molecular force that is very tiny, the more mass an object has, the stronger this force becomes... This is due to the fact that there are more particles that have this force. There is even a formula to calculate the gravitational pull between two objects. (Can't remember it off the top of my head though)

Also, considering how vast the universe is, can you honestly say that the probability of there being alien life is ridiculous with a straight face? Do you think the universe has walls and once you hit them you will just "bounce off" or something? (Augh! Invalid player space!) Maybe loop back somewhere? You have no proof they don't exist. And the probability of them existing in something as infinite as space are much higher than you would think...

[Ironside]

There are some true nuts in ufology, its not even a part time thing for me I just entertain the thought that science is the universal language and there are a number of other worlds and species to discover. Its no big deal but the video posted earlier in this thread is the type of stuff that makes it all interesting. Its a shame cuz the video tech these days people can create lots of hoaxes but one thing to look out for is a number of disinformation links on the same subject like we seen today with the luminescent spiral clouds over Norway. Have you noticed the disinformation game thats been playing with this one? There is some serious people out there posting non stop BS links on this one. Thats a tel tale sign that the men in black are trying to smother this in BS. To me thats interesting. Major Kudos to chainsaw for the link, RussiaToday is a great source of news.

[Pansa]

They exist. When will you realize that our galaxy is teaming with life? Quantum physics and super heavy atomic elements will bring us to gravity manipulation which is the secret to interstellar travel. Cant you see around the corner at what were about to achieve?

you said they are a natural occurance. which they technicly are, in a "shroedingers cat way", but NOT in the usual use of the word.

in the usual definition of "occurance" its not enough to postulate the technical posibility. especialy if later the postulate gets reduce to "instant process that not even light passes through".

Btw everytime i read about this whole stupid "faster than light = timetravel"
i don't get it.
the LOGICAL argument there always only implies that things moving that fast don'T move as fast into the future than than everything else, but technicly that is NOT the same as moving back in time, because i have never seen any logical argument for you to arrive prior to your departure, only "less later" than the rest.

anyone else who HAD that problem?

There is a HUGE difference between speculation of odds and religion... Don't confuse the two.
Actualy there is little to NO difference ^^.
Because you can basicly calculate the odds of the major religions to be "partly true".

There IS a chance that everything we observe is just a cruel rat maze joke.
And im not even shure which is higher, the chance that we find wormholes that have lifespans beyond any measurable time? or the chance that we find the secret door out of the matrix (or into heaven, or valhalla).

thats an issue alot of mediocre scientists don'T get... their believe structure rivals religions in method. because more often enough people confuse indications with proof. its still a better religion because it at least moves with the times, if something "unwanted" is actualy introduced LONG enough to survive its initial high profile critics.
But in the end, practical science (as opposed to the theoretical concept of science) often is as systimaticaly tainted by illogical behavior than religions, although not as harsh.

im reposting a link for an example :
http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.ht ml


Also, considering how vast the universe is, can you honestly say that the probability of there being alien life is ridiculous with a straight face? Do you think the universe has walls and once you hit them you will just "bounce off" or something? (Augh! Invalid player space!) Maybe loop back somewhere? You have no proof they don't exist. And the probability of them existing in something as infinite as space are much higher than you would think...he didn'T argue the existence of alien life... he actualy believes in that.
what he NOT believes in is the intersection of our conciesness and theirs.
due to the limited reach and comparably blip-like timeframe that is our existence.

i know you people CAN read... why did you stop recently. (and that goes for jokker as well ^^

[Tang Lung]

There are some true nuts in ufology, its not even a part time thing for me I just entertain the thought that science is the universal language and there are a number of other worlds and species to discover. Its no big deal but the video posted earlier in this thread is the type of stuff that makes it all interesting. Its a shame cuz the video tech these days people can create lots of hoaxes but one thing to look out for is a number of disinformation links on the same subject like we seen today with the luminescent spiral clouds over Norway. Have you noticed the disinformation game thats been playing with this one? There is some serious people out there posting non stop BS links on this one. Thats a tel tale sign that the men in black are trying to smother this in BS. To me thats interesting. Major Kudos to chainsaw for the link, RussiaToday is a great source of news.

Anytime the governments of the world have tried to cover anything up they always failed miserably. What makes you think they have gotten *more* competent than before?

[Jokke_r]

Also a good quote i heard in a star trek enterprise episode, There's a difference between being open minded and believeing in something because you want it to be true.

[wayskobfssae]

Hah ufology, thats funny. People like you don't think about this scientifically, it's like a religion.

Debunkology "Practicing science for the sole purpose of disproving any idea that was not conceived via the scientific method" is a religion in denial. :p

P.S. As I said before, there are already life forms on this planet that science doesn't classify as being alive. And we're supposed to just take your word on what the odds are of other planets being capable of sustaining life?

[Jokke_r]

Debunkology "Practicing science for the sole purpose of disproving any idea that was not conceived via the scientific method" is a religion in denial. :p

P.S. As I said before, there are already life forms on this planet that science doesn't classify as being alive. And we're supposed to just take your word on what the odds are of other planets being capable of sustaining life?


I'm not out simply to try and debunk people. But if the person making a claim doesn't have testable evidence for his claim he shouldn't be making the claim in the first place. In the case of the Russian missile there's conclusive evidence for it being a missile, there's even been simulations done within these 3 days to show how a phenomenon like that can occur. What would be the more likely scenario, that it's a failed missile test or that it's a wormhole/blackhole caused by particle collisions in cern/ufo/extra dimensional portal. Especially considering there's no evidence for the latter claims.

In the light of the overwhelming evidence the only way a rational person could think it's a UFO is beacause they WANT it to be a ufo, but thats not how science or any rational person should work. Just because i want money to grow on trees doesn't mean it does, and if i say it does then i need to have some proof that it does, otherwise i'm just spreading ignorant lies if i claim it does.

[Pansa]

P.S. As I said before, there are already life forms on this planet that science doesn't classify as being alive. And we're supposed to just take your word on what the odds are of other planets being capable of sustaining life?

1. could you explain that oxymoron? which life is actualy life without being scientificly called life?

2. the odds of sustaining life on a given planet is the most uninteresting of the qualifiers that jokker posted.
And the numbers are so astrological, that even any specific given number is almost erelevant.

the number is afaik even higher than 2 specific people meeting in the whole of newyork via shouting... the question whether there are 2 or even 4 or 5 people in the whole of New York isn'T realy changing the problem..

we have a pretty good idea where in our vicinity there are no inteligent radiowaves, and even the most benevolent extrapolation to the rest, combined with the other factors still yields implausible numbers.

a needle in a haystack isn't found significantly easier if its not one , but 5 ...

even if you assume that the factors qualifying for "life" are more ambivalent than estimated (for instance you could argue that "dead" planets that couldn'T sustain OUR form of carbonbased life couldn'T exist, hypothetical others could. But the analogous higher molecules that could do that are more rare since they aren'T produced as readily by stars.
and we have a pretty good idea about THAT.

[Rapture_Rising]

I'm not out simply to try and debunk people. But if the person making a claim doesn't have testable evidence for his claim he shouldn't be making the claim in the first place. In the case of the Russian missile there's conclusive evidence for it being a missile, there's even been simulations done within these 3 days to show how a phenomenon like that can occur. What would be the more likely scenario, that it's a failed missile test or that it's a wormhole/blackhole caused by particle collisions in cern/ufo/extra dimensional portal. Especially considering there's no evidence for the latter claims.

In the light of the overwhelming evidence the only way a rational person could think it's a UFO is beacause they WANT it to be a ufo, but thats not how science or any rational person should work. Just because i want money to grow on trees doesn't mean it does, and if i say it does then i need to have some proof that it does, otherwise i'm just spreading ignorant lies if i claim it does.

Firstly... If it was a missile or rocket booster then why couldnt we see either the booster making the spiral (if the sun was illuminating the vapors it would of also illuminated the booster).

I dont believe its of alien origin but i dont believe it was a russian rocket.

Secondly... What overwhelming evidece? Has the russian military officially released a document saying that it was their missile? (and why was it going over land?).

I remember seeing a UFO flying over my house and the official explaination given by authorities was that kids lit garbage bags and released them into the atmosphere.

Its not necessarily the truth but it was the easiest explaination and avoids embarrassment by not admitting that they can't explain what people were seeing.

[Pansa]

Firstly... If it was a missile or rocket booster then why couldnt we see either the booster making the spiral (if the sun was illuminating the vapors it would of also illuminated the booster).

because liquids evaporating under pressure create a vastly bigger volume than a metalic cylinder.
the same way you see mostly the exhaust. after a certain altitude with commercial rocket launches...
http://www.meta-evolutions.de/images/holiday/reisebericht-usa-space-shuttle-start-sts-100-x.jpeg
and this is already taken with a zoom.
if people are real, why can't you count them from the moon?

I dont believe its of alien origin but i dont believe it was a russian rocket.

Secondly... What overwhelming evidece? Has the russian military officially released a document saying that it was their missile? (and why was it going over land?).

I remember seeing a UFO flying over my house and the official explaination given by authorities was that kids lit garbage bags and released them into the atmosphere.

Its not necessarily the truth but it was the easiest explaination and avoids embarrassment by not admitting that they can't explain what people were seeing.
well if your ufo actualy looked like brurning garbage bags, than its a reasonable explanation.

if the description is mirrored by a simulation of the explanation, its unreasonable to assume otherwise.
the simulation jokker posted imho is abolutly convincing, a straight boosted object with a steady circular leak would create such a spiral.

whereas there is no specific knowledge or evidence why that any other explanation would yield such a pattern.

on the same notion you could argue that your bath drain is a portal into another dimension due to the swirl it creates.. because your teacher lied to you that this happens due to physics...

not saying anything else is impossible, but the wavefuntion of this event actualy results in a pretty high probability for this actualy being what the simulation suggests, who this belongs to is another question, but if we could BUILD such an object, its unlikly that an unknown entity build it -.-

i witnessed an unidentified thing in the sky aswell, last winter, there was a very bright spot that was gradualy moving over the sky in the evening .. and it did so for several days, so i wondered and looked whether that was a comet i didn't know about...

then i found that where i life one should be able to see venus due to the constelation for a couple of weeks..
it COULD still be a comet, but if theres a bright light where one is supposed to be, it probably is that.
although it had me rattled a bit ^^

[wayskobfssae]

1. could you explain that oxymoron? which life is actualy life without being scientificly called life?

http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/f/f2/Herpes_simpex_virus.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Life_properties)

[Jokke_r]

http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/f/f2/Herpes_simpex_virus.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Life_properties)

The reason viruses aren't considered alive by some is nothing new, many reasons for this distinction is that somewhere along the line we simply agreed upon certain factors which define life, like cellular structure, metabolism and reproduction to name a few. Viruses don't exactly qualify because they have no cells, no metabolism outside host cells no reproduction outside host cells etc.

But nothing humans define with words has any bearing on what they really are, it doesn't matter, viruses would be the same even if we said they were alive or if we said they weren't. What we classify them as really does not matter in any way. One would think it's the creationist people who would want them not to be classified as alive since they are a prime example of evolution through natural selection. It's kinda like arguing if a waterjet is a boat or not. We say it isn't but then again we invented the word and the meaning and we chose a certain criteria which needs to be met for something to be called a boat even if what they do is similar as they both are vehicles which run on water.

[Pansa]

http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/f/f2/Herpes_simpex_virus.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Life_properties)

thats because you somwhere have to draw a line,

virii aren'T alive, the same way a USB stick is not a processor.
All virii do is inject information into cells, which tells the cell to build "envelopes" and fill them with copies of the information.

virrii have NO interaction with the universe apart from a mechanical "docking" by pure chance, and reacting to docking with a mechanical motion to inject.

A spaceship carrying spores and dropping them on a planet to terraform isn't alive either.
Of course thats just a problem of a definition of an artificial concept we developed, and you COULD argue anything with RNA or DNA should count as LIFE and that wouldn't be realy wrong either. But then you could argue "any kind of perpetual information conservation... And that would kinda make computers alive per definition. which would be insane.
SO i personly tend to lean more to the "virri aren't technicly life" crowd.

BUT... since you used that definition for chances of INTELLIGENT life i would like to discard virii of the table, since they can'T function without "real" life organisms, the way an USB-stick isn'T anything without a REAL computing device.

So yes, you could inflate the number of "life carrying celestial bodys" by incorporating other forms of data procession, but for the question of UFO's and communicating with foreing inteligences, the more philosophical definitions aren'T realy interesting, even if the notion of landing on a planet and not realising that the geological processes there are actualy "living" inteligent mountains gestating over hundrets of thouthands of years and us not realising that, is a pretty cool far out notion of reality ^^

which is a philosophical limitations to our quest for ET anyway.
We fail to aknowledge alot of "information" about our wildlife and actualy the whole biosphere, and thus it wouldn't only suffice to cross paths with a foreign inteligence, but it would have to be as recognisable to us, or measurable, to make us "realise" said inteligence. For instance they would have to have a similiar frame of communication, if they life alot faster or alot slower (especialy the latter) we might just not "see" them.