Earth Being Prepped for First Contact?

Leave it to a moron like you to tie this story into an imaginary anti-Obama rant.

The technology from a visitor to even travel to our planet would be mind altering to us.
I guess if we sent out radio waves they could detect something.

I liked "Sliders" the show where they travel through different dimensions but on the same planet and time. A Star Gate would be cool right? " We don't need no stinking space ships! We have Star Gates." ☺

It's not an either-or thing- there are eight billion people on this planet, some people can go to another world, and others can stay.

All of this is hypothetical anyway, since we lack the technology to get there.

And in Contact, it was not that humans discovered a planet with no evidence of life yet.
Humans were contacted by an intelligence, that transmitted engineering plans.
It's a completely different scenario.

You can't even equate this to Avatar because, again- there is as of yet no signs of life.

If there are advanced life forms there, then yes, we don't colonize, we communicate and trade. But if nobody's home, then why not move in?

And no, atheists are not applauding this as proof no higher power exists.
We proved that a long time ago.

We just think new scientific discoveries are cool.

Your a boring poster. Only proves my previous comment further.

I don't believe the plan is to move in so much as take a look. 20 light years (approximately 120 trillion miles) is an enormous obstacle to overcome for a small probe, let along a colonization craft.

wtf kind of attack was that...boring poster yet she just fleshed her whole comment out for you to comprehend.Do you read these comments to be entertained or informed.Get your head out ya ass and take ya immaturity over to reddit.

Firstly I didn't mention Avatar, didn't even see the movie. And secondly, you didn't prove anything.

I didn't prove anything?

How am I supposed to prove that it's not an either-or thing?

Very few things in life are either-or things.

"And no, atheists are not applauding this as proof no higher power exists.
We proved that a long time ago."

That's an idiotic statement. How do you prove something doesn't exist? It's like saying one can prove that a new color, never imagined by humankind, does not exist. WTF

Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that one's definition of "God" is something that falls within the confines of physical properties that we can measure via science, therefore be able to define, study, test, and measure results.

Why spend this much time trying to prove to someone that something based on faith exclusively should be something they can measure scientifically? Are you that insecure?

I believe in science, but I get annoyed with people that try to use science to debate the issue of God's presence or lack thereof.

... and you obviously did not read what I wrote, just as I suspected.

The insecurity lies in the people who believe that their faith is the equivalent of knowledge- that Creationism is equal to Evolution. That Presidents and politicians MUST be people of faith. That people's rights should be limited by some people's religious beliefs.

I find that annoying.

Why should God be one topic that should somehow be exempt from the scientific process?

Are you that insecure about your beliefs?

you should see it. it's good. it's not Citizen Kane, but it's good.

No, not insecure at all. I'm secure with my own understanding of science and it's limitations. While my focus is in marine biology, I still understand the process by which science works outside of my field. If the supernatural does exist, then it exists outside the realm of the natural, and thus impervious to debates that utilize logic and science to attack or debate it. Faith is simply believing in something without proof.

While you seem very passionate about disproving what others believe in, perhaps you should ask yourself why your focus is on making statements such as the one I first commented on. Celebrate your passion with like-minded individuals instead of attacking something that many hold dear to themselves and ultimately, by definition, has no proof to challenge. Be happy when you sleep at night that those who believe have no proof. Likewise though, you cannot disprove something without proof.

If someone wants to believe in the lack of a God, let them. If they want to believe in one, let them. It has little relevance regarding this article in any event, other than sharing the irony that life-sustaining planets were once a thing of "myth" as well. I wouldn't be so quick to judge what people believe in.

And if you're going to back your statements with science, understand that theories are not proof. Science 101

First, since you did not know what colors are, and the fact that there cannot be new ones, I will take your knowledge of science with a grain of salt. It seems to be below High School level.

Second, you have made no attempt to refute any of my statements- I still think you have not even read it. Instead, you continue to project your emotional state onto me- your "insecurity" and your "passion".

Third, you think that atheists should only discuss the fact that God does not exist with "like-minded individuals"- huddled in caves with candlelight, making sure no Theists are in earshot so their delicate ears will not be damaged.

While Christians should feel free to proclaim their blind faith constantly, everywhere they go, to total strangers.

Now THAT is the definition of being insecure in your beliefs- you can't even stand the fact that others disagree at all.

Just the thought that an Atheist like myself exists makes you tremble- so much you post an inflammatory, and insulting post, and then continue to have emotional outbursts.

Fourth, I did not state a Scientific Theory, I made a Logical Proof. Learn the difference. Simply labeling something with the magical word "supernatural" does not make it outside of logic. It just makes YOU outside of logic by doing so. It establishes that to believe in something that cannot be proven is in and of itself illogical.

Yes, Faith is believing something without proof- so explain your passion and insecurity about my post.

You don't care that I can prove there is no god, right?

You are completely secure in your faith, so what does it mater what some Atheist says?

That is, if you were secure.

Instead, you keep insisting I am wrong, without even reading what I wrote, and stating I cannot do what I did, based on your ignorance of what I have done.

Now THAT is the logic of someone of Faith.

So then I will teach you Science 202- and Logic 101.

Scientific theories are based on the evidence available.

Logical proofs are based on initial assertions, such as the definition of terms.

So, please tell me when your emotional outbursts are going to end, and you make a decision: Either-

1.) ... refute anything I actually said.
2.) ... go away secure in your blind faith.

Because as it stands now, you are just acting foolish.

You missed the whole point with the "new color" comment. I understand there are no "new colors". Re-read the comment.

Your biggest fallacy is that you're attempting to argue the non-existence of an energy source via logic. If we cannot find something to measure, it doesn't prove that it doesn't exist. Conversely, that doesn't prove that it does exist either. It simply makes it an issue of faith.

And you'll have to forgive me if I thought you were coming from a scientific approach. You're dropping the chaos theory and evolution in your posts, which gives me a muddy understanding of where you're coming from, as those are clearly fields of science. If you're using them to prove a logical point, you're intertwining a set of preconditions to your argument as well that are not accepted by all people of all faiths. Therefore, you do not have a set of rules to base a logical debate on. You make far too many assumptions about understanding every person's understanding of "God".

You are also assuming WAY too much about my angle. I've never been able to see or feel a god in my life, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm not that obtuse. If Joe Blow next to me wants to believe that there's a higher power out there controlling everything, who am I to claim that I've disproved it with logic? Or if that person has a proper and accurate understanding of what they are formulating their beliefs on to begin with? The main problem with disproving anyone's idea of god via science is that we have yet to measure it/him/her and record anything empirical. How can one argue the existence of energy from a logical standpoint? It's either there and you can measure or study it or it's not there to measure or study.

You'll no doubt have some other silly rebuttal to this post, but I grow tired of reading through the numerous red herrings. My only suggestion to you is to use the correct method to study and formulate evidence or proof and let people believe what they want. Same goes for those trying to cram their beliefs down your throat. It's annoying when anyone does it, so get a grip and chill out.

Feel free to chalk this all up to my grade school understanding of science though. Clearly, I don't understand any of this.

Ur kinda going off for no reason..

Yes, you clearly don't understand my argument, because you have still not refuted it at all.

No, I am not attempting to argue the non-existence of an energy source via logic.
Try again.

Logical proofs are based on initial assumptions- and my initial assumptions are defined. They include scientific knowledge, no mater if a particular religion accepts those findings or not, and three characteristics of God that fit the majority of "supreme being" beliefs- most significantly, they fit the Abraham God.

Therefore, I DO have a set of rules to base a logical debate on, and I made NO assumptions about understanding every person's understanding of "God". In fact, I made it perfectly clear I was making no attempt to do that at all.

You simply do not understand logic.

As I already stated, God is an ill-defined word, that keeps getting re-defined by the gaps of our knowledge.

While it is certainly possible to prove that something does not exist, it is impossible to prove that an undefined concept does not exist.

Thus, the need to define all terms at the beginning of a proof.

SO, like I said at the beginning of my proof:

"(these statements are the basis for the proof- they are accepted or rejected, but they are not debated.)"

If you believe "God is Love" or "God is the Earth" I am not even slightly attempting to prove there is no Love or there is no Earth. I would, however, say that by having those definitions of "God", you no longer need the word "God". The words "Love" and "Earth" are less confusing.

Rather than a silly rebuttal of your comment, I will simply state that you did not provide any rebuttal to my arguments at all- silly or not.

You did not even address anything I said, because you did not understand it.

Our ability to measure some unknown energy is irrelevant, because First, I already eliminated "god is energy" from my definition, and Second, if a "Supreme Being" is exerting itself using an energy so insignificant we not only cannot measure it, we as Humans feel no personal impact from it, then that being does not fit any reasonable definition of "God".

And please- stop projecting your emotional issues about this topic onto me.

What I have provided is logic and common sense, that you refuse to grasp because of your emotions, not mine.

In what way am I "going off"?

Who's definition? Yours? That's your err. There are many religions out there with many different views on their supreme being. For logic to work, you need a cohesive set of agreed-upon rules. Regardless, you're referring to a being that can supposedly manipulate energy and matter. How is that a discussion based in logic?

I know you desperately want this to be a discussion in logic, but when you state that two of the world's unarguable definitions of "God" are that God...

2.) Created the Universe, not simply one creature within it;
3.) Interacts with the Universe, in one way or another.

...then you need to approach this the way any scientist would approach a scenario in which a claim is made about energy or something that can manipulate it.

Also, why is 'who has more emotional resonance' such a crutch in your debate? Stop trolling.

Again- you do not understand how logic works.
Again- I gave three defining characteristics of God, and those three are part of the Abrahamic definition- which is the God believed by the majority of people in the Western Hemisphere.

Again- I worked from that definition.

Again- I never even made anything even slightly close to a claim to represent every single belief on this planet, so I made no error.

Again- the fact that this being is illogical, if anything, proves my point.

Again- I already wrote a detailed explanation, but you still have not even read my original post- or you still fail to grasp it on even the most basic level.

I then restated it AGAIN, in simple English, the post you just replied to, and did not read.

I even gave a simplistic little metaphor about a chair in my first post that answers your question- but you did not read that far.

AGAIN- emotion is your crutch, not mine. It's your trolling, not mine. From the beginning you, not I, have been dwelling on your emotions on the issue. from the beginning you, not I, have insulted me repeatedly, and turned this conversation into your childish rant.

You are incapable of using any rational analysts of this topic- you simply insult, discuss emotions, and then point out flaws in reasoning that are only flaws in your reading.

Trust me. Don't get suckered in to this person's trolling. It's fairly epic.

WOW!!! No kidding.. what a lame. I got what you were saying though ;-)

You're both correct IMO, however, traditional Science & God (however one defines God) are quantum mechanics perfect example of "superposition" and Heisenberg "uncertainty principle", i.e. their measurable properties cannot be measured with any exact certainty together, thus their measurable properties are incompatible with one another, yet they both co-exist.

One might argue that someday, soon, quantum computing will indeed be able to measure an atomic particles entangled within a quantum memory (qubit), enough to hold all its possible states and degrees of freedom, but as someone so eloquently pointed out, that ability to measure via quantum computers doesn't mean that quantum computations would violate anything, because in computations there is no observer (being THE factor that initializes this percieved indeterminacy). Take the observer out of the system and the whole Heisenberg principle is irrelevant.

in conclusion, welcome to the world of modern science and the process of faith in God, both usually causing unnecessary incompatibility in the minds of many men; yet co-existing in many of the same minds.

Ironically, I don't find any incompatibility with the idea of a universal intelligent force that is the cosmic cell which binds us all as one. The problem in my humble opinion is mankind's twisted theocracy of 'religion" that blinds many from the true face and beauty of God. Science, nature and mathematics is God's evidence and language.

You both are very intelligent individuals and your civil discourse was extremely educational...thank you both.

Peace and God's Blessings....

Finally. Some credible truth.

Wow. This woman is whacked.

If you are a pretty blonde lady and you want people to take your crazy rantings seriously you should tape them somewhere besides your kitchen. Is she baking a cake while she warns of Anti matter, Fema Consentration Camps, and Radical Evolution returning us to the Jurassic age?
OK .. i stopped at 13 min, when she said her cherokee people named her "Destiny the woman of scars" because of the problems she would have with her love life.

+^d !!! The truth is "out-there".

She has big breasts. That's all some people need to know.

I have a foil hat for her all she has to do is SHUT UP! One minute is way to much of her.

Hey even big breast can only carry you so far. Those that are cazy are crazy not even big titties can save a crazy

why is she wacked ?

My astrophysicist friend was ROTFLHAO at the nonsense this woman is spewing!

Primarily because she see's many events on earth as the result of alien interference, when in fact many are directly or indirectly caused by man. Mind you, I believe in the existence of alien life, but don't believe that they have secretly been manipulating events on earth. That's simply blaming someone or something else for what we messed up i.e. denying responsibility.

She is whacked because she believes wings are sprouting from her back and that she can summon Lightning.Is that enough for you keith?

If the aliens laugh...they would probably laugh at the news of Christ.

Thank you for this invaluable information. Send us more.

We need help to stop others from trying to turn Current into a Play Station.

I bet we will be the only species out there that will be trying to take over shit and start wars with other planets

Yeah I read about this, I heard it was a while ago in a distant galaxy.

Crazy I remember when this happened. I've heard NASA has since stopped airing live footage from space.

i saw the clip they are talking about awhile ago .. weird. if buzz aldrin beleives im in lol. who am i kidding, im all about it.

I love how that guy named Buzz is so quick to say that its nothing, coming from someone that was part of faking the moon landing, it probably means that it is something

or better yet, caramel.

What if it's a "male only" specie???HMMMMM

Same here. Time to start caring for Gaia and the humans too.

I think part of the excitment of a friendly encounter is, as Carl Sagan hoped, that we will be lead out of our technical adolescence. If the encounter is unfriendly, Eco-problem solved.

i agree wholeheartedly. i've been saying we've been wasting the entire NASA budget for years. we'd do better to clean our planet up, and explore the oceans.

Oh yes, the oceans are a planet unto themselves. We still haven't even begun to tap into the mysteries of our own planet, and there is still so much we have yet to learn.

not only that, but our knowledge of building closed environments and sustainable environments would profit immensely from exploring the oceans. and our shipbuilding capability, hydroponics, etc... i could go on but i'd have to write an entire article.

This planet sucks mom, I want a new one!

Now son, remember that first you have to take responsibilty for the one you broke.

You should do that... write an article about it that is. I'd vote it up. ;-).

You guys realize that funding NASA and space exploration helps this planet right? NASA does so much research into technology, especially renewable technologies. Theres the possibility that we will one day have massive solar arrays in space to create energy for Earth. That requires....SPACE and NASA.....

i'll see what i can do.

not half as much as spending a quarter of the nasa budget on the planet we actually *live* on.

please explain how NASA has helped human kind in the last 10 years. and i want something tangible. something practical.

right. but we could do that on the ground. right this second.

I don't know, but I just voted it up to compensate for it.

Nothing but + votes now.

It would appear the "Evil One" is back.

whoever 'says hello' 1st, we will be introducing 2 invasive species to eachother.
One of us may replace the other as their planets apex-species or intellect.
There would be a battle of brains or an interplanetary version of survival of the fittest.
Even if we find simple life, it might invect us with a space plague.

that or they'll all die of the rhinovirus.

What if all intelligent beings find a way to transcend bodies and become spirits that do not require food and water. Then the universe would not be crowded at all.

If they can travel to distant stars, we probably wouldn’t be too interesting. Any minerals or water would be easier for them to just catch out in space. It could be that they know we are here and could not care less about us. I mean have we really tried to talk to whales yet? Even if we did, would we ever understand how they see the world? A common whale concept may be zzzzz-pop-ffff! But there is no human translation.
If I walk up to an extraterrestrial and say, “Hi!” Maybe it will just stare at me bored as hell, like watching the ground crack.
I have to wonder if aliens would only be interested in us if we poked them with a stick. Then again leave it to us to poke with a stick.
We certainly will go after their technology. It is our birth right, ever since the first human picked up the stick and used it to poke. We collect tools as a species. Let us hope they don’t mind.

ok i want what he's smokin lol ,,!! o.O

She. And I was enjoying the fragrance of Spice. LOL! Yes, can you imagine how I write when I’m straight?