Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
This is sort of off topic but it reminds me of Steven Hawking saying that if aliens came to earth they would likely want to attack it and harvest the earth for resources, or whatever. Yet, Mr. Hawking has no place to speaking about an alien's psychology. In fact, I would argue that Mr. Hawking likely isn't too adept at human psychology by saying that because the closest thing he'd have to understanding alien psychology would be human psychology.

I don't think you quite got the message. It was not about how the aliens are definitely going to be bloodthirsty maniacs. It's about the downside risk, in case they actually are. Let's say there is 85% chance that aliens are rich and benevolent hippies who cruise the Universe to cure cancer and give away cases of champagne. The remaining 15% is the chance that they will be like hi-tech Texas Chainsaw Massacre type of guys. The idea is that enormous benefits of the 85% do not outweigh certain extinction of human species in the other 15%.

So if Dr. Hawking is not an expert in alien psyche, he says that whatever the percentage is, it's too damn risky to consider this. It's like playing russian roulette for $1M. A lot of people would do it, but the conservative and prudent type won't.

Okay, so now we're going to get into an argument about this? First off, your percentages are incredibly incorrect. Not only is not 85/15, there are not only those two possibilities. I know tons of people who are neither hippies nor "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" type guys. In fact, I'd say the majority of people are neither hippies nor texas chainsaw massacre type guys. But lets examine the latter:

If the Aliens were in fact Texas Chainsaw Massacre type aliens, how would they have ever evolved to the point of making it outerspace, let alone interstellar travel? It seems to me that people who are just out for blood tend to contribute nothing to the scientific community. Even further, if they are out for blood only, then they'd be stuck on their planet trying to murder the rest of their species. Their first instinct wouldn't be, "Hey, you know what, I want blood, but lets work together in order to learn physics, build space ships, find life on another planet, and kill it. I can wait that long before I satisfy this primal urge for killing that I'm having." This is ludicrous.

The fact of the matter is that it would take a great amount of work to get to a point where a race could accomplish interstellar travel. So, this eliminates the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" type aliens because they wouldn't be able to progress beyond their primal urges to kill each other. It would also take a great amount of intellect to be able to achieve such a thing. I would argue that as intellect goes up there is also a reverse correlation to "blood thirst." I would also argue that even beginning to think about interstellar travel would require a large amount of curiousity, let alone accomplishing such a thing. As a result, this curiosity and intellect would likely mean that aliens capable of coming to Earth would be curious, and thus observational, about humankind, and unlikely to attack us. And if the aliens did need resources, I would think they'd be smart enough (as they are smart enough to accomplish interstellar travel) to get the attention of the world leaders and either barter with them or try to threaten them with war before they went into battle and probably lost some of their alien brothers in a war.

But even that is unrealistic, as it is unlikely that something smart enough to accomplish interstellar travel would be so dumb as to not have a solution for their problems at home. Even humans today are coming up with solutions to combat the environmental issues (and other issues) we are facing, and we are no where near successful interstellar travel. I can't imagine humans being stagnant in their technological growth in those areas, but booming in interstellar travel. Similarly, it doesn't make sense for aliens to encounter that problem either. Thus, that option is rather unlikely.

All in all, I'd say its incredibly unlikely that an alien race would come to earth to kill humans or pillage the earth's natural resources, because it would require an incredible amount of intellect and curiousity to accomplish such a feat. Thus, I'd put the 15% odds at 0.000000000000000000001

If you ask me, I'd say if humans found life on another planet, and had the means to get there, we'd study the aliens, not attack and kill them.

Human history is abundant with examples of opposite sort of behavior.

So your opinion here is that if humans found life on another planet, we'd try to kill it? So, let's get this straight, we'd spend billions of dollars to have our scientists go up in space ships, just to kill off life? I think you should clarify instead of responding with one sentence.


Cont

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

The point of my original post was because the other person was dismissive of the shroud based on the original carbon dating test that they did. However, there have been, as you point out, enough questions to call the original testing into doubt. Just as this study has too many questions surrounding it to say that its valid.

Yes, but at least the study demonstrated a non-zero probability that the shroud is modern. That whole "mending" of the shroud is actually a hypothesis in and by itself.

I probably should have left this part alone because it didn't fit in my post above, but oh well, sorry for the waste of space. However, I am confused as to your point here. Are you saying that the shroud is modern and not from the middle ages or the first century a.d.? Also, I agree that the mending of the shroud is just a hypothesis. However, most things are. It should be noted that a study in the peer reviewed scientific journal of Thermochimica Acta "proved" that the carbon dating was invalid because the sample used was invalid. So, I think we should distinguish the words hypothesis and speculation in this case because it's more likely that the sample used was in fact invalid, than it is not. The mending is not just speculation, but rather an educated hypothesis on the subject.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Okay, so now we're going to get into an argument about this? First off, your percentages are incredibly incorrect. Not only is not 85/15, there are not only those two possibilities. I know tons of people who are neither hippies nor "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" type guys. In fact, I'd say the majority of people are neither hippies nor Texas chainsaw massacre type guys.

Well I obviously simplified just to make a shorter argument.

If the Aliens were in fact Texas Chainsaw Massacre type aliens, how would they have ever evolved to the point of making it outerspace, let alone interstellar travel? It seems to me that people who are just out for blood tend to contribute nothing to the scientific community.

OK, lets examine history again. Nazi Germany had some of the best science on the planet. They wrecked havoc on much of Europe and sank ships in clear view of New Jersey, right here in the States, and invented superguns and ballistic missiles.

I admit my analogy with Texas etc was poorly chosen. Motivations of other races are unlikely be confined to some murderous pathology. I just wanted to underscore the dramatic, and indeed tragic, possibilities.

So your opinion here is that if humans found life on another planet, we'd try to kill it? So, let's get this straight, we'd spend billions of dollars to have our scientists go up in space ships, just to kill off life?

I do think that's possibility, however it won't necessarily materialize. It's been explored in sci-fi novels -- first contact, somebody with an itchy trigger finger, then perception of an aggression etc.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by Suspiria
Wonder if these Italian scientists are Catholic...

What relevance does that have? o_0

The possibility of prejudice and bias is raised.

Its fake. Its a hoax. Prove its real. Provide a link to something that proves with out a doubt its real. Not some silly flawed test they run on it every year to line the pockets of who ever owns it.. Ok im bein silly. I hope its real, i hope that im looking at the face of christ.

Originally posted by wirefly
Wouldn't a secular scientist in these modern times be more inclined to try to DISprove the shroud just as a Catholic scientist would be inclined to PROVE the shroud to be legit?

Provided they are both scientists and now scoundrels, it doesn't matter whether the reasearcher is an atheist or a Catholic. You see, if you don't fudge the data, if you don't obfuscate the theories, if you publish it in refereed journals, it's all good.

There is only one scientific method, and if a religious person decides to eschew it, they quit been scientists the same second. Same applies to atheists.

Originally posted by Suspiria
Wonder if these Italian scientists are Catholic...

You got 67 stars for a one liner? Wooooow. Now i get it! People are too lazy to READ!

This is a very interesting 6 part series, hope you like it.

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

The shroud appears to be a man in his 50's, not 33.
It is my opinion, That the Man on the Shroud is not Jesus Christ.
The younger mans Cheek bones do not protrude, and Eyes are not that deep in the skull.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration


Why do you people always have to shout "ET" when you find something that cannot be explained by normal human measure?

LOLOLOL For the same reason billions have to shout "GOD" when something cannot be explained by normal human measure?

Also, we have ONE shroud. How many millions of people were buried in a shroud back then? I don't know about anyone else, but if Jesus died at the age of 33, did people actually look 70 at that age back then? The image on the shroud sure looks that old.

Originally posted by matadoor
Oh, and to Revelation Generation, I leave you this little reminder....

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things" (Romans 2:1).

Thank you, RG has been doing more than his fair share of judging people and telling them where they will go for some time now, hasn't he?
I gave you a star, and you deserve it too.

As for the shroud, I don't think it was ever "supernatural," in that sense of the word, and could have in fact have been produced by ET Technology, it could also have been the burial shroud of Jacques de Molay.(1292-1314)