Posted: 05 Jan 2009, 23:00
I had no idea that Winston was an alien...!psichonaut wrote:not that one but it was similar to this face
Page 2 of 3
Posted: 05 Jan 2009, 23:23
EvilBastard wrote:I had no idea that Winston was an alien...!psichonaut wrote:not that one but it was similar to this face
Posted: 06 Jan 2009, 13:47
Posted: 07 Jan 2009, 21:49
NO!
We're definitely unique with a weakness for thinking we ain't so special
We're definitely unique with a weakness for thinking we ain't so special
Posted: 08 Jan 2009, 09:53
We ain't so special though...
Posted: 08 Jan 2009, 18:09
just me then?We ain't so special though...
I could be wrong though....http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 32483.html
Posted: 09 Jan 2009, 11:17
darkparticle wrote:just me then?We ain't so special though...
I could be wrong though....http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 32483.html
Phil Plait's take on that story: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... en-energy/
BadAstronomy wrote:
Posted: 09 Jan 2009, 18:53
MrFiend
your ability to seek out obscure and twisted websense is impressive. You must waste more time o't web than me....again I take my tin-foil hat off to youThat's a badass site, easy to get lost in there!
Posted: 10 Jan 2009, 10:59
I do it for a living matedarkparticle wrote:You must waste more time o't web than me
Posted: 10 Jan 2009, 17:13
A lot of people do it for a living. Until their bosses catch them...
Posted: 10 Jan 2009, 21:36
stufarq wrote:A lot of people do it for a living. Until their bosses catch them...
Posted: 11 Jan 2009, 09:14
markfiend wrote:stufarq wrote:A lot of people do it for a living. Until their bosses catch them...
Posted: 11 Jan 2009, 22:09
There is probably not much intelligent life out there right now.
Life needs complex molecules; complex molecules which are created during the lifetime of a sun.
The age of the universe is around 14 billion years old. Our sun's lifecycle is expected to be around 10 billion years, although different sized suns can burn out much quicker.
Therefore our solar system is probably only a second or at most third generation system.
We are very early in the lifecycle of the universe. Life has not had much time to develop.
And if there is life out there, if the speed of light is truly the universe's speed limit, its very unlikely they have had time to visit us.
Life needs complex molecules; complex molecules which are created during the lifetime of a sun.
The age of the universe is around 14 billion years old. Our sun's lifecycle is expected to be around 10 billion years, although different sized suns can burn out much quicker.
Therefore our solar system is probably only a second or at most third generation system.
We are very early in the lifecycle of the universe. Life has not had much time to develop.
And if there is life out there, if the speed of light is truly the universe's speed limit, its very unlikely they have had time to visit us.
Posted: 12 Jan 2009, 00:47
Who says we're talking exclusively about our solar system?nodubmanshouts wrote:We are very early in the lifecycle of the universe. Life has not had much time to develop.
...which doesn't prove anything.nodubmanshouts wrote:And if there is life out there, if the speed of light is truly the universe's speed limit, its very unlikely they have had time to visit us.
Posted: 12 Jan 2009, 01:08
I wasn't really talking about our solar system.... I'm saying that the life cycle of stars in general means that there have been only one or at most two generations of complex-atom producing stars up to this point in time. Which makes it likely that we are one of the first lifeforms to develop, as there weren't the atoms or molecules available until relatively recently in the history of the universe.
Posted: 12 Jan 2009, 01:25
As the first generations of stars were rather heavy, thus, according to the Russel-Hertzsprung diagram, quickly burning, it's rather possible that the limited lifespan of those stars would set a limit to the lifespan of its planet's inhabitants. Any inteligent life there would be a sad waste, as its highest developed idea probably would be something like "I am therefore I think that my [Equvalent of alien's body to an arse] will get a good roasting at tomorrow's lunchtime when that Supernova hits us."nodubmanshouts wrote:I wasn't really talking about our solar system.... I'm saying that the life cycle of stars in general means that there have been only one or at most two generations of complex-atom producing stars up to this point in time. Which makes it likely that we are one of the first lifeforms to develop, as there weren't the atoms or molecules available until relatively recently in the history of the universe.
Generally a good point you made there, but if you remember that life occured on earth very soon after it had cooled down enough to allow it I guess that deveolpment of life does go fast and surely did occur in less enduring early systems as well.
Posted: 13 Jan 2009, 00:11
I've just realised one vital matter that we've been missing in this discussion:
does God give a s**t about other planets?
does God give a s**t about other planets?
Posted: 13 Jan 2009, 00:24
More importantly
do other planets give a s**t about god?
do other planets give a s**t about god?
Posted: 13 Jan 2009, 10:55
Aren't they the lucky ones?
Posted: 13 Jan 2009, 13:42
It's actually quite an in-depth discussion among some (specifically Christian) theologians.stufarq wrote:does God give a s**t about other planets?
Presumably other alien races (assuming they exist) had their own "Fall" analogous to the Adam and Eve story; so they also need redemption. The only valid form of redemption is (according to the theory) the sacrifice of Jesus. So does this mean that God-the-son has been bouncing round the universe, incarnating again and again, only to be repeatedly crucified?
Posted: 13 Jan 2009, 14:24
why is that the only valid form of redemption?
surely its as barbarous as it is short-sighted to murder the son of god?
are theologians suggesting that other 'alien' species are as wicked, cruel and un-reconstructed as us earthlings?
i don't buy any of it. and by that, i mean ANY of it. both sides.
surely its as barbarous as it is short-sighted to murder the son of god?
are theologians suggesting that other 'alien' species are as wicked, cruel and un-reconstructed as us earthlings?
i don't buy any of it. and by that, i mean ANY of it. both sides.
Posted: 13 Jan 2009, 14:25
Now that would be a crappy job. If he didn't quit it immediately he'd somehow deserve no better.
Oh, and if the Monty Pythons accidently were right about the Blamanches from Beteigueze, how do you nail one to a cross?
Oh, and if the Monty Pythons accidently were right about the Blamanches from Beteigueze, how do you nail one to a cross?
Posted: 13 Jan 2009, 14:27
you wouldn't. you'd hang it from a tree.eotunun wrote:Now that would be a crappy job. If he didn't quit it immediately he'd somehow deserve no better.
Oh, and if the Monty Pythons accidently were right about the Blamanches from Beteigueze, how do you nail one to a cross?
but in a bag, not a net...
Posted: 13 Jan 2009, 14:39
As destruction of sa(i)d individual would be the task, the net would do just a good job. Problem solved.
Posted: 13 Jan 2009, 17:05
Bearing in mind that this is a half-remembered article that I can't find on google.Quiff Boy wrote:why is that the only valid form of redemption?
surely its as barbarous as it is short-sighted to murder the son of god?
are theologians suggesting that other 'alien' species are as wicked, cruel and un-reconstructed as us earthlings?
i don't buy any of it. and by that, i mean ANY of it. both sides.
1) John 14:6 'Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."'
2) Take that up with the theologians...
3) Yup. Free will seems to necessitate a Fall for some reason.
4) Agreed
I'm agnostic about the whole aliens issue TBH, We have insufficient data to decide.