What’s More Probable...Alien Disclosure...Or An Alien “Bug” Wiping Out Humanity?

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
Some people think the black death was an alien bug. So i dont see why not.

Really? Such as who? Current thinking is that it originated/was the result of bacterial mutation in China and then followed the same pattern as all pandemics. Are you suggesting that someone says 'aliens' and that makes it so?

Having said that, because I've yet to see anything that suggests there is anything to disclose, a bug seems most likely of the two even if both are unlikely.

a reply to: Lr103
I have a feeling the rest of the tardigrades would eventually die as well if you extend the period of the experiment, so it doesn't tell us much in the way of panspermia being possible or not. As you will note from my first comment, I'm not convinced that panspermia is a plausible idea/philosophy, I don't think it even qualifies as a proper "hypothesis" as that term is defined in dictionaries for scientific terminologies (see next comment). Because this notion/idea/philosophy of panspermia is tied in with the evolutionary philosophies I spoke about in that comment, a bit more historical background may be in order about that subject.

Are "evolutionary philosophies" (as I put it as a reminder) such as the ones described in my first comment scientific facts? Or is "evolution" as other people put it, a scientific fact? From here on I will use the word "evolution" to refer to "evolutionary philosophies", as others that I'm quoting are doing, one person uses "Darwinism" to refer to the same evolutionary ideas, panspermia being a derivative and tied in with the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis". So, is evolution a scientific fact? Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier is very dogmatic. At the last annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he said: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world. That’s a hundred million facts for evolution.” How 100,000,000 fossils, admittedly not the transitional ones the theory demands, constitute 100,000,000 facts proving evolution, is not at all clear. Kier then adds that, while evolutionists may argue over details, “they agree that evolution is a fact and should be so labeled.”

Famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky is not so dogmatic. In the book Evolution, Dobzhansky and his coworkers described it as a hypothesis or theory and made this admission: “Scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally, since their truth can never be conclusively established.” Using Dr. Karl Popper as authority, the book also states: “A hypothesis that is not subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of empirical [experimental] falsification does not belong in the realm of science.” Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard also refers to Popper and says: “A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.”

Why is all of this relevant to our discussion? Because it is on this basis that Gould and others eliminate creation as a science and therefore say it should not be included in science classes. They say that creation is not testable, not falsifiable by scientific experimentation. “‘Scientific creationism’ is a self-contradictory phrase,” Gould says, “precisely because it cannot be falsified.” But he is adamant that evolution is a fact.

Very interestingly, however, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Since it is not testable, the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these definitions. Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method. Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method, and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable for metaphysical research.

Why, then, do so many scientists believe evolution? “The reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted,” writes Dr. Popper, is that “its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached.” As evolutionist Peter Medawar puts it: “For a biologist the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.”

The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their dislike of the alternative​—theism, a belief in God. But is it scientific to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride?

Is evolution a scientific fact? No.

Is it a testable scientific theory? No.

Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.

Really, then, just what is the theory of evolution, and why do so many believe it?

Is it reasonable to doubt that amoebas became fish? or fish, lizards? or that lizards turned into robins and wolves?

The book “Evolution,” by Dobzhansky, said that while the truth of evolution could never be established, it was a hypothesis “corroborated beyond reasonable doubt.” “Reasonable doubt” is legally defined as “such a doubt as would cause a reasonable and prudent man in the graver and more important affairs of life to pause and hesitate to act upon the truth of the matter charged [or, claimed].” One judicial decision ruled: “A ‘reasonable doubt’ is such a doubt as an upright man might entertain in an honest investigation after truth.”​—“Black’s Law Dictionary,” p. 580.

In court if there is reason to doubt a crucial piece of evidence, no conviction follows. Is it reasonable to have doubts that life spontaneously generated by chance? Reasonable to doubt that amoebas became fish? or fish lizards? or lizards turned into robins and wolves? Is doubting evolution reasonable doubt or unreasonable doubt?

If you believe evolution, when alone in your own bedroom in front of your mirror, where you will not lose face before anyone, ask yourself: Why do I believe evolution? Can I cite the evidence for it? Can I prove it to my own satisfaction? Or do I believe it only because others have told me I should? Is it really true, “corroborated beyond reasonable doubt”?

If Not a Fact, What Is It? Awake!—1981

...
‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. ...

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”
...

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1

a reply to: Lr103

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

- Be observable

- Be reproducible by controlled experiments

- Make accurate predictions

In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

*: By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.

Source: Your Cells and DNA—Living Libraries!

The same questions one could ask about the panspermia storyline, idea/notion/philosophy (where you see a / I'm using synonyms). Can panspermia even be considered a scientific hypothesis? Where does panspermia stand in terms of being observable, reproducible by controlled experiments and making accurate predictions? Is it a scientific theory? Is it even a scientific hypothesis?

Remember, in my first comment in this thread I mentioned regarding the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting Haldane & Oparin), a.k.a. "abiogenesis" and its relation to the panspermia story (no life on another planet, no subsequent panspermia, so it's a prerequisite):

Nor is it simply a matter of proper temperature. There are many other necessities for life, including water and the proper atmosphere. A group of 30 scientists attending a University of Maryland meeting on advanced civilizations focused in on what is needed to support life. After admitting that ‘no planet outside of the solar system has yet been discovered,’ they noted: “Even if another planetary system is formed, there is no certainty it will produce a solid planet like Earth, which contains nearly 100 elements, including those essential to life.”

Also, even if the right conditions prevail, which is so on the earth and no other place that is known, life does not exist automatically. In fact, scientists cannot really explain how life on earth appeared, that is, other than draw the conclusion that it was produced by an intelligent Creator.

The August/​September 1979 issue of Technology Review called attention to this fact. It admitted that there is “a major gap” between chemicals needed to support life and even the simplest “living systems that could be called protocells.” Some scientists, employing their intelligence, skills and advanced laboratories, have been able to suggest how “prebiotic organic chemicals” (the chemical compounds needed for life) could be present on a primitive earth. “But,” the article said, “how to get from there to a living system which can translate, transmit, and act upon information . . . is what M.I.T.’s Alexander Rich called ‘the big intellectual stumbling block in the synthesis of life.”’

As additional research is done on life, the question looms ever larger, ‘How did life originate on earth in the first place?’

Some scientists faced with this problem are reviving a theory presented in 1908 by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius. It is called the “panspermia theory.” Basically, it holds that the earth may have been accidentally seeded by living cells that are wandering through the universe. Modernizing the idea a bit, Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute and Nobel Prize-winner Francis H. C. Crick have suggested “directed panspermia.” Their idea is that an advanced civilization elsewhere in the universe deliberately may have “infected” the earth with life as an experiment. What do you think of that possibility?

It becomes clear, to some, that such theories really do not solve the question of life’s origin. They just sort of avoid the question by transporting the problem off into the distant universe.

About as far off into the realm of untestability, unobservability and unreproducibility as it gets. Panspermia appears neither as a scientific theory nor a scientific hypothesis to me if I use the definitions or descriptions from the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories. As mentioned before but worth repeating:

Why do some speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”​—How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

No emperical evidence whatsoever, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge that leads in the direction of either "the chemical evolution theory of life" (on other planets in this case rather than on earth) nor any subsequent panspermia*. The tardigrades experiment you brought up clearly do not provide evidence for panspermia either, or suggest it to be more plausible because of the results. This stuff is about as far removed from actual science as the latest Alien-series movies that condition the masses with it by promoting it ("Prometheus" promotes Francis H. C. Crick's storyline, directed panspermia).

*: Always convenient skipping past the first step in one's storyline to keep people in the dark that this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with entertainment and tickling people's ears as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4, telling them what they want to hear.

a reply to: whereislogic

Only two things are certain in life: Death and taxes. From a gardener's perspective life finds a way. My grandmother grew tomato plants in concrete cracks. When I scatter my composite dirt in flower beds, every vegetable I ate sprouts up a new volunteer plant. Even coleus plants show up. So all the those rocks coming in here daily, probably have bacteria and viruses. Life is most likely abundant in the vast universe. We are not, and have probably never been alone. The fact that people think we are the only living thing in the universe is such a dumb concept. If that's true the Earth should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

originally posted by: frugal
a reply to: whereislogic

Only two things are certain in life: Death and taxes.

A synonym for "fact" is "certainty", another is "reality". I assume you're not saying the above to claim that there are no other facts/certainties/realities other than death and taxes? Seeing that is never how that saying was meant. It's a figurative saying after all. Newton's "Law of Gravity" for example describes some facts/certainties/truths regarding the force of gravity in a mathematical manner. These facts/certainties have stood the test of time, even Einstein with his "theory of gravity" does not in any way refute or negate the facts regarding the law of gravity, just like the knowledge gained in the field of Quantum Mechanics in no way diminishes the realities described in the law of gravity; knowledge is a familiarity with facts and a synonym for the word "science" which is derived from the Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge". If we're not talking about facts/certainties, we're not talking about knowledge/science. Speculations and hypotheses (whether or not appropiately so named) are not science/knowledge. Of course there are those who have started to use the word "science" to refer to something else around the end of the 19th century (Darwin's time), they started applying the word (also "scientist") to refer to something that up till then was still called "natural philosophy".

From wiki on the page for "scientist":

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Some tips from Isaac Newton as to a proper and (proven) effective method to acquire science/knowledge about realities/facts/certainties/truths, i.e. make actual discoveries akin to the discoveries Newton made in relation to gravity:

"Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses."

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica recognizes that there are such things as "established facts":

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

You can call it a scientific method, one with proven results, unlike some other proposed scientific methods that have come and gone over the centuries. Or the one that is still around but not adhered to regarding evolutionary philosophies or the story of panspermia as explained by some of the scientists that I've been quoting.

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee (senior editor of Nature magazine), pp. 116-117

Now the argument of induction or conclusion by induction that life was created by at least 1 creator, referred to in my first comment in this thread, is quite different from the way evolutionary philosophies are promoted and marketed to sound more plausible in the eyes of the biased beholder.

From a gardener's perspective life finds a way.

Is it really "life" that finds a way? Or is it that the design of life is so sophisticated that the endproduct, the systems of machinery within living organisms, has some impressive capabilities in terms of adaptation to its environment and ways to survive or thrive? Life itself as a concept (and substitute for the causes "by chance" and "by natural undirected processes", i.e. the forces of nature acting on matter and energy), isn't looking for "a way" (to solve engineering problems to create or engineer the capabilities earlier spoken of). So how can it, as a concept, find anything? No foresight, no will, no purpose, no technological know-how. The phrase "life finds a way" is just a sneaky way of conditioning people with the general idea that '(Mother) Nature did it' (i.e. Gaia did it, as the ancient Pagan Greek Mother Nature-worshippers would answer the question regarding where life came from, the question discussed in my first comment here, also see the link regarding "The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1"). It's programming 101 (propagandistic slogans use the same technique of vagueness and excessive or inappropiate use of figurative language, just like mantras).

So all the those rocks coming in here daily, probably have bacteria and viruses.

AFAIK, no meteorite has ever been discovered with bacteria or viruses in them before they landed on earth (at which point they can get contaminated by life on earth and any discovery even of just components of life, biomolecules such as amino acids, always raises the question: Were those amino acids already in the meteorite before it landed on earth or were they left after landing on earth? You can't just go with what you want to believe in the sciences, well technically you can, but one shouldn't if one is interested in accurate answers, rather than filling the needs of some particular bias against the conclusion by induction regarding a creator).

Life is most likely abundant in the vast universe. We are not, and have probably never been alone. The fact that people think we are the only living thing in the universe is such a dumb concept.

I just stick with discovered or established facts/certainties, including the conclusion by induction regarding a creator. Imagination guided by wishful thinking can be rather misleading. As explained at 2 Timothy 4:3,4. I'll fill my desire to be entertained and intrigued by fiction by watching Science-Fiction movies and shows, at least they are properly and honestly labeled and presented as entertainment.

If that's true the Earth should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

It should, cause it's a very special place.

Government will follow the same play book they use on everything they try to keep secret: wait until there is absolutely no way to deny it any more because the answer is plainly visible for all to see, then admit to it and own it so you can tell the voters in the next election you "did the right thing" by being honest with the people.

It wasn't until they were in a court room and a judge was presented with pictures of the base and the opportunity to drive there and see for himself that the CIA admitted that area 51 even existed.

Our politicians become very honest when the lie becomes untenable, but not before.

I haven't read every single post but I do find the first couple pages very convincing that viruses and bacteria etc. is always falling on us, from space. Which I already believed.

I don't think life will be wiped out by it, though. At worst we've seen outbreaks of plagues and sicknesses over the centuries, but it still never wiped us out.

Also I think intelligent extraterrestrial life has been here for thousands of years, at least.

I believe space is probably full of microbial life, and there probably is no place that doesn't have some form of microbial life. (That's what we see on Earth, after all.)