It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shame on you Stephen Hawking

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:04 AM
link   


Oh and what ever happened to that Evolutionary Missing Link?.. Has it been found?? I don't recall anything - Although since I have been in my UFOlogy bubble I may not have heard any recent news.. Can you enlighten me on the missing link and where it may be or not?? I would enjoy and welcome the content... Thank you in advance!!


When we say "missing link," we invoke a metaphorical chain, a set of links that stretch far back in time. Each link represents a single species, a single variety of life. Because each link is connected to two other links, each is intimately connected to past and future forms. Break one link, and the pieces of the chain can be separated, and relationships lost. But find a lost link, and you can rebuild the chain, reconnect separated lengths. One potent reason for the attractiveness of this metaphor is that it allows for the drama of the quest, the search for that elusive missing link.

But the metaphor is as misleading as it is attractive. The concept that each species is a link in a great chain of life forms was largely developed in the typological age of biology, when species “fixity” (the idea that species were unchanging) was the dominant paradigm. Both John Ray (1627-1705) and Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1797), the architects of biological classification (neither of whom believed in evolution), were concerned with describing the order of living species, an order they each believed was laid out by God (Ray suggested that the divinely specified function of biting insects was to plague the wicked).

But while the links of a chain are discrete, unchanging, and easily defined, groups of life forms are not. We generally define a species as some interbreeding group that cannot, or does not, productively breed with another group. But since species are not fixed (they change through time), it can be difficult to be sure where one species ends and another begins. For these reasons, many modern biologists prefer a continuum metaphor, in which shades of one life form grade into another. Life is not arranged as links, but as shades. The metaphorical chain is far less substantial than it sounds.

Thus the chain metaphor is wrong. It doesn’t accurately represent biology as we know it today, but as it was understood over four centuries ago. The myth persists because of convenience; it is easier to think of species as types, with discrete qualities, than as grades between one species and another. In school, we learn the specific characteristics of plants and animals; this alone is not a problem, except that we are not often exposed to the main ramification of evolution: that those characteristics will change through time.

So, our idea that there can even be such a thing as a “missing link” was created in an era of biological research which is long gone. It’s a concept which is no longer valid in our current understanding of the nature of life and evolution — but, as is so often the case with appealing concepts, it continues to live on, to structure people’s assumptions, and to influence how they think about evolution.

This is almost always an unfortunate situation, but it is especially unfortunate here because the concept of a “missing link” creates confusion and misunderstandings which creationists are able to exploit. Perhaps the creationists know that they misunderstanding things; more likely, though, is that their misunderstanding is completely accidental and, in fact, one of the reasons why they are creationists in the first place.

Life is more like a spectrum than a chain, but not a spectrum with discreet ends. It’s a spectrum in that there are gradual transitions from one species to another, all of whom are certainly linked together, but no discreet links in a chain which can be broken, repaired, or readily followed. The more people understand this sort of thing, the better equipped they will be to understand evolution as a whole — not to mention the entire field of biology itself.




So what are you saying, you don't believe there are any genuine UFO's? By saying this, you are most definitely saying the millions of people including astronauts, police men, and the most respected people in our society are liars or can't tell the difference between a flying saucer and a balloon. I can certainly tell the difference, can't you?



it concerns me that you use the acronym UFO as if it means "alien spaceship" i find this quite alot in ufo subculture thats why i prefer the term UAP (unidentified aerial phenomenon).

Of course there are genuine UFOs or UAPs, the U stands for unidentified. Which means its unidentified to the observer. Unless you meant " you dont belive there are any genuine alien spaceships visiting earth?"

Ive never seen a "flying saucer" although i have seen a UAP, big orange ball of light in the sky for about 2 minutes which then shrunk in size and disapeared- i was unable to identify what is was but i dont jump to the conclusion it was aliens in a spaceship




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea

The author of that webpage is definitely a "Nuts and Bolt" UFO/Alien believer and who's to say that he didn't alter or even make up some of those quotes on this page to reflect his viewpoint on UFOs?



Carl Sagan's views are in his 1966 book Intelligent Life in the Universe that he wrote with Russian astronomer and astrophysicist I.S. Shklovskii. This was even noted on Wikipedia.

Dr. J Allen Hynek's quote is public record.

Most of the quotes on that website are accurate, like President Ronald Reagan, and Astronauts Gordon Cooper & Edgar Mitchell.

I know those are legit, I have already checked them out, it would be nice if he gave more sources though.

I'm not 100% sure about the Hawking quote, but I'll look for a different source.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by solarstorm
What a load of crap.


"We don't appear to have been visited by aliens," Hawking said, adding that he discounts reports of UFOs. "Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdoes?"


news.yahoo.com...

[edit on 21-4-2008 by solarstorm]


Don't disrespect this Man off all men please with out FACTS.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Hawkins is right on the money.. there is no evidence that life on other planets exists... and as far as the wierdo comment goes.. he is right about that too... you never here any astronomers talk about aliens.... they have there eyes on the sky everyminute of everyday .... taking pictures of space 24 seven.. from just about every country in the world.. oh.. i suppose they are all part of the huge conspiracy too.. hmmmmmm



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Markshark4
 


Thanks for checking those quotes out.. the Hawkings one would be a good one to confirm though. It does not sound like him at all.

I've seen many of the quotes on that page before in the past on other UFO websites but, once again, anything found on the internet needs to be checked out. No doubt about that!



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I notice that time and time again the intitials "UFO" equal Alien

They dont. They never have.

IF (and that's a big IF) UFOs equalled Alien, then the 'U' would be changed to Identified

Please remember that UFO means Unidentified Flying Object
Just because something is not identified, it does not automatically become extra terrestrial in origin



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
The instant I'll take out of context quotes from an invitation only lecture for which there is no publicly available transcript to be either accurately recorded or even understood by Faux news or Yahoo I'll also get busy with eating my desk.

That and the instant I'll consider a lecture in front of hundreds of NASA scientists and government representatives intended to get them to start working seriously on advanced space technology to be without a political angle, I'll eat everyone else's desks too.

The simple fact of the matter is that unless someone here managed to record the stream from NASA of the lecture and present it we have no way of knowing what context the Prof was speaking in nor even in answer to what question.

Remember for such a public and renowned scientist to say something in public he MUST have irrefutable evidence to back up his hypothesis, without which he would be an academic dead man.

The public opinion of a scientist is not necessarily the private opinion of a scientist and for someone who thinks of the universe as existing in anything up to 17 different abstract dimensions you might be surprised just exactly how little 'space' actually accounts for.

It is a matter of public record that Stephen considers there to be 4 viable options as to the possibility of life in the universe (our three and a bit dimensions) in accordance with the available science and mathematics and has said in response to the question 'Why have we not been visited?' that:

----

1. The probability of life appearing is very low.

2. The probability of life is reasonable but the probability of intelligence is low.

3. The probability of evolving to our present state is reasonable but then civilisations then destroys itself. (Which we are currently having a good stab at)

4. There is other intelligent life in the galaxy but it has not bothered to come here.

----

In other words that there are 4 possibilities and no definite answers.
Amusingly these were also the opinions of A.C. Clarke.

Stephen has also said:



Stephen Hawking: Public Lectures, Live in the universe 1999

I discount suggestions that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant.


And you'll note that he did not say 'UFO's do not exist...'

Co-incidentally it can be noted that these are exactly the same sentiments held by some of the most respected UFO researchers in the field. Jacques Vallee in particular... (Looking at you Palasheea and Blaine91555
)

Cheers.

Absence.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Whatever. Nothing Hawking has ever said, no matter how clever, is just theory.
Hasn't been proven.
Carl Sagan used to spout the same bull as if he had a line to creation itself, although far more eloquently.
Aliens? Maybe. String theory? Maybe. 12 dimesions? Maybe.
Moon is green cheese, but we never went there in 1969? Maybe.
The point?
Nothing these characters say can be trusted, because very little can be proven, and most of them would admit that, if you could get them alone.
Wouldn't want to upset that apple cart, though. Screw up their research funding (aka, free ride on the taxpayer dollar).



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
SKEPTICS STOP SAYING THERE"S NO EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS UFOLOGY BECAUSE THIS IS A LIE!

There's both direct and circumstantial evidence that backs Ufology. In any other field in the world this evidence would be easily accepted but the skeptic ignores the evidence to support his/her pre-existing belief system.

Direct evidence - eyewitness accounts from Presidents, military, pilots, high ranking government officials and more.

Circumstantial evidence - cave painting, paintings, ancient manuscripts, pictures and video.

These things have been with us and recorded since the dawn of civilization. There's more evidence for ufology that there is for black holes, virtual particles, string theory, dark matter and dark energy. These things are easily accepted because they don't directly challenge ones belief system like ufology.

Every video is a fake, every picture is a weather baloon or lantern, every eyewitness acoount the person was mistaken. This is what's called blind and rabid skepticism. As humans we can't keep denying the obvious because of fear and ignorance. The paranormal and ufology are all apart of the natural order of things and this means that U.F.O.'s exist, this means that we survive death naturally and we need to look into these things and find the connection to the natural order. The only reason there labled supernatural is because we don't fully understand them. If you were to go back 2,000 years ago and clone a sheep that would be seen as a supernatural event by the people of that time period.

It's what I call the George Costanza syndrome. In an episode of Seinfeld, George said I will not go to the hospital because if I'm sick then I will never know.

Denying the truth doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist your just in denial. To keep saying there's no evidence is simply FALSE.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by polomontana
 



Every video is a fake, every picture is a weather baloon or lantern, every eyewitness acoount the person was mistaken. This is what's called blind and rabid skepticism.


I offer the opinion that that is what is called blind and rabid pseudoskepticism. A skeptic doesn't make an assertion (including the assertion that UFOs are only seen by cranks and weirdoes, or that they don't exist) without proof. A pseudoskeptic can make any claim they may choose to, because they are not practicing genuine skepticism. If someone makes a statement without proof, and does so in the context of anything other than a personal opinion or unproved theory, then they are not practicing skepticism, but rather pseudoskepticism.

I dislike labels, but I consider myself skeptical, even rigidly so. This surprises some people because my opinions and chosen beliefs are so unfounded in proof at times. However what I accept as fact is based in skepticism, and requires proof. This is why Steven Hawking's statement, unless taken grossly out of context (which is possible,) saddens me. It is, if not a purely personal opinion, essentially a pseudoskeptical statement, and thus, in my opinion, unscientific.

[edit on 4/23/2008 by AceWombat04]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Strange,stephen is a superb scientist that uses science to prove facts,is he a religious christian? Christ states i am NOT of the world,christ states he came from the father in heaven (the heavens, space, the universe) also that he was here in the beginning before the world was made,read genesis.

If stephen is religious and christ says he is not of this world ,that makes christ an alien.So that makes stephen possibly a hypocrit, or has been got at.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by polomontana
 



Every video is a fake, every picture is a weather baloon or lantern, every eyewitness acoount the person was mistaken. This is what's called blind and rabid skepticism.


I offer the opinion that that is what is called blind and rabid pseudoskepticism. A skeptic doesn't make an assertion (including the assertion that UFOs are only seen by cranks and weirdoes, or that they don't exist) without proof. A pseudoskeptic can make any claim they may choose to, because they are not practicing genuine skepticism. If someone makes a statement without proof, and does so in the context of anything other than a personal opinion or unproved theory, then they are not practicing skepticism, but rather pseudoskepticism.

I dislike labels, but I consider myself skeptical, even rigidly so. This surprises some people because my opinions and chosen beliefs are so unfounded in proof at times. However what I accept as fact is based in skepticism, and requires proof. This is why Steven Hawking's statement, unless taken grossly out of context (which is possible,) saddens me. It is, if not a purely personal opinion, essentially a pseudoskeptical statement, and thus, in my opinion, unscientific.

[edit on 4/23/2008 by AceWombat04]


Pseudoskeptic is a great term!!



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
SKEPTICS STOP SAYING THERE"S NO EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS UFOLOGY BECAUSE THIS IS A LIE!


As I said in my previous post UFO does not mean Alien

Cave paintings and ancient manuscripts, they have never been confirmed as alien visitation.

Give the skeptics a break will you? We have to be right all the time, you only need to be right once. Its not your turn yet



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark Roazhar
 


And as I said in my earlier post, I'm perfectly willing to give the 'skeptics a break', as long as those skeptics are also willing to give proponents that same 'break'.

Some Proponents (note, believers are not who I'm talking about here, I'm talking about Proponents, people who have a theory to test and are testing it) are actually doing respectable research, citing sources, etc.

I also believe that Stephen's comments were taken out of context, because I've personally heard him state contrary opinions. But lacking proof, I'd suggest that everyone extend to him the benefit of the doubt.

I think it's healthy to do so with people who's opinions we respect.

Mark (and other noted Skeptics) the benefit of the doubt will always be extended to you from my end of this research.

The benefit of the doubt (from my end) will also be extended to Stephen.

I sincerely hope that you all (skeptics in general, of which I also consider myself a group member) will begin to extend the benefit of the doubt back across the aisle. Not for everyone (we all know that there ARE actually some 'cranks and wierdos' out there) but at the very least towards those of us who are conducting research the same way any other scientist in any other field would.

That extends to those of the Magonia theory, those showing intense skepticism (without merit) towards the ETH.

We've both got theories (I happen to think the Magonia one is quite possible also), neither of them are mutually exclusive. The evidence to date has not disproved either theory. Let's refrain on both sides of this particular argument from blanket dismissals of the possibility of the other theory being correct. Such statements are not only unneccessary, but unwarranted. Only Evidence will prove one or the other (or both, or neither) to be correct.

-WFA



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zelong

Originally posted by solarstorm
What a load of crap.


"We don't appear to have been visited by aliens," Hawking said, adding that he discounts reports of UFOs. "Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdoes?"


news.yahoo.com...

[edit on 21-4-2008 by solarstorm]


Don't disrespect this Man off all men please with out FACTS.



Interesting comment...make I ask who the hell is HE to make inflamatory statements like this? I dont care who or what HE is! For him to call thousands of witnesses weirdos and cranks...heh



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
If u look at it as a hole, this man is without question much more intelligent than all you, so tell me why you think you are saying he is wrong? This goes to show that this is just an opinion of his and that his opinion differs from yours and you are either too insecure or too ignorant to accept somebody elses opinion. This man has spent years studying science and has a discovered universal facts, has a few theories and laws under his name and numorous awards, so i think he is intitled to his own beliefs... and you yours.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by philjwolf
Hawkins is right on the money.. there is no evidence that life on other planets exists... and as far as the wierdo comment goes.. he is right about that too... you never here any astronomers talk about aliens.... they have there eyes on the sky everyminute of everyday .... taking pictures of space 24 seven.. from just about every country in the world.. oh.. i suppose they are all part of the huge conspiracy too.. hmmmmmm


I have a hard time understanding why people like you even visit these forums. This is a conspiracy website, not an astronomy forum.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I thought that that was why they did not appear to people of science, as they are weirdo's and cranks. To be honest, this man has lost the respect of everyone, therefore, I wouldn't put much on what he says anylonger.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Leviatano
 

UFO's as government test crafts? What? Since ancient Egypt? You would think governments would have perfected at least one craft by now to put in use commercially or militarily. Hawkins is just admitting that he is a part of the disinformation club.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Palasheea
 


And speaking of checking quotes.....the (OP) article attributes the following quote to Mr. Hawking:

"We live in a society that is increasingly governed by science and technology," Hawking said. "Yet fewer and fewer people want to go into science."

It is eerily similar to a famous quote by the late (great) Carl Sagan:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."
Carl Sagan

Source: www.brainyquote.com...

Seems odd to me. Just sayin'. regards.......kk






[edit on 23-4-2008 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 23-4-2008 by kinda kurious]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join