Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fram
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fram
Otherwise soon Creationism may become mainstream as well, but I have a feeling it will be ATM here for a long time to come.
|
I don't know, Creationism has been mainstream for a long time running, no? So much so that earthlings have yet to agree on what it means to be human. |
Hmm, I think many earthlings (at least of the human kind) agree on what it means to be human, certainly in a biological sense. I think you mix this up with the discussion about what it means to be intelligent, and if we can be called the only intelligent life on Earth. |
Not really, because half the world's population think Mankind was created in "god's image," whether it is Allah, JHVH, or whomever. The other half think we evolved purely from primates and are merely biological machines.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fram
Apart from that: why not? If there may be or have been life on Mars, and since we think evolution is a good theory, then why wouldn't there be life anywhere else? I would be surprised if life on Earth was unique to the universe, but I would also be surprised if we found evidence of life outside the solar system anytime soon. It's a bit of a moot discussion (albeit fascinating because of the almost unlimited speculation one can have).
|
I don't find it to be a moot discussion at all, Fram. We ourselves are now ETs. That reality alone, IMHO, lends validity to ongoing speculation.
But let me ask you this: If you allow the ETH and consider it likely, do you consider earthlings as the "apex" of evolutionary advancement?
Whatever the case, I agree with you in that I'd be surprised, too, if life on earth was unique to the universe. |
I wouldn't call ourselves ET's because twelve men have stood on the Moon. No one is born yet outside the Earth, and noone has really lived there (in a selfsustaining, durable sense). And I don't think that it changes anything in this discussion.
|
Well, the mere fact that either earthlings or their robots have and are visiting other planets qualifies us as ETs. Sure, a fledgling space faring species, but ETs nonetheless.
Quote:
I don't see how your question about evolution follows from the premisse. First of all; i consider it likely that there is extra terrestrial life. I consider it extremely unlikely that there's is seriously developed life in the rest of the solar system though. And I have absolutely no idea if there is any intelligent life apart from us anywhere in our galaxy or in the universe.
But if there is extraterrestrial life, then there is not just 'evolutionary advancement' (which in itself is a misnomer, as evolution isn't necessarily advancing), but there are many independent 'evolutions', each on their own planet or so. So while you can discuss if we are the best animals to have evolved yet on Earth (and I don't think you can make that judgment on all accounts at the same time: some animals live longer, some have better capacities for reproducing, running, seeing, ..., some are better build to survive catastrophies, etcetera), you cannot say anything about us in light of the ETH (which I assume you mean to be the hypothesis that there is extraterrestrial life somewhere).
|
Yes, the ETH is the "extraterrestrial
hypothesis."
But what you appear to missing is the notion of intelligence behind the ETH. You know, the "are
we alone" question?
Whether you'll admit it or not, homo sapiens sapiens, or "thinkg man," is an evolutionary anomolie. You yourself point out some solid examples of "better" evolutionary progress in other animals. So again, it is the "intelligence factor" within the ETH we're considering and "thinking man" is the only observation of a space faring, aka. ET, species we have.
Quote:
|
Anyway, I certainly don't consider us the apex of evolution on earth, as apex implies a finality, a conclusion, and evolution isn't finished.
|
I agree, and because of this, I have difficulty restricting the ETH with modern understanding and/or technology, like so many others do.
Case in point: "Skeptics" can agree the ETH is possible or even likely, but because we earthlings haven't figured out interstellar travel, they restrict the hypothetical ETs' ability to visit earth. They impose
our limitiations on the ETH and dismiss the ancient textual evidence and carvings/depictions, the eyewitness accounts (both ancient and modern), the pics and vids, and more, as absolutely mundane imaginings, misidentifications or what have you.
Befuddling, to say the least.
