US UFO Sightings Map

[Big Jake]

http://www.mufon.com/

 

[Rickster71]

No, these dumb old aliens are inserting ragged pieces of metal into people, doing a few sexual things, and in general acting like perverts. For decades.

I'd just like to point out.
It was at this point Adam became interested and posted in the thread.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Hmmm... ok... I didn't know that scientific theory was any different than other kind of theory. Dictionary.com doesn't make any distinction that there's different kinds of theories either.

theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun, plural theories.

contemplation or speculation:
the theory that there is life on other planets.

guess or conjecture:
My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.

Idioms
in theory, ideally; hypothetically:
In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t

In essence, a theory is an educated guess or speculation.

From Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Quantum mechanics is also a scientific theory, but without it we couldn't make an MRI work. It is likely that soon integrated circuits will be made with quantum well transistors.

A scientific theory begins as a hypothesis, not a conjecture. A hypothesis is a supposition based on limited evidence, which may be mathematics, like the theory of relativity was.

 

[Big Jake]

From Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Quantum mechanics is also a scientific theory, but without it we couldn't make an MRI work. It is likely that soon integrated circuits will be made with quantum well transistors.

A scientific theory begins as a hypothesis, not a conjecture. A hypothesis is a supposition based on limited evidence, which may be mathematics, like the theory of relativity was.

Your using wiki? Aaaahh... ok. "Well-substaintiated" seems to be someone's idea of a play on words substitution for "proven," so with proven not included in that purported definition, theory would still be... theory... a guess.

But I'm getting the impression that... loose wiki interpretation of what a theory is, is being pushed because I implied evolution was a theory.

Well, I suppose I could save a lot of people a lot of time if they want to further their agenda that evolution is somehow a proven fact and want me to believe it, when I believe for good reason, it is not, and that my friends will never change, unless of course someday someone actually does find irrefutable, undeniable proof. That will be a rich man/lady, and he'll change the history of the world. Hasn't happened yet.

That is my "opinion" and nothing more, as is your's, and we're all entitled to our opinions.

 

[Adam]

Jake, the word "theory" in science does indeed mean something different than the common usage of the word. It is far from a "guess." A "hypothesis" in science is a guess, albeit an educated one, and a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested multiple times and not disproved. So, a theory is not proven, but is something that has yet to be disproved after multiple tests. Scientific "laws" are beyond theories in that they are generally regarded to be the "truth" - at least for a specific set of conditions. For example, "F=ma" is considered a law and became one before people realized that it did not universally apply. It does, however, apply to a lot of things in a lot of situations and is still considered a law.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Your using wiki? Aaaahh... ok. "Well-substaintiated" seems to be someone's idea of a play on words substitution for "proven," so with proven not included in that purported definition, theory would still be... theory... a guess.

But I'm getting the impression that... loose wiki interpretation of what a theory is, is being pushed because I implied evolution was a theory.

Well, I suppose I could save a lot of people a lot of time if they want to further their agenda that evolution is somehow a proven fact and want me to believe it, when I believe for good reason, it is not, and that my friends will never change, unless of course someday someone actually does find irrefutable, undeniable proof. That will be a rich man/lady, and he'll change the history of the world. Hasn't happened yet.

That is my "opinion" and nothing more, as is your's, and we're all entitled to our opinions.

It's not a play on words, and I used a quote only so you wouldn't think the definition was my opinion. A scientific theory is not a guess, again, it is a hypothesis based on evidence. "Well-substantiated" means the theory's predicted outcomes have been proven by observed evidence. You obviously don't like it, but there is irrefutable, undeniable proof of the correctness of evolution.

Why is it that relativity is an acceptable theory, but evolution isn't? Or are you thinking relativity was just a guess too?

 

[Big Jake]

If something has been proven, then it's no longer a theory, it is a conclusion based on fact.

Acceptable, as in many believe it, no more proves a theory as fact than purporting something to be true makes it true fact.

I have never seen proof of evolution. I have seen adaptation attempting to be passed off as evolution, but that's apples and oranges. The "missing link" is still missing.

There is no proof of where "life" came from on this planet, none, period. All scientists will agree on that, and there's no proof at all that by some luck of chance DNA arranged itself into a living thing in a primordial ooze all by itself in a random fashion. Life was brought here, one way or the other, it was deposited here.

That is my belief, however contrary to what others here may believe. And again, I have seen things that are not of this world, but I get the impression now that some here would call me nuts.

I didn't mean to cause a stir so, maybe I'll just bow out of this conversation.

 

[Irvrobinson]

If something has been proven, then it's no longer a theory, it is a conclusion based on fact.

Acceptable, as in many believe it, no more proves a theory as fact than purporting something to be true makes it true fact.

I have never seen proof of evolution. I have seen adaptation attempting to be passed off as evolution, but that's apples and oranges. The "missing link" is still missing.

There is no proof of where "life" came from on this planet, none, period. All scientists will agree on that, and there's no proof at all that by some luck of chance DNA arranged itself into a living thing in a primordial ooze all by itself in a random fashion. Life was brought here, one way or the other, it was deposited here.

That is my belief, however contrary to what others here may believe. And again, I have seen things that are not of this world, but I get the impression now that some here would call me nuts.

I didn't mean to cause a stir so, maybe I'll just bow out of this conversation.

Jake, you're just plain incorrect, though not about the part regarding life possibly originating elsewhere. That is still on ongoing area of study, but your assertion that life was brought here is just a guess. It's not a scientific theory, because your guess isn't based on any evidence or a well-reasoned hypothesis, you're just an evolution denier.

Where you get into the just plain wrong area is where you say that when a scientific theory has been proven it is no longer a theory. To bring up the relativity example again, relativity is still called a theory, even though it has been proven again and again. Einstein used the theory to make predictions about the observable universe that could only be explained by the mathematics of relativity. Precise predictions of how light would be bent by stars, red-shifting... do a search yourself and read about it. The proof of relativity is a fascinating story. Relativity is an incredibly well-tested theory, yet the scientific community still calls it a theory. Evolution is just like that.

You've seen adaptation passed off as evolution? Just what do you think evolution is? The only difference between relativity and evolution is that relativity is not perceived as a threat to someone's faith.

 

[Adam]

Jake, no need to bow out, man. It's a good discussion. You just weren't correct about how science defines a theory, that's all, and my post was to help out with that.

 

[Big Jake]

Jake, you're just plain incorrect, though not about the part regarding life possibly originating elsewhere. That is still on ongoing area of study, but your assertion that life was brought here is just a guess. It's not a scientific theory, because your guess isn't based on any evidence or a well-reasoned hypothesis, you're just an evolution denier.

Where you get into the just plain wrong area is where you say that when a scientific theory has been proven it is no longer a theory. To bring up the relativity example again, relativity is still called a theory, even though it has been proven again and again. Einstein used the theory to make predictions about the observable universe that could only be explained by the mathematics of relativity. Precise predictions of how light would be bent by stars, red-shifting... do a search yourself and read about it. The proof of relativity is fascinating story. Relativity is an incredibly well-tested theory, yet the scientific community still calls it a theory. Evolution is just like that.

You've seen adaptation passed off as evolution? Just what do you think evolution is? The only difference between relativity and evolution is that relativity is not perceived as a threat to someone's faith.

Well... see... "evolution denier" isn't an uncommon thing. There are millions of people the world over that believe the same as I do, and they would say "YOU" are wrong, so it's a never ending debate. I could just as easily turn around and call you a "creation denier," or "transplanting denier," but that really gets us nowhere to start calling names.

To say I believe that life was brought here is a guess, yes, but an educated guess, because no one, of any persuasion, scientific or otherwise, can definitively say where life came from or how it began, but, they do know that life as we know it, did NOT just magically start from nothing here on earth, which began as a molten blob of rock floating through space. Nothing could live here. It had to get here somehow... some theories an asteroid.

 

[walter duque]

We are the aliens, they just happen to place us here on planet earth. Now and then they just come to check on us to see how they did. Doesn't look good.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Well... see... "evolution denier" isn't an uncommon thing. There are millions of people the world over that believe the same as I do, and they would say "YOU" are wrong, so it's a never ending debate. I could just as easily turn around and call you a "creation denier," or "transplanting denier," but that really gets us nowhere to start calling names.

To say I believe that life was brought here is a guess, yes, but an educated guess, because no one, of any persuasion, scientific or otherwise, can definitively say where life came from or how it began, but, they do know that life as we know it, did NOT just magically start from nothing here on earth, which began as a molten blob of rock floating through space. Nothing could live here. It had to get here somehow... some theories an asteroid.

I am a creation denier, Jake. You know, the intelligent design aspect of it. There's no question about it, but I'm not a panspermia denier. I'm equally comfortable with it being correct or incorrect, but proof that panspermia has occurred hasn't been discovered yet. The only evidence that it's a theory worth pursuing is possible bacterial fossils in meteorites. Even if those fossils really are from extraterrestrial bacteria, that doesn't lead to a conclusion that panspermia is correct. The fossils just could be proof of life elsewhere.

Let's be clear about one thing, evolution does not explain how life began. It does not explain how inanimate chemicals became life. There are other theories about that, and they are unproven. No one I'm aware of has ever created life from lifelessness. On the other hand, there have been experiments performed that have produced some interesting indicators as results, and biologists have only been trying for decades. It might take centuries to make completely artificial life, or it may never happen. To be honest, I'm hoping it doesn't happen in my lifetime, because the sociological problems that discovery would cause scare me. (I'm also hoping that there really aren't aliens among us, or that we get we visited by any in the future. Chances are the encounter wouldn't turn out well for us.)

 

[Adam]

...they do know that life as we know it, did NOT just magically start from nothing here on earth, which began as a molten blob of rock floating through space. Nothing could live here. It had to get here somehow... some theories an asteroid.

To state the obvious, an asteroid would have started as a...wait for it...molten blob of rock floating through space. Or just a piece of a molten blob that had cooled and then broken off. To say that one molten blob could have life "magically" start on it, but that it was impossible for another to have done that, seems a little off. Okay, a lot off.

Plus, to say that nothing could live here is going well beyond your ability to prove anything. I'm not against your beliefs, but given your comments about theories and guesses, they shouldn't be stated as facts anymore than some other belief.

 

[Irvrobinson]

To state the obvious, an asteroid would have started as a...wait for it...molten blob of rock floating through space. Or just a piece of a molten blob that had cooled and then broken off. To say that one molten blob could have life "magically" start on it, but that it was impossible for another to have done that, seems a little off. Okay, a lot off.

Plus, to say that nothing could live here is going well beyond your ability to prove anything. I'm not against your beliefs, but given your comments about theories and guesses, they shouldn't be stated as facts anymore than some other belief.

I was thinking about what Jake said, and it is nonsensical. Life didn't appear on earth when it was a molten blob of rock, there wasn't any life on earth for about 700 million years after it was formed, according to the latest evidence, which gave the planet at least a little time to cool down a bit. And "they know" that life just didn't magically appear here? Actually, that's exactly what the mainstream theory is.

 

[lsiberian]

Humans love to think they are the center of the universe, the center of the solar system and the pinnacle of evolution. It's almost a mathematical certainty we aren't. How many planets are there? I'm betting there are more evolved species than us as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they studied us. We'd do the same if we found beings on another planet.

 

[shadyJ]

Why is it when people see something strange they assume the most improbable scenario about it? And notice one thing about all these paranormal phenomena, these people project an intelligence onto whatever the cause is, whether it is a spooky ghost or alien or angel or demon. People have some need to assign a will onto whatever is happening, which is a story as old as humankind. It basically animism, like the first religions. It must be some kind of instinctual predisposition. Whatever the weird phenomenon, it's never a quirk of physics or chemistry, no, it's always something someone else is doing to you. Notice how that makes the witnesses the center of something or somehow special.

And no, aliens aren't visiting us, sorry. There is no way aliens would even know about us. We have only been projecting radio waves off of the planet for what, 80 years? How many planets lay in a 80 LY radius? And at 80 light years, those waves may be indistinguishable from background noise anyway. As far as travel goes, there isn't even any practical theory about how one can sustain near-light speeds, let alone exceed them. It is really looking like the speed of light is a genuine limit of the universe, and if so, we will very likely never meet any extraterrestrial life. It's also extremely probable that, in the remote extreme odds that we do meet extraterrestrial life, it will be just bacterial mats or microbes. Keep in mind that for the majority of Earth's history, life was just bacteria. It wasn't until relatively recently that life started to get into multicellular structures, let alone things like hands and feet.

Truly, profoundly strange things exist, enormously curious things, but they do not go 'Boo!' at you.

 

[herbu]

To say that one molten blob could have life "magically" start on it, but that it was impossible for another to have done that, seems a little off.

Quite insightful. Frankly, I never understood the claimed disparity between evolution and creation. Why does f=ma? Why does e=mc2? Where did all the natural laws come from? Truths have been simply explained with the use of parables forever. That the story itself is just a story does not mean the point it illustrates is not true.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Quite insightful. Frankly, I never understood the claimed disparity between evolution and creation. Why does f=ma? Why does e=mc2? Where did all the natural laws come from? Truths have been simply explained with the use of parables forever. That the story itself is just a story does not mean the point it illustrates is not true.

The disparity between evolution and creation is that creation begs the question, "Where did the creator come from?" The notion that an intelligence, especially a super-intelligence, could just always be or just sprung into existence fully formed runs counter to a theory based on evolving increasing sophistication. It is tempting for some to say that evolution is just a process the creator kicked off, but two more conflicting strategies would be difficult to imagine.

 

[Big Jake]

Well, I've been called a denier and told my comments are nonsensical.

I can see engaging with this "we know everything and if you disagree you're stupid" crowd was a mistake. I should hope that some day I'm half as smart as some here.

I'm out.

“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.”
― Mark Twain

 

[Hobbit]

I'm waiting for the probability that the next item I drop doesn't go towards the floor. Thus debunking the theory of gravity and proving theory of quantum mechanics is easily seen on a macro scale.