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.

 

Stephen Hawking says Aliens exist

page: 17
106
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sremmos
They recently found non-bacterial life which does not require oxygen to live and reproduce.

www.newscientist.com...



There is life in every single place imaginable in the most variable forms possible.

Completely non-related and off topic but a few months ago I was reading that they've found a jellyfish that is able to rejuvenate and has full control over their own aging process. Once it gets bored of being old it simply starts to rollback the clock and return to their infant stages.




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Im sorry but im not goin to listen to a man who in a wheelchair and doesnt know what the hell was going on in last thousand of years or so. Our government's already made contact with aliens and they're already visiting us EVERYDAY


[edit on 25-4-2010 by sam_inc]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by reject
I bet they told ET we have enough nukes to destroy both the earth and the moon. Stay away


I think that was the point of nukes, it was never to destroy each other, it was to destroy the planet if aliens ever did come.

I doubt nukes where ever to destroy us, as i think there would never be a point where we would of been that stup1d, but the build up of nukes by russia and usa was to keep the earth from others.
what would really take the cake is if this self destruct plan was put in place by another group of ETs



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_
Yes they are detailed, but then why we don't have the remains for each single one of those stages?

All the stages that we have simply jump from one to another, some with small changes while other with huge changes that simply couldn't be according to the very same theory. The in-betweens most often are created in the minds of those that so passionately defend this theory in it's source.

Again, thinking in terms of "in-betweens" is about as far from the truth as you can get. We have hundreds of examples of individuals along a long line of ancestors. There are no "huge changes".



And even though extremely detailed and well recorded the oder in which those fossil records show up sometimes are also on the unexpected order in places where there isn't a single sign of soil disturbance. Thus breaking the logical (expected) order in which these fossils should appear, the supposedly old on the top and the ones that should be new bellow.

There are no major inconsistencies like you claim. Go a. and present an example. Assuming you dug one up, I guarantee you overlooked the rational explanation for what, to unprofessional eyes, looked unusual.



You said a really important word "ESTIMATION", but a estimation isn't a fact, it is merely a best guess. Something that isn't or at least shouldn't be enough to sustain such a pivotal theory regarding the human origins. Add that to the own desires of the ones "recreating that full body from a original knee joint to some involuntary inference to make the theory hold truth and you get your self a H. Cepranensis or some other distant cousin of ours.

But I really would like to be enlightened on how they get SINGLE skull cap (a mere fossil piece) and use that to tie two different evolutionary stages that by them selves are also represented by one or few fossils that most often are only partial. I find this really interesting.

If it's by comparing those ~3% of "useful" DNA that I find it a bit of fallacy. And I'll probably keep thinking that until they find the propose and match those remaining ~97%.

If you read what I said again, you'll see I called RECREATIONS an estimation. No one bases scientific theory on speculation - this includes recreations. Scientific theory is based on observed FACTS. Not to mention, at no point along the (very detailed, by the way) fossil record of human ancestry do scientists rely on "a single kneecap" as you say. We have a very solid collection of partial to complete skeletons - more than is needed to classify a species. A good paleontologist could identify a species from a single tooth or a third of a skull with near perfect accuracy, and catalog a new one with a half complete skull.



Both, old where the new should be and vice versa. And carbon testing is far from THAT reliable. The variations are way too big and get even worst when you throw a really large time frame in the talk. Besides any drastic environmental change could impact the data you would get from it. So basically pretty much anything ancient being carbon dated could be off by a unacceptable margin or entirely wrong.

PLEASE spare me on the carbon dating talk. Do you REALLY think time or environmental change would affect the half-life of carbon-14? we're talking about radioactive decay here. THE MOST ACCURATE CLOCKS ON THE PLANET use radioactive decay to tell time with virtually zero error. Virtually zero error as in, "this clock will be at most 1 second off after 300 million years".

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



I can be wrong (as usual) but isn't natural selection that says that interbreeding of species can only yield a variation withing the same basic kind and not something like humans for instance?

Whaaaa? Natural selection is a simple concept: Animals most suited to their environment have the highest chance of surviving (and thus reproducing, passing on their favorable traits), while animals ill-suited to their environment have a much higher chance of dieing young. That's all there is to it.



I kinda disagree, they are all pretty darn connected. Doesn't even matter if you apply abiogenesis or biogenesis. But that's a long really long theoretical story


They really aren't - whether life began via abiogenesis or via the flying spaghetti monster coming down and extending his noodly appendage has no impact on the observed fact that variation occurs during reproduction, and nature selects for favorable traits harshly.



But isn't the newest "version" of the evolutionary theory that argues that all those primates evolved in tandem and interbreeding giving birth to these sudden mutations called humans?

At least last time I've checked that was what they were talking about as a means to explain their findings in Kenya.

....whaaaa?
there is no genetic evidence for interbreeding between any of the populations except between cro magnon (modern man) and homo neanderthalensis. we are such close relatives that its really more scientifically accurate to classify us as subspecies of the same species, but species are an arbitrary label when describing something like evolution. its a big gradient.

the closest analog i can think of off the top of my . is a horse and a donkey mating and giving birth to a mule, though we were more closely related.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I don't think hawkings has said anything we haven't already thought for years...But i do believe searching for alien life rides a fine line...what if they are hostile...then what



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Stewart Swerdlow has commented about this in his Q&A:




More On Hawking
Posted: April, 25, 2010

I thought this article deserved some attention (some very good attention): THE aliens are out there and Earth had better watch out, at least according to Stephen Hawking. Hawking believes that contact with such a species could be devastating for humanity. He suggests that aliens might simply raid Earth for its resources and then move on: “I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.” Really makes my mind spin.... This question has a corresponding link.Click here

Stewart's Reply: He is right about their intentions. He was told to say these things--but by whom?

Hawking
Posted: April, 25, 2010

It seems Stephen Hawking is even getting the public ready for the staged alien invasions "Hawking claims in a new documentary that intelligent alien lifeforms almost certainly exist, but warns that communicating with them could be "too risky." This question has a corresponding link.Click here

Stewart's Reply: Yes, it was interesting what he said. He knows a lot that he is not saying.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sam_inc
 


I'm getting sick and tired of replies like this. Many users make it seem like just because Hawking is paralyzed that his opinion is worthless. He was brilliant before he developed his disorder and he remains brilliant. To quote the musician Jason Becker who suffers from the same disorder as Hawking:



I have Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. It has crippled my body and speech, but not my mind.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I don't believe it's been said in this thread, but thought I would chime in a bit.

A major complaint against life elsewhere is the assumption that if aliens have advanced enough technology to travel great distances, then the likelihood that we have been visited already is great (and that we haven't 'knowingly' been visited, therefore there must not be life elsewhere).

That might not necessarily be true. Think about travel within the U.S. I can buy a plane ticket and go to any major city in the country. I can rent a helicopter, take a cab, etc. to get to almost anywhere I want to.

I, however, have never been west of the Mississippi aside from driving down to Texas. Why? I've never had the need to. Think of our cities as galaxies or systems and the U.S. as the universe, and it's not hard to imagine. I may run out of resources in my cornfield but that doesn't mean I have to go to California to find more. It's just not a very good argument and I thought it was worth pointing out.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
I'll simply restate my original point a little better.

Show me the race of beings that has found the methods to negate the insurmountable (to us right now) logistical nightmare that crossing an interstellar gulf would incur. Be it through mastering the ability to travel at supraluminal speeds or hunkering down for the long haul in an enclosed enviroment or wormholes, warp bubbles etc etc etc...

Do that and I will show you a race of beings that would have little problem finding (or creating) and utilizing all the resources they require without having to fit the "Aliens will conquer the earth" stereotypes.



I guess you feel they have human like emotions like empathy, compassion..love.

You also suggest a race that has the abilities to travel the great distances would also have the ability to create all they need, so why come in the first place, or travel at all?

Those that do travel are looking for something, or they would most likely not be using all that energy/time if they didn't have a purpose. My example was more of a race that had the capabilities to let’s say create an ark that would use time more than speed to travel, so saying they could reach .5 the speed of light they might be traveling a very long time and when they get here they might want to live on the planet instead of their ark.

In any case there are a lot of variables, and many of them are not good to the human race. I would much rather meet another race in nutral ground of space where it isn't an all or nothing event.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
Again, thinking in terms of "in-betweens" is about as far from the truth as you can get. We have hundreds of examples of individuals along a long line of ancestors. There are no "huge changes".


Why far from the truth? If the theory holds that the evolution was continuous the changes/adaptations should also be both continuous and gradual until the need for those ceased. And yet what we see is one specimen with a certain cranial capacity or certain features that not found or a simple too different on the posterior one.

And sorry but for certain specimens all there is are 7 or less, sometimes just a single piece of a specimen that isn't found anywhere else, which is way too far from hundreds as you says. And yet these become part of the whole puzzle as it really meant anything.


There are no major inconsistencies like you claim. Go a. and present an example. Assuming you dug one up, I guarantee you overlooked the rational explanation for what, to unprofessional eyes, looked unusual.


Scientists always have a rational explanation. But rational doesn't mean they makes sense nor that they automatically qualified as being correct. For instance how do to explain me why we have found more than a hundred locations with no signs of any soil (or whatever) disturbance and yet simpler life forms are on top of more complex organisms?

Of course the most common answer to that is regional uplift followed by erosion and all that jazz, but I'm still not convinced since some cases there is simply no evidence whatsoever to sustain neither the uplift nor the erosion. And simply looking elsewhere and averaging everything in the end isn't exactly right since the anomaly remains unanswered and dismissed.

In general it's all about best guesses (hopes) and estimations based on what is known (which is little in most more complex cases) when it comes to really large timeframes.


If you read what I said again, you'll see I called RECREATIONS an estimation. No one bases scientific theory on speculation - this includes recreations. Scientific theory is based on observed FACTS. Not to mention, at no point along the (very detailed, by the way) fossil record of human ancestry do scientists rely on "a single kneecap" as you say. We have a very solid collection of partial to complete skeletons - more than is needed to classify a species. A good paleontologist could identify a species from a single tooth or a third of a skull with near perfect accuracy, and catalog a new one with a half complete skull.


Agree, and facts are somehow a subjective thing by their very nature. For a fact to exist it needs a observer, to be observed it needs a human which isn't exactly a impartial constant thing and has lots of variations, hopes, etc. And liking it or not, also come bundled with good portion of inevitable inference. In the end the majority wins, but that only means that the majority has a common knowledge base, shared interests and have looked at the "subject" (whatever it might be) from the same of very close perspective.

Regarding paleontologists I do recognize their merits but not even a god like paleontologist would be able to classify a unknow species by a single tooth. And that's exactly where things get interesting since they either have to rely on imagination since they don't have it's real context and use that to make it fit their puzzle somehow, something that if done by anyone in the chain which will probably end up on the wrong place and have a impact on any future study that is made using that one as a basis or they simply dismiss it as if it was never meant to be part of it.



PLEASE spare me on the carbon dating talk. Do you REALLY think time or environmental change would affect the half-life of carbon-14? we're talking about radioactive decay here. THE MOST ACCURATE CLOCKS ON THE PLANET use radioactive decay to tell time with virtually zero error. Virtually zero error as in, "this clock will be at most 1 second off after 300 million years".


I would if the Carbon on the atmosphere was a constant thing, but it isn't. It's a valid method to date anything between pole shifts, but not that reliable for anything prior past pole shifts or really drastic environmental changed or cataclysmic events.

Even scientists question it's reliability to date stuff with more than 60.000 years old. It gets exponentially less precise as older the thing you're dating is. So don't buy that precision as a rule of thumb because it isn't.


Whaaaa? Natural selection is a simple concept: Animals most suited to their environment have the highest chance of surviving (and thus reproducing, passing on their favorable traits), while animals ill-suited to their environment have a much higher chance of dieing young. That's all there is to it.


Yep, a simple concept with that implication at it's core. Otherwise we would have crocsharks, monkeyeagles and so on. Those favorable traits can only be passed withing the same specie. Thus resulting in a new kind of the same specie and not something entirely new.


They really aren't - whether life began via abiogenesis or via the flying spaghetti monster coming down and extending his noodly appendage has no impact on the observed fact that variation occurs during reproduction, and nature selects for favorable traits harshly.


I my opinion it does because the core traits come from there, but that's a entirely different conversation for sure. We aren't even agreeing on monkeys thingie, how about the origin of life




....whaaaa?
there is no genetic evidence for interbreeding between any of the populations except between cro magnon (modern man) and homo neanderthalensis. we are such close relatives that its really more scientifically accurate to classify us as subspecies of the same species, but species are an arbitrary label when describing something like evolution. its a big gradient.


It seems that there is evidence of interbreeding of Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens and some still argue about the interbreeding between Australopithecus and Kenyanthropus.


the closest analog i can think of off the top of my . is a horse and a donkey mating and giving birth to a mule, though we were more closely related.


Hahahaha, that's exactly what we are... mules!



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
What if WE are the result of an armada of resource hogs/raiders? There seems to be a lot of evidence for lesser humanoid forms in Earth's past yet none coexist with us, nor do any missing links. What if they did evolve to the point of broadcasting something, even by accident & our ancestors picked it up, arrived here and dropped our ancestor parents off? My 2/3 European ancestry continued such a trend conquering north america. Is it not our nature as well?

The very last episode of BattleStar Galactica comes to mind.

I posted the below on this CNN disclosure topic... CNN: Experts Say Aliens Real! We've been working with them for over 50 years now.




Once it is out, there's no going back and I fear for what agenda such a revelation would serve. Will the "real extraterrestrials" be real? Will they be benevolent? Something Hawking said resonates DEEPLY with me, along the lines of "Look how the european & natives hit it off!" Do we truly want this? If so, we want the fecelstorm that comes with it. What will that be? We might have guns, airpower & nukes etc, but what if those were mere arrows against the european guns should we not like their migration & settling here? I think Hawking knows best and we should stick to listening. Who knows, maybe the intense effort to switch to closed digital broadcasting is purpose driven to squelch discoverable signals that could otherwise be picked up by a potentially opportunistic alien infection. Like a hunter listening for the "gobble" of a wild turkey! We should stick to listening, as the hunters of the universe probably do. Maybe there's a reason we allegedly haven't received a signal, just drones/probes checking out the source! In nature & military evolution, speed is a result of a NEED to catch prey, hit targets. If they are fast enough to get here within less than a life time, my friends, they probably have a need for speed as I just outlined.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_

Originally posted by 11118

Originally posted by thomas_

Originally posted by 11118
reply to post by thomas_
 


The Human governments use technology and tools with precision.

Most of the disc shaped ships you see are unmanned and of Human origin, they are drones.

There is that group of entities who wish to control and enslave, they feed off the negative energy of suffering and control. They think themselves only as the Creator and are lost, cut off from the life force feeding themselves off of control others and controlling of each other - pure negative energy. You need not worry, unless the vast majority of people on earth wish to be enslaved they will not be "landing" any time soon and they are far outnumbered by those who wish to serve.

The Earth is quarantined due to past events in regards to the self-destruction of ancient civilizations. Information was given by benevolent entities then used poorly. Those who wish to cross into the Earth must get permission, the negative entities cannot cross into earth without facing Love - it is like a shield, the complete opposite polarity of their being.

Remember their is no "war", the benevolent entities could crush the negative entities with ease - but they Love them and understand they too are the One Creator.


Nice, but I have to say that their love has a bitter price that they are not the ones paying. If they can intervene and transform this into Eden they should do it right away and quit playing with the farm of ants. It's time already. Lemurians and Atlanteans are long gone by now.

They don't want to judge human kind, I get it. But they are the only ones that could because most of the human kind has lost direction and real propose and we can't certainly judge anything.

Anyway... nothing will happen and everything will remain the same crap we are way too familiar with.


If they were to do so it would be an infringement on the majority of the masses Free Will.

Not only that but there is a quarantine like I said, ancient civilizations were given such advanced information that lead to self-destruction and thus the quarantine was set in place.


I see, but it does sound like a dictatorship. Nobody is allowed to leave, nobody is allowed to come in and we are kept in the dark paying for mistakes that we didn't even did in the first place. A bit harsh don't you think? This makes Earth a real literal purgatory.

But I'm just kinda messing with you


Humankind simply isn't prepared to cope with the idea that we are the babies in this universe. People would commit suicide in mass if they knew that they are not that smart, not that advanced and not the only form of pseudo or intelligent life in the universe. Some people desperately need that false assurance to keep walking around.


I can assure you that you have placed yourself here.

This time on Earth is one for great experience and growth.

Confusion enlightens far more then contentment.

Were there no potentials for misunderstanding..., There would be no experience.

You can feel tensions getting tighter, people changing and awakening, look around you.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Tryptych
 


Hawking compared Aliens visiting Earth to Columbus discovering America where we're the Native American's and as we all know that didn't end too well for them. If Aliens are anything like we were back then, which we can't assume they aren't, calling out for them is kind of like sending out an "invade and kill us" message to them



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by rickybobby13
 


Typical fear based logic and reflecting our own shortcomings into the (once again hypothetical) aliens.

Give me a brake.. rickybobby.

Like I said earlier: we can stay in some galactic closet, arm ourselves to the teeth and be afraid of everything, or we can go out there and try to make some new friends. (Assuming that there really is anyone out there
). We are killing ourselves collectively anyway, so we don't have that much to lose. What can they do anyway? Kill us? So what?

[edit on 26/4/2010 by Tryptych]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by azzllin
I am looking forward to watching this Documentary, It's incredible that Hawking, with his life being the way it is, is still one of the leading thinkers of our time,


It's not really all that amazing, if you consider the fact that he doesn't really have all that much else to do other than think. They guy's mobility has steadily been getting worse as the years have passed. I remember watching a docu-drama about his early life, being at University and the onset of his disease. It was very interesting.

As for aliens, this really doesn't tell me anything new. It's just an extension of the Drake Equation from 50 years ago with a few personal insights by Hawking. Just because Hawking believes something don't make it true. Even clever people can be wrong.

On a personal level, I believe this to be completely possible though. The statistics are irrefutable.

[edit for spellnig]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by nik1halo]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Tryptych
 


It's entirely possible, with the general attitude and psychology of the human species, that by the time we do "get out there", we find ourselves being the invaders. If we found a planet inhabited with a primitive tribal society, that had resources we needed, what do you think would happen?

We are, as a species pretty horrible. We are paranoid, greedy, selfish and elitist. I think Avatar hit the nail pretty much on the . as to what we would be like as a space faring race.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
History shows many of the higher civilisations ended at the hands of so called barbarians so maybe the peace loving ET's have more to fear from us.

Maybe they would tend to stay away and leave us to the mercy of agressive ET's, Karma if you like.

I would imagine that ET's being aggressive or peaceful would be as varied as there are life forms.

I could also imagine that once a species becomes advanced enough for interstella travel an aggressive group may be more likely to dominate than a purley passive one.

So my take is that ET's would be cautious, peaceful usually but able to defend themselves. We should learn some manners, send out our calling cards and hope for the best.

No advances in humanity came without risk. ET contact will be no different but would guess it will be on their terms not ours whatever thier stance.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
My lecturer in psycology just brought up a similar article, from a norwegian newspaper. The debate around it shows our human arrogance, and I find it quite dissapointing, to be honest.

It seemed that no one in the class had ever considered life outside of the earth a possibility, and the article was almost laughed at.
My psycology lecturer said that perhaps you had to be extremely intelligent to believe in such a thing, and he indicated that this could be a result of Stephen Hawkings vivid fantasies, developed by his smart brain.

One of the girls in the class pointed out that Stephen Hawkings said himself that he couldnt be a 100% sure, and that he probably had doubt, because of a good reason. Well... Wouldnt it be completely irrational to say you are 100% secure on something you havent proved yet, because first contact has allegedlt not been made.

I frustration I explained the drake equation to the class, to give them some understanding of the vastness of the universe, and how many planets there actually is. Though, it did not seem to help, no one of these fellow norwegian students of mine will consider the possibility of life outside planet earth, they wont back it up with any arguements, its just pure arrogance. Humans, yay.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atlantican
What if WE are the result of an armada of resource hogs/raiders? There seems to be a lot of evidence for lesser humanoid forms in Earth's past yet none coexist with us, nor do any missing links.


Not true, Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal man more than likely coexisted for a period of time in the European regions, although admittedly, Neanderthals aren't an ancestor of modern man.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by nik1halo
 


Pretty spot on. First would come the visionaries, scientists and people a. their time. Then would come the corporate interest. Money, root of all evil.

I think that the values must change. Our views of MUST change.



new topics

top topics



 
106
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join