Steve Vai is proof of Alien life

Absolutely

well statistically we know more about the universe than we do about the furthest depths of the ocean. So I think it is not only possible, but highly likely.

Carl Sagan is great, one of my favourites. I have a large poster on my room with the "look at that dot" quote



Of course it is just a theory. I am open for anything. Evolution is however the most likely theory to explain the origins of our species.

Evolution is a theory, just like gravity is a theory. But people sometimes have misconceptions of their meanings. Gravity is not just "what goes up must come down". Gravity is space-time and everything that comes with it. It can never be proven, but it's what is most likely with the information that we have. Due to the vagueness in the theory, new information are studied constantly.
There is no way to tell if humans really was 'created' the way we are now through evolution, but we know that evolution is real. We have seen animals evolve to fit new surroundings (due to changes) in closed areas, like the Madagascar. Therefore, in many ways, the theory of evolution is more certain than the theory of gravity, because we have seen every part of the theory happen in real life with our own eyes. It has been observed to be in effect today, like 'everything goes up, must come down'. Gravity is not as certain, yet some people seem to accept the theory of gravity easier than the theory of evolution.
Due to the knowledge then of evolution happening right now, the only logical assumption is to assume that it has been happening forever, and that it is a vital part of nature. That's why you can say that humans and chimpanees must have the same ancestor somewhere back in time, but this of course, can never be proven, as it can not be seen with your own eyes. The only thing you can do, is to look at what we know, and see what makes the most sense with the information that we have. So far, evolution fits everything about the explanation of our origin, but that of course, can never be proven, and might be changed later. The theory of evolution itself however, has been seen with our own eyes, and is not likely to change drastically, but the lines drawn from evolution (how modern species came to be), can never be as certain.
For all we know, we could have been created by a god of some kind, and then evolution has kicked in for other animals, but not humans. We could be descendents from human-looking aliens, we could have evolved from when life created itself, we could be evolved from life spreading to earth from asteroids, etc etc. We can never know for certain how humans and life on earth came to being, - but we have seen species evolve into new species (madagascar for example).

I believe that people beliving blindly in whatever science they believe in, saying it "cannot possibly be wrong", is no better than people beliving blindly in creation, saying it "cannot possibly be wrong". We are all constantly learning.

This post has been edited by Sollesnes: Aug 4 2011, 10:51 AM

+2, the true is in the man

Edit: Double Post.

This post has been edited by MonkeyDAthos: Aug 4 2011, 04:20 PM

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as a hypothesis, an untested idea about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity is has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.


----------------------------------------

The key to the above is 4th paragraph. As more and more testing is being done, the evolutionary theory is becoming more skeptical as to why we are here. Many scientist are turning to the "theory" (by definition) of creation or are trying to marry the two together in Intelligent design.

Either view cannot be proven by science as neither were or are able to be observed. Both views support micro-evolution which can be observed. Past that it is a matter of choosing a belief in one or the other. That takes you into a whole different discussion, depending on what pair of glasses you are looking at the evidence through.

The Theory of Evolution vs. The Theory of Creationism

Neither is fact or scientific law and should not be taught as such.

Ok, no more from me...LOL...

My friends what would we do if we would be able to use not 100% but let's say 25% of the total power of our brain? Levitate? Travel through time? Shapeshift? Re-grow severed limbs?

We are not alone for certain, but that doesn't make alien beings an evil invading race we've been way to brainwhased by TV in my opinion!

I for one, believe that the evolutionary process has gone way beyond the human being but in another place for certain!

As Sinisa said: 'The truth is out there!'

nicely said ,I just wish they would teach this in our schools


what is truth, before we can find it ?

Wisely spoken mate! It varies so much and yet we all believe in a certain idea, regarded as the truth, in respect to each thing or situation we are facing. I found this book called 'The book of ignorance' (I translated it from Romanian, although I don't know if this is the real title in English) you will be amazed if you get to read it, about the how many things we believe are true but for they are actually not.

For instance, while reading that book I just found out that the chameleon changes his color in respect to certain feelings it has (joy, fear, sadness etc) NOT in respect to the environment surrounding it

America is not as stupid as you think, we just don't have the money that we used to have. But not everybody is a mindless zombie. I have one of the best pubic libraries around in my community, Johnson Country Kansas. Our library has everything, and I know what waiting lists often are for checking out items of intellectual merit.



Open questions exist regarding Evolutionary theory, but nothing major is in dispute. Go to any of the Ivy league or top California schools for example, and find me even ONE professor in any of the science departments who would agree that creationism has any scientific basis whatever, or that would have any major dispute with Evolutionary theory. Don't hold your breath looking for one. Maybe you can find one at Oral Roberts, Michele Bachmann's alma mater. Maybe you got that from her. She said that many Noble prize winners believe in creationism. Right! She also does not believe in global warming. Before you ever take what Michele says seriously, always remember....





We physically use 100% of our brains, not just part as some incorrectly say. Now, that does not mean we use them well, but we definitely use them. This is proven with brain imaging, every part of a person's undamaged brain will show electrical activity.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Aug 5 2011, 11:14 AM

Absolutely. Brain imaging also debunks the left brain/right brain creative vs scientific paradigm.

A little OT perhaps but given all the discussion about scientific theory and truth I wonder where people stand viz Karl Popper and falisification?

To me it seems to boil down to "falsifiable" implying you are dealing with a set on which testing is fully possible. The hypothesis that laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe is not falsifiable. However them being uniform on Earth is testable, thus falsifiable. In our human existence, we are forced to have a statistical slant on things, when other possibilities are way out on the tails of the bell curve in our experience, we have to go with them being false, or so.

And generally we will be mostly correct. Sure Newton was not totally correct, but for most practical purposes he was still darn close.

Regarding creationism, that does not even appear anywhere in the bell curve, there is just no scientific basis for it at all, no evidence whatever.

I don't believe in String Theory either by the way, for the same reason. It is sort of like creationism in that way, it is an explanation that can't be proven or disproved, at least as I understand it. I don't consider anything like that to be science, any more than I consider creationism to be science.

Exactly what I was saying we usually live taking some things for certain - shame on me for not being more inquisitive before writing this and thank you for showing it to me