There will be no Disclosure

[trainedobserver]

A,B,C,D, and E all contain tremendous assumptions and some circular logic.To be fair don't you have to say that as a list of symptoms or events they can be interpreted in various ways depending on what assumptions are made?

 

[Mystery Rider]

There will be no disclosure of any significance because ufology is controlled by the same people who run the cover-up. Karla Turner said the ones most against abductees were ufologists. And most ufologists are ambiguous and apologetic. The Obscurantists use what's called controlled opposition so even some of the believers among ufologists are members of the Obscurantists, like Stanton Friedman, who preaches an aggressive misanthropy, that might even be considered bizarre, and the NWO. Gene Roddenberry also preached misanthropy, thru Mr. Spock, and the NWO, and is suspected of being an Obscurantist, because of several clues. Art Bell is also one of them. Pseudoskeptic Jerome Clarke is on the Intruders Foundation council and edits the CUFOS official organ. Pseudoskeptic Stuart Miller also edits a UFO magazine. And they created the lunatic fringe group CSICOP. They also control the media complex and the scientific establishment. Some articles in Wikipedia sound like they were done by Wackypedia-the Freemason Encyclopedia. The ETs are very closely connected to secret societies, which they created. All this and more is documented and detailed in several books, especially Gods of Eden by historian Wm. Bramley, based on 7 years of research, which is a must read for everyone, and Rule by Secrecy by Jim Marrs, and also on websites.

Everything is Under Control is a book about the whole thing and is a great title that sums up the control exercised by secret societies (Obscurantists with a capital O). People who support them and the radical, anti-social movements they created, like feminaziism, puritanism, the drug culture, the anti-gun lobby, etc., are called "useful idiots" by the Obscurantists themselves. And the official organ of the Masonic Supreme Council is called The New Age. And the sheeple go along with everything the government says, even though they know it has a poor track record on truth.

But, as mentioned by the thread starter, even if there was full disclosure, there would still be skeptics who believe only what they want to believe.

 

[tyder001]

Not to get into the whole bible literacy thing since I don't believe it's infallible or meant to be a science book. But, I am a well educated person who simply has never, ever seen anything in science that has caused me or even seriously challenged my belief in spritual reality. On the other hand I do indeed "believe" in using science and am thankful that as a species we have that abilty. I also find great wisdom in the bible as well as great silliness. But, then again it's not "one" book written in one setting. Matter of fact Peter or John or Moses or Christ would not even know what you were talking about if you told them about the "cannon" or the Old and New Testament. That said I find the Gospels and some of the Proverbs and Psalms to be of great help to my own inner life. I don't really understand (honestly I never have) how any knowledge be it so called "scientifc" or religous or any other is a threat to God/Goddess/Universe/Natural Selection or any other understanding or attempt by mankind to understand his/her world. I have never seen or read anything by anybody on this forum that has serously challenged or caused me to change my world view. I'm sure I haven't changed the view of anybody else. But, then again I'm not trying to.

 

[CapnG]

Absolutely no where in the Word of God, whether it be the old or new testaments, does it directly state that the Sun evolves around the planet Earth, or that the planet Earth is the center of the universe.

If you don't count Genesis, Joshua or Psalms, sure.

It does state in a correctly interpreted context from both the Greek and Hebrew languages solely to show Man's importance to God, that we as human beings are the center of the universe. Unfortunately many Machiavellian theorists like looked to enhance canon and were wrong in their theories.

And therein lies the reason why these sorts of discussions are pointless. The text cannot speak for itself, it must be interpreted and clearly if what I say it says differs from what you think it says, then it must be that my interpretation is wrong.

Are we so afraid that the works of the Bible (faith in Jesus Christ) could just be right in their interpretation, or is it that it doesn't fall within the current "politically correct" self actualized equanimity of this great modern man and his scientific justification for that which he has no real proof for anyway?

There are so many fundamentally flawed ideas in that sentence I have no concept of where to begin. I just thought I'd quote it so everyone else got a second chance to see it.

Does this mean that Christians have it wrong?

YES. Yes it does. But hey, you THINK you're right and you FEEL you're right. And who am I to argue with that?

 

[Trajanus]

Not to get into the whole bible literacy thing since I don't believe it's infallible or meant to be a science book.

Far from being infallible, it's loaded with contradictions, see Ehrman's books.

But, I am a well educated person who simply has never, ever seen anything in science that has caused me or even seriously challenged my belief in spritual reality.

But scientific knowledge has increasingly made a "creator god" unnecessary as an explanation.

Matter of fact Peter or John or Moses or Christ would not even know what you were talking about if you told them about the "cannon" or the Old and New Testament.

Right, it was the work of scribes with various agendas, including outright fabrication, to help win converts.

I don't really understand (honestly I never have) how any knowledge be it so called "scientifc" or religous or any other is a threat to God..

It's not only completely unverified, in light of science, it's superfluous.

---------- Post added at 12:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 PM ----------

Situations like those are evidence that something of a physical nature (captured in photo in McMinville and producing effects on the soil after the landing like, for instance, in the Socorro case) is being observed and, due to the lack of common explanations, are catalogued as being unidentified. Where one goes from there is always a matter of context and interpretation. Some see extraterrestrials, others interdimensional intrusions or even demonic manifestations. I prefer to stick with the idea that they constitute phenomena that, for the time being, remain unknown either because the investigations weren't throurough enough to give us a different outcome or the evidence is too baffling to be understood by present day scientific knowledge.

It is true that laymen, at least, don't have definitive proof of the nature of the phenomenon. But the ETH is most parsimonious by far. The bulk of reports point to an advanced technology, often--not always--surpassing what is known here. In addition, there are many reports of intelligent but clearly nonhuman beings. Our own experience indicates that an intelligent technical system arises on a planetary surface in our own Universe or realm of being--no alternatives are known.

Advancing to further conclusions with the current set of data will (and already does) generate ficticious constructs of reality (tales of alien intervention and government cover-up that fuel conspiratorial subcultures and even quasi-religious beliefs)

By far the worst fictions are interdimensional and "demonic" notions; neither of which have any place in rational worldviews. And a government cover-up is far from a "fictitious construct." It is supported by much credible testimony and experience since the very outset of the modern era.

.. and ultimately drive us away from what should be intended by studying the UFO phenomena: achieving a better understanding of the natural and/or artifical mechanisms that lie behind the reported manifestations and, finally, acquire new knowledge.

Studying has been going on for over 60 years, and we've been buried alive in reports of all kinds from all over. There's no doubt the phenomenon is artificial, and from elsewhere.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

It is true that laymen, at least, don't have definitive proof of the nature of the phenomenon.

Alas...the mark of the illuminated. One interesting characteristic of our culture has always been the need for secret knowledges, contents beyond the realm of both the common citizen and the hard-nosed scientist that make one feel special. By making part of a restrict group of people that, apparently, know something that others don't, one feels that a different reality actually exists.
If there is "proof" that the phenomenon has an extraterrestrial origin that should be revealed, for I and many others haven't seen it yet. Please enlighten us, if you may, with such information!

By far the worst fictions are interdimensional and "demonic" notions; neither of which have any place in rational worldviews. And a government cover-up is far from a "fictitious construct." It is supported by much credible testimony and experience since the very outset of the modern era.

That's why I don't subscribe to any of those theories. What is often forgotten is that we live in a culture of conspiracy that virtually finds government secrets and cover-ups anywhere. I'll never deny that conspiracies do exist, for some are actually proven fact and very well documented. In fact, conspiracy is as old as Man (even kings and emperors have fallen victim to shadowy plots). That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to accept all the fabrications created around subjects such as UFOs, 9/11, John F. Kennedy assassination, etc. Worse even is to find out that conspiracy became a business for many scoundrels that roam the internet with their laughable books and absurd films. Where's the evidence in all this circus?

Studying has been going on for over 60 years, and we've been buried alive in reports of all kinds from all over. There's no doubt the phenomenon is artificial, and from elsewhere.

It can also be argued that no continuous, methodic and scientific investigation of the UFO phenomena has ever been made. There were efforts made by individual researchers or small groups, but the extent of the problem demands a larger and broader inquiry. From what I gather, many of the answers we're looking for will eventually come from researches made on other subjects that can later be applied and explain part of the UFO problem. That is certainly the case with neurology, the study of altered states of conscience and sleep disorders. We should firstly look into our brain before turning our gazes towards the stars.

 

[trainedobserver]

It does state in a correctly interpreted context from both the Greek and Hebrew languages solely to show Man's importance to God, that we as human beings are the center of the universe.

I missed that the first time through. The notion that the universe is human-centric is the feet of clay in the Christian world-view in my opinion. The universe clearly isn't and it requires a certain degree of cognitive dissonance for most people in the modern world to insist that it is. Life itself appears to be a by-product of the system not the end-product of some process.

 

[Trajanus]

Alas...the mark of the illuminated. One interesting characteristic of our culture has always been the need for secret knowledges, contents beyond the realm of both the common citizen and the hard-nosed scientist that make one feel special. By making part of a restrict group of people that, apparently, know something that others don't, one feels that a different reality actually exists.
If there is "proof" that the phenomenon has an extraterrestrial origin that should be revealed, for I and many others haven't seen it yet. Please enlighten us, if you may, with such information!

The cover-up idea is based on experience not imagination. In a number of instances, military or government personnel confiscated hard evidence. It's not just crash retrieval cases; there have been instances where key segments of videotape or samples from landings disappeared while in government custody.

That's why I don't subscribe to any of those theories. What is often forgotten is that we live in a culture of conspiracy that virtually finds government secrets and cover-ups anywhere. I'll never deny that conspiracies do exist, for some are actually proven fact and very well documented. In fact, conspiracy is as old as Man (even kings and emperors have fallen victim to shadowy plots). That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to accept all the fabrications created around subjects such as UFOs, 9/11, John F. Kennedy assassination, etc. Worse even is to find out that conspiracy became a business for many scoundrels that roam the internet with their laughable books and absurd films. Where's the evidence in all this circus?

You can't compare an idea based on the credible testimony of Marcel sr or jr with notions about 9/11 or kennedy which are based on nothing but charlatan imagination.

It can also be argued that no continuous, methodic and scientific investigation of the UFO phenomena has ever been made. There were efforts made by individual researchers or small groups, but the extent of the problem demands a larger and broader inquiry. From what I gather, many of the answers we're looking for will eventually come from researches made on other subjects that can later be applied and explain part of the UFO problem. That is certainly the case with neurology, the study of altered states of conscience and sleep disorders. We should firstly look into our brain before turning our gazes towards the stars.

It's futile to seek a purely psychological/neurological explanation. Too much physical evidence, and illusions don't appear on film.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

It's futile to seek a purely psychological/neurological explanation. Too much physical evidence, and illusions don't appear on film.

I don't think that the UFO problem will have just one answer, simply because it consists of a variety of phenomena. In fact, the search for an overarching solution has led us nowhere. The core data still needs to be thouroughly analised and separated into researchable pieces. The extraterrestrial hypothesis (or, for that matter, any other presented to this moment) can't be used as a quasi-magical explanation to the wide variety of observations collected through the decades. By doing so we would be closing the varied avenues of knowledge that UFOs may offer to us.
Besides, how can the ETH be tested? Assuming that beings originating from other planets are coming to Earth how can we test such hypothesis? Apparently we'll never be able to do so because, according to the lore, they actively act, perhaps with the US governments' help, to conceal their existence. But how then is it explainable that so many people around the world report sightings of their wonderful machines and even describe their multifaceted physical appearances? If they're acting in a secret, covert-like fashion they're doing a pretty bad job. If, on the other hand, they want to reveal their presence, their actions here can only be qualified as ineffective and ludicrous.

 

[PararealitySaint]

By far the worst fictions are interdimensional and "demonic" notions; neither of which have any place in rational worldviews. And a government cover-up is far from a "fictitious construct." It is supported by much credible testimony and experience since the very outset of the modern era.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> How could you possibly say something so absolutely ridiculous such as this statement, and yet defend the objective seeking rants of extra-terrestrial entity driven “proof” without so much as a smidgen of substantiation whatsoever?

Although their might be life on other planets or in other dimensions, and I, nor anyone else on this planet know this for sure or have proven thus, what makes you the authority on what is a “world view” and what isn’t?

For all your “credible evidence” and all your obviousness I am sorry to say, Man as a whole still hasn’t been contacted by E.T. intelligent life and still awaits that glorious day when anything remotely proof positive will even shine a smidgen of light on this controversy.

I never said I had proof of inter-dimensional demonic activity, but your statement here holds as much weight as your lack of evidence purports to indemnify…..And that is nada, nothing, nil.

Perhaps you better stick to Star Trek and leave the real argumentative statements to others in this group who might disagree, but don’t interject nonsensical posturing and jibes for the sake of any lack of real challenge for an honest interest's sake.

 

[tyder001]

Point is I am a skeptic (not debunker) when it comes to u.f.o's. As for life or consciouness being a by product ...well that is a myth. It has not been proven nor does it appear to be. Both materilism and Christianity and Islam and Buddism....on and on are ways of trying to explain and pigion hole something that we are still in the process of learning about. I also don't think we can really know (unless they come into our reality and tell us) what an alien reality or intention would be. Same with God/Goddess/Universe/Natural Selection/....We put our explanations on them and that's fine. We are thinking beings. But, we also make bold statements about philosopy and religion and even science when the universe and it's realites are still unfolding around us. I will take the bible and Buddism and my own inner reality and no it has never suffered because of science or the jr. scientist who are like the religious scribes of old. I will take my understanding of science which has never suffered because of fundies and myths and add that to my understanding of the world. No, the bible (imo) is not The word of God but it has the word of ?God in it. So, do I and the wind and the rain and evolution and all exisitence. But, I digress into my own "religious,psudo scientific,myth making." but at least I know that I don't know.

 

[SRL+]

Disclosure isn't an event it is a process which has been occurring over millennia. Ever since conscious observers have been able to look to the sky. If your asking when will any government disclose that there is phenomena, that won't be happening. I agree with Nick Pope when he says disclosure will happen with a small d. It will be researchers in the private sector like Vallee & Associates, Robert Bigelow and some other very bright people who remain in the closet as not to be thought of as crack pots and lose grant funding. I think the more appropriate question here is what will be disclosed? Will the phenomenon emanate as in an open or closed system? Will the form of consciousness be Ultra Dimensional, ETH, Fractal, or Jungian in nature? It is almost as though the phenomena is taunting us saying, "if your not smart enough to figure this out, your not smart enough to know".

 

[Trajanus]

I don't think that the UFO problem will have just one answer, simply because it consists of a variety of phenomena. In fact, the search for an overarching solution has led us nowhere. The core data still needs to be thouroughly analised and separated into researchable pieces. The extraterrestrial hypothesis (or, for that matter, any other presented to this moment) can't be used as a quasi-magical explanation to the wide variety of observations collected through the decades. By doing so we would be closing the varied avenues of knowledge that UFOs may offer to us.

But advanced ETs could be responsible for all aspects of the phenomenon, and the fact that all aspects have been more or less simultaneous and mostly recent argues for a single source. It would be a strange coincidence if appearances from totally different realms all intensified simultaneously-more or less--since 1947.

Besides, how can the ETH be tested? Assuming that beings originating from other planets are coming to Earth how can we test such hypothesis? Apparently we'll never be able to do so because, according to the lore, they actively act, perhaps with the US governments' help, to conceal their existence. But how then is it explainable that so many people around the world report sightings of their wonderful machines and even describe their multifaceted physical appearances? If they're acting in a secret, covert-like fashion they're doing a pretty bad job. If, on the other hand, they want to reveal their presence, their actions here can only be qualified as ineffective and ludicrous.

They obviously don't want to reveal their presence openly. But they have a purpose here so inevitably they are spotted at times, and produce other evidence. Eventually there should be enough available to lay people to clinch the case for ETs; some would say there is now.

 

[trainedobserver]

As for life or consciouness being a by product ...well that is a myth. It has not been proven nor does it appear to be.

Let's examine the logic of this for a moment divorced of our individual opinions about religion or whathaveyou.

Is life a by-product or the end result of a process? A by-product being an unintentional result of some system (of processes) as opposed to the intended end-result of a process.

The answer lies in one question. "Can non-living things display intent by creating processes that have a desired result?" No they can not. What does? Only living things can exhibit intent by setting goals and constructing specific processes to intentionally meet those goals.

Therefore to say that life itself is an intentional product of a process rather than an unintentional by-product says some already living thing (such as a god or alien) intentionally produced it. It is contradictory , nonsensical, and illogical to say that an already living thing created life. There is just no sense to the notion at all. It has nothing to do with myth, religion, or anything else. If life did not already exist then no intention could have been expressed in its production.

Counter arguments? Does anyone think non-living things could have intentionally produced life? It would have be unintentional by definition. Did a living thing create "life?" Why? It would be unnecessary. Life would necessarily already have to exist for a living thing to be there.

 

[Slim Shady]

My belief is UFO's is like my belief in nintendo its good when its good and its bullshit when its bullshit , hopefully this year will be exciting , last year was quite boring .

 

[Facius_Cardan]

My belief is UFO's is like my belief in nintendo its good when its good and its bullshit when its bullshit , hopefully this year will be exciting , last year was quite boring .

UFOs are just a hobby for most people, a mystery that creates the opportunity for some healthy discussion, defying thinking and a good laugh from time to time. For a few, the phenomena is the fulcrum around which their lives turn in an endless spinning of hopes and beliefs. The UFO field is so vast and undefined that anyone can eventually take from it whatever they want. That has some parallels with religion (see, for instance, how many interpretations of the bible gave birth to a plethora of christian sects), a factor that is both interesting and disturbing. As always, I still think that we will only make real discoveries into this theme when those cultural add-ons are put aside and replaced with a genuine intention to investigate, free from irrational beliefs and pre-established agendas. However, humans are culturally motivated and influenced beings and, because ot that, this may prove to be an impossible task.

 

[Trajanus]

My belief is UFO's is like my belief in nintendo its good when its good and its bullshit when its bullshit , hopefully this year will be exciting , last year was quite boring .

It wasn't a bad year, with the reports from china and the March incident in the US involving a car with two teens.

---------- Post added at 11:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------

Let's examine the logic of this for a moment divorced of our individual opinions about religion or whathaveyou.

Is life a by-product or the end result of a process? A by-product being an unintentional result of some system (of processes) as opposed to the intended end-result of a process.

The answer lies in one question. "Can non-living things display intent by creating processes that have a desired result?" No they can not. What does? Only living things can exhibit intent by setting goals and constructing specific processes to intentionally meet those goals.

Therefore to say that life itself is an intentional product of a process rather than an unintentional by-product says some already living thing (such as a god or alien) intentionally produced it. It is contradictory , nonsensical, and illogical to say that an already living thing created life. There is just no sense to the notion at all. It has nothing to do with myth, religion, or anything else. If life did not already exist then no intention could have been expressed in its production.

Counter arguments? Does anyone think non-living things could have intentionally produced life? It would have be unintentional by definition. ..

Right there was prebiotic evolution. I'm not sure if Cairns-Smith or anyone more recent solved the problem of life's origins but it is being addressed scientifically.

 

[tyder001]

I don't do this lightly but this time I'll make an exception. Also, I'll take the word of Roger Penrose over the Jr. Scientist on this board. Fact is life does indeed come from life and conscioness doens't come from chemicals and organic matter. Get out of the 18th centuray and quit trying to shout down by silly opions offered under the guise of science. I don't speak up often becaue it's just not worth it. The psuedo skeptics start yelling "godam myth" and "creationist" and a whole bunch of other junk including the old "There is no Evidence for PSI at all" Which is a myth and no I'm not gonna google it or research it for ya. The last time I provided names the "skeptic" simply pooh poohed the folks and yet there was a Noble Prize winner among others listed. So, no we are not the "by" product of physcial evolution. We are part of the evolution of life and it is not simply a happy little athiestic accident. O.k. now run and get "lance" Macdaddy and surfermikey and fire away!

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

Fact is Trained that although I respect your intellect you simply spout bullshit and call it science. Nobody has yet proven that life or evolution has no purpose and simply shouting people down with "these are facts" doesn't make it so. Also, nobody and I mean Nobody has shown that the brain can produce a self aware being. It's looking just as much (if not more) like a "reciever" than a "producer." Still, you and I will not solve this and as somebody else pointed out nobody on this board has ever proven or changed anybody else's mind about their world view. I am not (any longer although like you I was at one time.) a religous person. But, I do have my own mind and I don't run to the latest "pop" scientist such as dickie dawkins or carl sagan any more than I run to patty robertson or oral roberts for my spiritual views.

Truth is I respect you view and your thoughts being there is no god and no spritual truth. You might be right. You might be wrong and I admit I hope you are wrong. But, the thing that I do resent is the "dressing" up of opinion as fact and reasearch as absolute truth. Again, I hope we can agree to disagree since I do enjoy and even agree with you on occassion. But, I absolutely don't think we were seeded here by aliens and I don't think we crawled out of the mythical primordial soup either. Again, I've never understood why it's either evolution or god to some folks. Still, I digress and I'll give ya the last word..Unless, of course Lance wants it and in that case I'll toughen up my skin and let the insults fly by me.

 

[trainedobserver]

Right there was prebiotic evolution.

I see what you are getting at but I'm not suggesting anything further than the logical problem of life having to come from something. Logically that would be a non-living something or another because I'm not talking about specific life forms being created or manufactured by some other life form. The life process resulted from something did it not? Logically it could not originate itself. Beyond that I'm not reaching for anything else.

At some point intelligent creators whether divine or biological must have an origin do they not?

I don't think we can tell whether life forms on Earth are the result of bio-engineering. If they are does that make the manufacturer a being worthy of all the trappings of godhood? I don't think it does.

Fact is Trained that although I respect your intellect you simply spout bullshit and call it science. Nobody has yet proven that life or evolution has no purpose and simply shouting people down with "these are facts" doesn't make it so.

What? Science? What shouting? You are really reading a lot between the lines there. I was trying to just describe a problem in logic while being dispassionate as possible and I didn't say anything about science.

Truth is I respect you view and your thoughts being there is no god and no spritual truth.

In the spirit of goodhearted dialog then, please define what you mean by god and spiritual truth.

But, I absolutely don't think we were seeded here by aliens and I don't think we crawled out of the mythical primordial soup either.

I don't either. How could anyone know such a thing? I think there are several possibilities for how life developed on Earth. But that subject isn't what I was talking about at all. I was talking about origins of life itself or more specifically (in my mind at least) life processes, the things that allow life to come about. Do they occur naturally? Did they originate in the manner that the laws of physics and the universe originated? Most likely. Did they occur because some intelligence (pick a god) in an already existing universe somewhere designed and manufactured them (or just spoke them into existence) and us? Well then that god was already alive and life processes had to already exist. That's all I was getting at. It's a problem in logic more than it is in anything else isn't it?

If someone wants to believe in something that has always existed it takes less assumptions in my view to think that the universe and the laws that govern it (which allow for the emergence of life) have always existed rather than having to also assume that some infinite supreme manipulating intelligence has always existed.

I'm not shouting. I'm not saying I'm representing the highest views of science or that I'm qualified in any small way to do so. All I'm doing here is thinking out loud and sharing that with people who seem to have like mind to think about such things. The fact we don't all agree is really irrelevant to me. I'd rather just have a dialog where people who can explain themselves, present a decent argument, and honestly represent themselves.

For the record. I am not a scientist nor have I played one on T.V. I'm a guy in the crowd trying to think through things and make sense of what is going on just like anyone else. I know very little. I understand even less.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Let's examine the logic of this for a moment divorced of our individual opinions about religion or whathaveyou.

Is life a by-product or the end result of a process? A by-product being an unintentional result of some system (of processes) as opposed to the intended end-result of a process.

The answer lies in one question. "Can non-living things display intent by creating processes that have a desired result?" No they can not. What does? Only living things can exhibit intent by setting goals and constructing specific processes to intentionally meet those goals.

Therefore to say that life itself is an intentional product of a process rather than an unintentional by-product says some already living thing (such as a god or alien) intentionally produced it. It is contradictory , nonsensical, and illogical to say that an already living thing created life. There is just no sense to the notion at all. It has nothing to do with myth, religion, or anything else. If life did not already exist then no intention could have been expressed in its production.

Counter arguments? Does anyone think non-living things could have intentionally produced life? It would have be unintentional by definition. Did a living thing create "life?" Why? It would be unnecessary. Life would necessarily already have to exist for a living thing to be there.

Where did the process or concept of life begin? I have no idea.
But it is hard to believe that life on this planet happened by mere chance. That is to say that every living creature here on this planet gradually evolved from some primordial slime into the extremely complex beings that inhabit the earth today. Or that bacteria from Mars or such just happened to navigate its way to here.
It makes more sense to me that life, indeed all life, on earth was created by someone else. Some may call that someone God or Gods. Evolution seems like a nice theory and indeed it may explain some of the subsequent processes of life here but it doesn't seem to explain everything.
I am indeed no expert on life or the creation of life.
It also seems that man is already on the path to creating life. If you consider the advances made in cloning, the growing and harvesting of body parts and organs etc. Who knows where we will be with that in 100-200 years.

Counter arguments? Does anyone think non-living things could have intentionally produced life? It would have be unintentional by definition. Did a living thing create "life?" Why? It would be unnecessary. Life would necessarily already have to exist for a living thing to be there.

The first question doesn't really make much sense to me, I'm sorry. (I might be missing something there). Did a living thing create life? More than likely. I'm sure there are scientists somewhere right now who are attempting to do just that, creating hybrid humans or super humans. I could definitely see the military being interested in something like that.
It would not be unnecessary if you were creating life that was to exist in an environment that was foreign or alien to your own e.g scientists may try to create a human who could live underwater.
Therefore mans creator(s) may have come from an environment(s) that is totally different to earths.
It's just a theory.