I hereby relinquish all my previous statements about creation, and attest to everything written in the above quote. All hail the Annunaki.

Any chance of being transferred from this planetary system?

I made reference to a 'cosmic muffin' ....probably slipped right over one head or two....so here's the source....

Kudos to National Lampoon....

Ah, that explains the 'missing link'... homo sapiens was created by an alien race.   It also explains how Cain and Abel managed to go out and find wives when mummy and daddy were supposedly the ONLY other two people on the planet.  They had to compromise some, but they found Neanderthal wives.  Now takes incest out of the equation, don't it?  

I always had my suspicions it was the case because humanoids on this planet went suddenly from being homo erectus (Neanderthals) to homo sapiens in the absence of the evolutionary process that had previously set the rules.  The evolving from apes and other lower forms of biped is something I never swallowed. Some people might say that pubic hair is evidence and the last vestige of our ape ancestry, but I'm more inclined to think it was deliberately placed there by our alien creators for times of hardship and when it gets cold.

There may be some genetic similarities, given George Bush, WWE wrestlers and others who beat their chests to assert their dominance, but those are exceptions to the rule and generally speaking the human race is more considerably more distant from chimpanzees than it is close to them.  However, I have met a few knuckle draggers in my time whose ancestors must have participated in some cross breeding to have produced such genetic and intellectual anomalies.  Former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, comes to mind here... and the more bald he becomes the more obvious it becomes from his oddly shaped cranium that he has some Neanderthal heritage somewhere along the line.

*me thinks Navigatsio is right about too much spare time*

I'm going to ask some noob questions. I'm honestly asking the questions because I'd like to see some feedback. Just going to fire them off.

1. Does the law of gravity change over time? If not, why is it stable instead of random?
2. Why does the law of gravity even exist? Basically, why is there structure to the Universal sandbox vs. no structure at all?

I'm fascinated by black holes as from what I've read and seen, scientists admit the laws of physics are unexplained inside a black hole or at least past the event horizon. Could they be a window to a reality governed by different laws? If that's true, then in my mind ANYTHING goes outside our understanding of our sandbox, including the concept of a Creator, God, prime mover, etc. Are we just worm food when we die or is death a transcendence of this sandbox to another reality?

We are creatures bound by 5 basic senses, combined with an intellect to create tools for expanding the senses. We have microscopes, telescopes, radios, night vission goggles, amplifiers, etc.

If I live my entire life in a bubble, do I have any concept of what is outside that bubble? I'm sure Plato or others covered all this shit. Anyway I'm rambling, lol. I probably should just google this stuff.

I am curious though on this whole divine intervention concept, as well, why the universe has to have a beginning.  Organic life has beginnings and endings, not inorganic things.  But then again, matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, it just is.  Everything in the universe is comprised of molecules that have formed to create more complex things, our planet, us, other life forms.  Everything points to the universe having started from a single hot point, and an explosion.  Its probably happened more times than we will ever know and will continue infinitely.  Now, given that the universe is full of wonder and awe, who is to say that what we define "God" as was created by the universe, ala Q from star trek, just a lot less mischievous.

Also, off topic, but no one with any type of education should ever let some religious leader ever think for them, thats just plain stupid.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by changing over time. If, for example, the planet you are in orbit around is changing in mass (although I have no idea why that would be happening) or you are moving farther away or closer to the planet, the effects you feel from gravity will change.

Gravity is caused by the bending of spacetime (basically) due to a mass. The simple model most people use to describe it is that it is like you put a bowling ball on a big rubber sheet. It creates an indentation that "attracts" other balls (planets, asteroids, whatever). Obviously that is very simplified (try imagining the same thing in three dimensions ) but it is a good visualization to get you started.

Quantum mechanics, while they do apply to everything, only really make their effects known on tiny, tiny scales (atoms and smaller). As you get bigger and more complex things (molecules, collections of molecules, etc) quatum mechanics becomes less apparent, although there are a couple exceptions. They larger the system you're dealing with, the less likely "weird" things will happen (like walking through a wall). In order to walk through a wall, all of your atoms and all of the atoms in the wall have to line up just right. That's trillions and trillions of atoms that have to randomly happen to be in the right arrangement. Obviously, the odds of that happening are very, very, very low.

The laws of physics do for the most part explain the insides of black holes. Yes, not everything is explained (yet) but they are fairly well understood. Granted, the predictions cannot be proven (and probably never can be, given the nature of black holes) but as the current model of physics makes accurate predictions about everything else, the ones about black holes are probably correct.

I currently subscribe to the deterministic "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics by Hugh Everett. I've always been fascinated with the concept of a multi-verse, and I think that his inference was a stroke of genius. As I've said before in an attempt to speak on topic, I think parallel universes are more probable than aliens. Given decoherence, evidencing this theory is ultimately parallel in effect to trying to observe the prime mover as the first cause is being actioned. In other words, innately defeated. Seems eerily coincidental when I think on it.

At any rate, even I've grown tired of this off-topic snowballed discussion. I vote we end it. In fact, I think it probably wouldn't go much further if I stopped responding, as most responses seem to be targeted at me or my statements.

Back on topic (somewhat), if a flying object soars over the woods, and there is no one there to see it, is it technically an unidentified flying object, seeing as no one was there to identify it? For that matter, why do these things always have to happen in the woods?

You fail.  Because I don't deny  the possibility of a creator, I just don't leap to that conclusion due to a lack of knowledge, as you do.

See, I'm not putting words in your mouth.  You can call 'god' whatever you want, in the end the concept is the same no matter what you or I want to call it.  You get hung up on that because you're desperately trying to couch a non scientific argument in scientific terms.  It cannot be done without you looking like the fool you have made yourself out to be.  Just as the IDers, who came before this argument, tried to keep 'god' out of their argument, but they (and you) are not fooling anyone.  Your argument MUST invoke a completely unnecessary element to satisfy its conclusion.  That is bad science, bad logic, a bad argument.  Worse when you try to deny that element, or wave it away as you do with your entire 'beyond logic' wording.

See I agree, if there is a god, then he is by definition beyond logic, I've had this debate with many atheists over the years.  However, once you agree to that definition, you then remove using that god in any kind of scientific based discussion.

Then there's this notion that I don't believe in causality.  Well, I never said that either, I asked you to show why causality is necessary.  In particular as it applies to your conclusion.  You just state it and accept it, that's unsatisfactory.  Why?  Well because the 'laws of physics' are not the same depending on the point of reference or the scale of the system.  Newton to Einstein.  Galaxies to electrons.  This is so fundamentally obvious to anyone who has studied the subject that as you make your statements which clearly demonstrate that you do not understand this, it boggles the mind that you continue to prattle on with the same absurdities as though what we do know doesn't apply to you.

Right?  Because since there is so much that we don't know, of course, God is the only possible answer.  Not that God is necessarily the wrong answer, but there's no rational way to get to God being the only possible answer.

God does not require religion.

But Religion requires God.

I really didn't want to respond, but there's so much disconnect here, it's not funny. Plus I'm bored.

Firstly, I accept that I erred when I said that you completely deny the possibility of a creator. But there's something you keep repeating without substantiating. You say that I 'leap' to my conclusion, and that I base it on a lack of knowledge. You also say it's bad science, logic, and argument. I will address these issues here.

Logic:

Now, while it's possible I'm wrong, and also possible that the premises I use end up being false, if what I say is true given the antecedents, then the logic is still sound, even if the conclusion is ultimately inaccurate. You have not (or barely) addressed the actual arguments, and so you haven't shown if/how/why I might be wrong.

Science:

What I posited is based on causality and thermodynamics. While it's possible that my understanding of these concepts is somewhat flawed or incomplete, it is not unscientific to be mistaken about scientific theories. Science is not perfect, it's about learning, a phenomenon naturally riddled with making mistakes. Then again, you haven't addressed the statements I made about anything, so you haven't shown whether and how the science is good or bad.

Argument:

If the above are used as guidelines, then the argument, while possibly wrong, is not necessarily bad. Again, you haven't actually attacked the argument. That would require breaking it apart and refuting it, which you haven't done.

The leap to a conclusion from lack of knowledge:

Nowhere did I say that since we don't know X and Y, Z must be true. What I did say is because we do know X and Y, Z must be true. Now, while I could be wrong about X & Y being true, I would still not be positing that something is true due to a lack of knowing X. I would simply be wrong.

I see that you've stated in another post that God does not require religion, and yet you seem to insist that my statement about a necessary creator is based on religion, as though it cannot be otherwise, and you equate me to IDers. Even if this were true, since I haven't referred to religion, and indeed I've asked that the discussion steer clear of it, this remains only a guess on your part, and a baseless one at that. But you're welcome to keep it, as all it does is attack your own credibility when you demonstrate the gall in calling someone else a fool.

To your credit though, you did say something valid, albeit vague, regarding quantum mechanics. Very generally, at micro levels, observable interactions occur that have been labeled as 'random'. But the more honest interpretation of that would be 'unknown'. In other words, there is no known system that would explain these interactions, and so they appear random. The nature of the concept of randomness is that you cannot actually prove that something is random. This is because the state of not knowing is the same as the state of theoretical randomness, for all observable intents and purposes. Meaning to say, that if there is or is not a system, but you do not know of a system, you cannot tell if it is actually random or simply unknown, because neither of them necessitate. If this were a more philosophical discussion, you could say that by extension, the unknown (or not understandable phenomenon) is known to exist, but randomness cannot, because it can never be demonstrated.

A thus far sound theory regarding quantum mechanics has been posited by Hugh Everett. This theory demonstrates a deterministic representation of quantum theory, whereby causality becomes necessary. But let us not forget either, that we are still in the early stages of learning about quantum mechanics, and some weirder and even more wonderful findings may yet be in store, that could possibly debunk some or all of what is thus far considered known. More to the point, what this says about quantum theory is that it is either proving that causality applies, or that it doesn't necessarily not apply.

Also, you said "Then there's this notion that I don't believe in causality.". Seemingly in response to when I said "I haven't demonstrated that causality is not necessary, though I'm sure it isn't, for reasons I'm not mentioning for some reason." as part of my summary of your arguments. You seem to be saying that causality may not be necessary, but I didn't accuse you of saying that it didn't exist at all. Only that you haven't demonstrated how it may not be necessary in any clear way.

I said that the prime mover is outside the bounds of our logic. You took this to mean that no scientific discussion can include the concept of a creator. That is a flawed argument, and unlike you, I will demonstrate how. If you are going to posit theories based on the nature of a thing outside the bounds of our logic, then you are not following scientific axioms, as nothing can be derived from what you cannot observe, or cannot understand. On the other hand, if you posit theories based on what can be observed and understood about the nature of our own existence, and these observations demonstrate that our existence has certain requirements for existing, then these requirements amalgamate to form a scientifically based conclusion about a necessary agent that fulfils these conditions. The fact that we are unable to encompass this agent within our imaginations does not preclude that we may see evidence of interaction in the footprints of our makeup.

Lastly, I must say that you have a wonderful style of debate. Somehow, insults coupled with baseless accusations, unsubstantiated statements, and vague allusions to evidence equate to a strong argument. Now that is what I would call magical. Meanwhile, I have to resort to the mundane task of addressing each of your points and demonstrating if and how you are wrong, as well as where I think you have been correct.

That was more than I thought I'd be writing. It may please some of you to know that I no longer have the luxury to spend so much time on these forums, which I tend to enjoy doing more often than not, as I've found that many to most people here are quite reasonable and decent. I'll still come around when I find the time though (hopefully).

Funny how a thread about UFOs an aliens turned into a debate about causality, religion, quantum mechanics and whatnot.

In school you would all get an F for addressing the wrong topic.

I hear drums! Can you hear them?! Can you?! BAM BAM BAM BAM, BAM BAM BAM BAM,...

Somebody call The Doctor!