Comments on: the return of the alien menace next door http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/07/the-return-of-the-alien-menace-next-door/ exploring science, the strange and the unknown Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:09:03 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: laura http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/07/the-return-of-the-alien-menace-next-door/#comment-6923 laura Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:01:36 +0000 http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=4514#comment-6923 What a bunch of uneducated ignorant people in my life,, There is way more to this than you are given to read, www.projectcamelot.com www.divinecosmos.com, learn something you fools What a bunch of uneducated ignorant people in my life,, There is way more to this than you are given to read, http://www.projectcamelot.com http://www.divinecosmos.com, learn something you fools

]]> By: Jordan http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/07/the-return-of-the-alien-menace-next-door/#comment-6851 Jordan Wed, 07 Oct 2009 06:45:30 +0000 http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=4514#comment-6851 Woops, forgot to specify my post was a response to mr. Joe Johnson. Woops, forgot to specify my post was a response to mr. Joe Johnson.

]]> By: Jordan http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/07/the-return-of-the-alien-menace-next-door/#comment-6850 Jordan Wed, 07 Oct 2009 06:44:41 +0000 http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=4514#comment-6850 I'm quite perplexed at how I'd like to respond to your post. I could try to explain the errors in your "logic" and expose the massive gaps in your information (which are multitudinous) or I could just insult you offhandedly. I choose the former: 1. "...1. time is relative 2. the speed of light is actually slowing down..." Not sure what that first statement meant to prove, but time dilation is only experienced at speeds approaching the speed of light. Nothing other than light even comes close so you really have no point there. Secondly, although the speed of light is referred to as Constant, it does fluctuate depending on the medium it is passing through, so, yes light does slow down. BUT WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE AGE OF THE EARTH IN THE FIRST PLACE?! 2. "..So it may seem utterly ridiculous to imagine there were countless billions of stars in the sky, when you could actually count them…" You can count the stars? Maybe in a city. But get outside of the light pollution and you'll find the bible quote is not that far a stretch of the imagination. 3. "...but now it is entirely laughable to attempt to claim Nothing created Everything..." What's laughable is attempting to say you have any intimation as to what did create the universe. Science makes no such claim. It explains the initial moment of creation and the result, but makes no arrogant claims beyond that. that is where faith falls short. 4. "...don’t pretend that a virus or bacteria changing its characteristics to get around immunities is a mutation, those are its built in survival mechanisms..." Oh. So an altering of an organisms DNA, whether it's in birds or bacteria, doesn't constitute a mutation? Well, thank you for clearing that up! 5. "...Darwin’s mutation theories say a frog getting eaten by birds decides to grow a shell and in 2 million years becomes a turtle, which is B.S..." Besides the fact that Turtles are reptiles and frogs are amphibians, you're under the mistaken impression that natural selection is an active process. The "frog" has no say in becoming anything. Mutations occur randomly and can be very detrimental (i.e. down syndrome) or can give that individual a fitness advantage(i.e. a hard shell) the reason why it takes so long is because often, multiple mutations have to happen to even make a difference. But mutations take a long time. He doesn't decide to have a shell, he just happens to live longer if he has protection from his predators. My god I've spent much longer on this reply than you really deserve as it will probably only make you cling tighter to your safety blanket pseudoscience and hollow faith. I’m quite perplexed at how I’d like to respond to your post. I could try to explain the errors in your “logic” and expose the massive gaps in your information (which are multitudinous) or I could just insult you offhandedly. I choose the former:

1. “…1. time is relative 2. the speed of light is actually slowing down…”

Not sure what that first statement meant to prove, but time dilation is only experienced at speeds approaching the speed of light. Nothing other than light even comes close so you really have no point there. Secondly, although the speed of light is referred to as Constant, it does fluctuate depending on the medium it is passing through, so, yes light does slow down. BUT WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE AGE OF THE EARTH IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

2. “..So it may seem utterly ridiculous to imagine there were countless billions of
stars in the sky, when you could actually count them…”

You can count the stars? Maybe in a city. But get outside of the light pollution and you’ll find the bible quote is not that far a stretch of the imagination.

3. “…but now it is entirely laughable to attempt to claim Nothing created Everything…”

What’s laughable is attempting to say you have any intimation as to what did create the universe. Science makes no such claim. It explains the initial moment of creation and the result, but makes no arrogant claims beyond that. that is where faith falls short.

4. “…don’t pretend that a virus or bacteria changing its characteristics to get around immunities is a mutation, those are its built in survival mechanisms…”

Oh. So an altering of an organisms DNA, whether it’s in birds or bacteria, doesn’t constitute a mutation? Well, thank you for clearing that up!

5. “…Darwin’s mutation theories say a frog getting eaten by birds decides to grow a shell and in 2 million years becomes a turtle, which is B.S…”

Besides the fact that Turtles are reptiles and frogs are amphibians, you’re under the mistaken impression that natural selection is an active process. The “frog” has no say in becoming anything. Mutations occur randomly and can be very detrimental (i.e. down syndrome) or can give that individual a fitness advantage(i.e. a hard shell) the reason why it takes so long is because often, multiple mutations have to happen to even make a difference. But mutations take a long time. He doesn’t decide to have a shell, he just happens to live longer if he has protection from his predators.

My god I’ve spent much longer on this reply than you really deserve as it will probably only make you cling tighter to your safety blanket pseudoscience and hollow faith.

]]> By: gfish http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/07/the-return-of-the-alien-menace-next-door/#comment-6843 gfish Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:50:39 +0000 http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=4514#comment-6843 <i>"How can you claim the Earth is NOT around 6000 years old? Don’t you know that: 1. time is relative, 2. the speed of light is actually slowing down[?]"</i> Joe, your comment was quite possibly the most impressive hodgepodge of totally random pseudoscience and technobabble I've ever seen. That's not a compliment by the way... But you did manage to inspire an <a href="http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/10/07/you-can-hear-einstein-weeping-in-the-background/" target="_self" rel="nofollow">entire post in reply</a>, though I'm warning you that you probably won't like it... “How can you claim the Earth is NOT around 6000 years old? Don’t you know that: 1. time is relative, 2. the speed of light is actually slowing down[?]“

Joe, your comment was quite possibly the most impressive hodgepodge of totally random pseudoscience and technobabble I’ve ever seen. That’s not a compliment by the way…

But you did manage to inspire an entire post in reply, though I’m warning you that you probably won’t like it…

]]> By: Thomas http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/07/the-return-of-the-alien-menace-next-door/#comment-6839 Thomas Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:51:35 +0000 http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=4514#comment-6839 Why would Aliens be living on our moon? Unless they're mining the Hg3 for energy generation. Ohhhh, perhaps they're in the mist of an interstellar war and our Solar System is a stopping point to refuel before heading of to the front lines. Why would Aliens be living on our moon? Unless they’re mining the Hg3 for energy generation. Ohhhh, perhaps they’re in the mist of an interstellar war and our Solar System is a stopping point to refuel before heading of to the front lines.

]]> By: Rob http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/07/the-return-of-the-alien-menace-next-door/#comment-6833 Rob Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:53:56 +0000 http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=4514#comment-6833 They're not bombing the moon - just letting a stage of a spacecraft crash land in a controlled way into a crater to try to make a dent in the surface and find water underneath. Amazing how big media has exaggerated the story into, "Nasa to Bomb the Moon". However....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6QNzH4x1rY They’re not bombing the moon – just letting a stage of a spacecraft crash land in a controlled way into a crater to try to make a dent in the surface and find water underneath. Amazing how big media has exaggerated the story into, “Nasa to Bomb the Moon”. However….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6QNzH4×1rY

]]> By: Areanna 51 http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/07/the-return-of-the-alien-menace-next-door/#comment-6825 Areanna 51 Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:51:59 +0000 http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=4514#comment-6825 What comes around goes around! The aliens did not show us any respect when the probe they sent to find humpback whales ionized our atmoshere! I say its better this way. after all, "in space all warriors are cold warriors"... We will be watching the early morning skies on Friday. Probe on! What comes around goes around! The aliens did not show us any respect when the probe they sent to find humpback whales ionized our atmoshere!
I say its better this way. after all, “in space all warriors are cold warriors”…
We will be watching the early morning skies on Friday. Probe on!

]]> By: Alien Artifact http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/07/the-return-of-the-alien-menace-next-door/#comment-6822 Alien Artifact Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:10:23 +0000 http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=4514#comment-6822 Did they come to our planet many years in the past? Are they even out there? What wonders does their technology hold? Surely they can live forever. Did they come to our planet many years in the past? Are they even out there? What wonders does their technology hold? Surely they can live forever.

]]> By: Joe Johnson http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/07/the-return-of-the-alien-menace-next-door/#comment-6821 Joe Johnson Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:07:26 +0000 http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=4514#comment-6821 How can you claim the Earth is NOT around 6000 years old? Don't you know that: 1. time is relative 2. the speed of light is actually slowing down As a Scientist, you shouldn't ignore facts to believe the Bible, but neither should you ignore the facts that support the Bible. Also consider that we don't have as much information as we will have later. So it may seem utterly ridiculous to imagine there were countless billions of stars in the sky, when you could actually count them... yet we NOW know the truth backs up a Biblical claim written 3000 years ago... ie.. the stars in the sky number as much as the sand on the sea shore. Anyway, the first scientists were not indoctrinated Atheists as they tend to be today, and just as a priest has his predisposition on a certain outcome, so does an Atheist. Where we can all agree is in being open and truthful with the facts. Atheists had their time when evolution theory couldn't be refuted scientifically, but now it is entirely laughable to attempt to claim Nothing created Everything. DNA has a code more complex than a software program, and is very specific in its transfer... mistakes or mutations cause errors, not improvements... EVER! (please don't pretend that a virus or bacteria changing its characteristics to get around immunities is a mutation, those are its built in survival mechanisms and are the equivalent to building muscle by working out... arnold didn't mutate huge biceps: Darwin's mutation theories say a frog getting eaten by birds decides to grow a shell and in 2 million years becomes a turtle, which is B.S.). How can you claim the Earth is NOT around 6000 years old? Don’t you know that:
1. time is relative
2. the speed of light is actually slowing down
As a Scientist, you shouldn’t ignore facts to believe the Bible, but neither should
you ignore the facts that support the Bible. Also consider that we don’t have as much
information as we will have later. So it may seem utterly ridiculous to imagine there were countless billions of
stars in the sky, when you could actually count them… yet we NOW know the truth backs up a Biblical claim
written 3000 years ago… ie.. the stars in the sky number as much as the sand on the sea shore.
Anyway, the first scientists were not indoctrinated Atheists as they tend to be today, and just as a priest has
his predisposition on a certain outcome, so does an Atheist. Where we can all agree is in being open and truthful with the facts. Atheists had their time when evolution theory couldn’t be refuted scientifically, but now it is entirely laughable to attempt to claim Nothing created Everything. DNA has a code more complex than a software program, and is very specific in its transfer… mistakes or mutations cause errors, not improvements… EVER! (please don’t pretend that a virus or bacteria changing its characteristics to get around immunities is a mutation, those are its built in survival mechanisms and are the equivalent to building muscle by working out… arnold didn’t mutate huge biceps: Darwin’s mutation theories say a frog getting eaten by birds decides to grow a shell and in 2 million years becomes a turtle, which is B.S.).

]]> By: Steven Lloyd Wilson http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/07/the-return-of-the-alien-menace-next-door/#comment-5714 Steven Lloyd Wilson Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:36:23 +0000 http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=4514#comment-5714 Ah, but I think that the potential validity of a claim should be considered separately from the thought process of exploring that claim. I.e., While you are correct that "UFOs have visited the earth" is at least scientifically plausible whereas "the Earth is 6000 years old" is not, the problem isn't the plausibility of either claim, it is the way in which adherents support the claim. All of science is based on the testing of hypotheses, it is the method which is important, not the hypothesis itself. Utterly absurd hypotheses will be easily disproven, whereas more plausible ones may take a bit more work. People should be encouraged to have gleefully implausible hypotheses so long as they are willing to test them. In other words, I'm all for a Flat Earth society, so long as they're willing to actually follow the evidence. The refusal to follow the evidence, the refusal to disprove the initial hypotheses regardless of any evidence to the contrary is where the real problem exists. It is an infectious sort of meme that can be found in all trains of human thought. In politics it has been raised to a high art form: Obama is not an American citizen, any birth certificates, hospital records, family photos, are all elaborate ruses. The meme can manifest in any manner of seemingly harmless ways: Singer Abc is awesome, he didn't really beat his girlfriend, he didn't really wrap his car around a tree, people are just setting him up. The starting hypothesis can even be damned close to objectively true before flying off the rails. The point is that the starting point doesn't really matter so long as empiricism is rejected in favor of belief. Ah, but I think that the potential validity of a claim should be considered separately from the thought process of exploring that claim. I.e., While you are correct that “UFOs have visited the earth” is at least scientifically plausible whereas “the Earth is 6000 years old” is not, the problem isn’t the plausibility of either claim, it is the way in which adherents support the claim. All of science is based on the testing of hypotheses, it is the method which is important, not the hypothesis itself. Utterly absurd hypotheses will be easily disproven, whereas more plausible ones may take a bit more work. People should be encouraged to have gleefully implausible hypotheses so long as they are willing to test them. In other words, I’m all for a Flat Earth society, so long as they’re willing to actually follow the evidence.

The refusal to follow the evidence, the refusal to disprove the initial hypotheses regardless of any evidence to the contrary is where the real problem exists. It is an infectious sort of meme that can be found in all trains of human thought. In politics it has been raised to a high art form: Obama is not an American citizen, any birth certificates, hospital records, family photos, are all elaborate ruses. The meme can manifest in any manner of seemingly harmless ways: Singer Abc is awesome, he didn’t really beat his girlfriend, he didn’t really wrap his car around a tree, people are just setting him up. The starting hypothesis can even be damned close to objectively true before flying off the rails.

The point is that the starting point doesn’t really matter so long as empiricism is rejected in favor of belief.

]]>