Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 21, 2014, 02:21:24 PM
537866 Posts in 40717 Topics by 5125 Members
Latest Member: racarbajalshond
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Do you believe in... ALIENS? « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: Do you believe in... ALIENS?  (Read 3099 times)
Writer
Guest
« Reply #45 on: February 15, 2005, 10:15:23 PM »

Maintenance is not the same thing as an upgrade. Just as no monkey ever gave birth to a human, no human will ever give birth to a superhuman.

If all of life is, in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary, a mere amalgam of complicated chemicals brought together through a series of events so improbable as to be statistically impossible, then your assessment of the word's meaning is even truer than you know. Of course, according to materialism, "truth" itself is rendered meaningless, so I'm necessarily speaking from my own supernatural position when I mention truth and falsehood.

If "life" is just a word, however, you should know that you've just declared that you aren't living. If you want to have rights to help you keep the life you've just declared null and void with your argument, I suggest you rethink your philosophy!

Concerning evolution by aliens, the problem with this explanation with life's origins is so obvious that a mere child could see it. Naturally, you and I and practically everyone else see it, too: someone or something has to generate the generators. Since the universe itself has also been generated, I can only believe that an infinite and eternal generator has generated it all, and that if there are any space aliens, they are likewise subservient to this generator.
Logged
Wence
Guest
« Reply #46 on: February 16, 2005, 10:19:02 AM »

Writer,
now I understand what you ment with "upgrading".

I see that you misanderstood the evolution theory a little bit, and I think this point is very important.

So you see the evolution like that: right from monkey to human, from mammut to elephant???

that´s not evolution!!!  Changes go slow, very slow and there are many little changes before a new species is developed.
And you have to keep in mind: the definition of "SPECIES" is what we humans define - like Mammuts and Elephants are different species because we say that they are different species.

Another very important point is, that in all these 5 Billion years an unbelievable amount of lifeforms existed.  But we find only a few fossils and remains of these life once existed.
For the fossils are very few it is surely a "upgrade" from taung to neanderthals. But it just only seems so.  
A Taung never gave directly birth to a Neanderthal - that´s silly!
Logged
Wence
Guest
« Reply #47 on: February 16, 2005, 10:29:00 AM »

And that with the word "LIFE".

I didn´t declare that I am not living just because I said that "Life" is only a word.

The problemis much deeper and you will giveme right when you look at the fact that scientists have a problem in defining viruses as dead matter or lifeforms, because viruses stands on the fringe of what we define as life

- you see, it´s a word - a word that must be defined.
Logged
Writer
Guest
« Reply #48 on: February 16, 2005, 08:46:26 PM »

To the contrary, I'm well aware that evolutionists have thrown out the original picture of evolution which involved a "ladder of life" model in which primitive creatures slowly evolve into more complicated creatures. In fact, many of them now portray evolution more as a "bush" model in which species branch out in all different directions, some getting more complex, some less so.

The kind of evolution you describe is gradualism, which asserts that species evolve more-or-less one mutation at a time. You are, I presume, aware of the challenge to this model from punctuated equilibrium? Either way, though, these explanations assert that all of this complicated life you see around you, including humans, is the product of a single-celled organism that somehow came together out of a bunch of organic chemicals (so-called "primordial soup") even though the odds against that first cell's formation are 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

Leaving alone these astronomically impossible odds for the moment, the evolutionist's assertion is that through mutations and symbiotic relationships, those cells somehow became humans. While there's definitely some internecine debate about how many stages this is supposed to have involved, it remains that evolutionists of all stripes are indeed asserting that various species gave birth to others.

I'm well aware, too, that you think the blurring of the definitions of life and non-life still leaves some things clearly defined as life and others equally clearly defined as non-life. The problem is that if the definition of life is nothing more than a human distinction, that definition is nothing more than an opinion, easily ignored and rejected. If life has no meaning beyond what humans assign to it, then life has no meaning at all. It's fair enough to say the word has no meaning in itself: after all, other languages use other words for this concept.

So far as I could see, though, you were attacking the concept itself. Life is nothing more than a human-generated difference? Seems to me you're saying life is just a word, nothing more. If there weren't any human to speak the word, there wouldn't be any life. I merely take the next step in this logic and point out that if there is no concept that exists independent of human (or, for that matter, extraterrestrial) consciousness, then the word does not apply to anything meaningful and therefore there is no life.

This is a variation on an ancient philosophical paradox: a philosopher once argued that you could never have a pile of sand because one grain of sand was not a pile of sand, and two grains were not a pile of sand. Neither were three or four grains, and so on ad infinitum. Hence, those millions of grains of sand lying on the floor in front of you in a heap could not be a pile of sand either. There's no such thing as a pile of sand.

Of course, one could challenge his argument if one could assert that a pile of sand consists of more than just grains of sand: if a pile of sand is the phrase attached to a concept for any amount of sand sufficient for one grain to be put on top of another, then maybe two grains of sand really are a pile of sand (if we can balance one grain on top of the other), albeit the very smallest pile of sand possible.

Concerning life, the same riddling philosopher could point out that none of the so-called organic chemicals is life on its own, and that none of them have any more life when put together. In fact, unless we can make a case that life is something other than mere masses of chemicals thrown together, we cannot  prove that there is any such thing as life. Only if life is an absolute  concept existing independent of any chemicals can it be meaningful at all to say that there is life, or that anything has it.

Such an argument, of course, takes us right into Plato and Aristotle and the non-material "forms" to which they subscribed. But that's a subject for another time.
Logged
Cheecky-Monkey
Guest
« Reply #49 on: February 16, 2005, 09:13:59 PM »

Like Jodie Foster said in "Contact", "If there's nothing out there, it's an awful; waste of space".

You can read an interesting article on the way alien life might funtcion here:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/alien-physiology.htm
Logged
Mr. Hockstatter
Guest
« Reply #50 on: February 16, 2005, 10:08:34 PM »

Quote
the odds against that first cell's formation are 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

I'd be interested to know how exactly that number was computed.

I mean, there are something like 6 X 10^23 atoms in a mole (1 mole of lead is about .456 pounds), Multiply that by all the matter in universe, and give it 10 - 15 billion years to stew around...

And it certainly didn't have to result in life forming here.  It could very well have formed at the other end of the universe, and those guys could be debating how likely it was to happen anyplace else.  Besides, a lot of guys at NASA seem to think that Martian meteorite may show evidence of life.  

And why did the book of Genesis fail to list animals like the T-rex  and brontosaurus?  Surely if those things were rumbling around back in the days of Adam and Eve, it would have been worthy of note.

Logged
ikws
Guest
« Reply #51 on: February 17, 2005, 02:18:26 AM »

yup
Logged
Wence
Guest
« Reply #52 on: February 17, 2005, 02:35:51 PM »

Mr. Hockstatter,

that´s good point. No matter where intelligent life has developed, the thing is, that it starts to think about why it is there.

Maybe it´s a principle that intelligent lifeforms tend to think that they are the result of something special (like we think that we are god´s creation).

Perhaps it is a way to bear the fact of being alone in a cold and dark universe...
Logged
Writer
Guest
« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2005, 11:30:26 PM »

Genesis didn't bother naming every species because it's not a catalogue of animals, but a history. Notably, a couple of unidentified large animals (behemoth and leviathan) turn up in the book of Job, which is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Reptiles tend to show their age by their size, so dinosaurs are probably just ordinary lizards that lived long enough to grow enormous back in the days when people were living for centuries too.

Where "wasting space" is concerned, the universe may be chock full of species who just don't bother contacting us for one reason or another, or it may be very empty. Either way, who's going to tell God what do? People are always criticizing art for being impractical, but as wise artists always reply, our world already has all the practical stuff it needs. An artist with infinite power and resources has every reason to laugh at people who criticize his art for its impracticality.
Logged
Fearless Freep
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 13
Posts: 2324


« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2005, 11:40:54 PM »


Perhaps it is a way to bear the fact of being alone in a cold and dark universe...


Problem is, most societies develop thoughts about God and where they came from long before they realize the universe is cold and dark

Logged

=======================
Going places unmapped, to do things unplanned, to people unsuspecting
Wence
Guest
« Reply #55 on: February 18, 2005, 09:18:38 AM »

Freep,

I ment it as inteligent life´s principle of dealing with it. Surely the ancients, sitting in caves and speeking "Hugh" and ""Burb" didn´t know nothing about the universe.

Writer,

you can´t be serious with that:
"Reptiles tend to show their age by their size, so dinosaurs are probably just ordinary lizards that lived long enough to grow enormous back in the days when people were living for centuries too."
- that must be a JOKE!!!

Ever seen a brontosaur´s skeleton? It´s over 20 metres long! If people of that time "were living for centuries" as you say
- why the hell didn´t THEY grow 20 metres high?
Logged
Wence
Guest
« Reply #56 on: February 18, 2005, 09:20:13 AM »

People tend to show their age by size, too...
Logged
odinn7
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 57
Posts: 2259



« Reply #57 on: February 18, 2005, 09:59:26 AM »

I promised myself I would stay out of this but apparently I lied to myself again. I need to ask...How did Noah get a male and female T-Rex on the ark? Better yet, how did he get millions of different species on the ark?
The bible teaches us that incest is bad but how would you then explain where we all came from? Do the math...Adam, Eve...kids...they have kids, etc; Must've been some incest there.
Never mind the bible, I got bigger issues that make the existence of a god questionable to me. I have 2 sisters that are both older than me. One was harmed in the hospital on delivery and because of this, has been mentally handicapped for her 41 years of life so far, and it ain't looking like it will get better. What did she ever do to make this god who supposedly loves us all, do this to her? My other sister is a bum. She has 3 kids and refuses to take the responsibility to take care of them the right way. What did those kids ever do to have their life like this?
Can you explain babies that are born addicted to crack? Can you explain babies who are born with birth defects? Can you explain to me how I saw in the news the other day about a 3 year old who has brain cancer? Now you'll say the devil did this and I say that's a load of crap. If this god is all powerful, how could he let these things happen to innocent children that haven't even had a chance to sin? He's all loving and forgiving..."Here kid, let me make your whole life a living hell for you...but that's ok because (wink), I love you and you'll maybe get to be in Heaven one day." Crap.



Post Edited (02-18-05 12:36)
Logged

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

You're not the Devil...You're practice.
Wence
Guest
« Reply #58 on: February 18, 2005, 03:45:43 PM »

Odinn7,

that´s exactly what I think about religion, but the problem is that they answer like this:
If someone has cancer, if someone is crippled, poor, unemloyed etc. it´s a TEST.
They argue that god wants to proove one or it´s for a final holy cause.
At least it is not allowed to question god´s plan...

With that "theology" it is easy to manipulate the masses - you can get them so far, that they call themselves christian pro-life activists or anti-abortionists and shoot down doctors who do abortions!

Disrespect and disregard for life in the name of life - what a stupid fxxx !!!

It reminds me the crusades of the middle ages:
plundering and sacking hordes marching through ancient europe with the aim of liberating the holy lands in the cause of christiandom - the religion of brotherly love and compassion.
Logged
Wence
Guest
« Reply #59 on: February 18, 2005, 03:49:01 PM »

Oh, and...

"Do the math...Adam, Eve...kids...they have kids, etc; Must've been some incest there."

... made me rally laugh!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Do you believe in... ALIENS? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: osmosis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.