Welcome to Star Trek Simulation Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
STSF_BluRox

NASA Scientist Discovers Evidence of Ancient Alien Life

45 posts in this topic

An interesting article in the recent issue of The Journal of Cosmology

 

Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol 13,

JournalofCosmology.com March, 2011

Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites

Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center

 

Synopsis

 

Dr. Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Dr. Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. The implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.

 

Members of the Scientific community were invited to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries or to speculate about the implications. These commentaries will be published on March 7 through March 10, 2011.

 

 

Official Statement from Dr. Rudy Schild,

Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian,

Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cosmology.

 

Dr. Richard Hoover is a highly respected scientist and astrobiologist with a prestigious record of accomplishment at NASA. Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis. Our intention is to publish the commentaries, both pro and con, alongside Dr. Hoover's paper. In this way, the paper will have received a thorough vetting, and all points of view can be presented. No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough analysis, and no other scientific journal in the history of science has made such a profoundly important paper available to the scientific community, for comment, before it is published. We believe the best way to advance science, is to promote debate and discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take that you puny Creationist crackpots!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take that you puny Creationist crackpots!

 

As soon as you guys have figured out how some thing came from no thing, you let us know. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As soon as you guys have figured out how some thing came from no thing, you let us know. :)

 

In a nutshell, about 4 billion years ago there was an intense concentration of matter and energy that expanded to produce the universe and eventually us. If you are referring to that intense concentration of matter and energy as "nothing" I have to question what you would call "something".

 

Learn what the theory is and what it says before you say it isn't true. If you get these material facts wrong it is not the theory you are attacking but your own misunderstanding of it.

Edited by V'Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool article!

 

Ever notice how any modern scientific theory all comes down to modern speculation, as related to an opinion?

 

Even if that same exact article was done with a religous connotation, it would still be a modern opinionated speculation.

 

Civilization wise, Humans have come a long way....but we can never hope to have all the answers. Anything we dwell on, any theory we attempt to describe and get down on hard copy so to speak is merely modern speculation. In another hundred years, another scientist (or average joe) willl again be talking about some discovery, and it still comes down to speculation as related to the modern opinions of whatever decade.

 

....I find these articles cool, but a part of me will never truly believe because deep down I know it's just another persons opinion, so called expert (scientific or religous) aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Eyebrow*

 

Why Captain ... I am impressed. Your logic is suprisingly insightful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is gravity a theory?

 

Technically yes, but some theories have a higher likelihood of being true than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ T'Aral: I’m sure that the Logical Calestorm concept scares a few people as well. =P

 

@ VR: Facts are still fluid, changing over the times. You’re still a modern man floating a relatively modern theory at me, with underlying opinions both your own as well as what we’ve been told in school and in articles based on findings of other people.

 

We have a better understanding of gravity now then 100 years ago. This was possible due to modern shifting of our understanding of the theory over the decades, as I stated.

 

How do we know the color red is red? Because we’re told? Is our red another planetary culture's orange?

 

Did Moses really part the Red Sea? Or was it tectonic plates shifting?

 

If those tiny life forms mentioned in the article really hitched a ride on a comet (Galactic Greyhound Express), how will that opinion change ten years from now? Who will further expand – and change - the author’s theory as the years go by?

 

Lots of opinions out there, with ‘factual data’ intermeshing or changing over the years to suit the modern opinions of the decades and our limits of understanding, both in the scientific and religous communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did Moses really part the Red Sea? Or was it tectonic plates shifting?

I recall that my rabbi told my hebrew school class that the Torah does not have any accent marks, so that the "Red Sea," was actually the "Sea of Reeds." In other words, the escaping slaves were able to walk across the reeds, but the Egyptians and their heavy chariots ended up sinking through them.

 

Wow, I was actually able to use something I learned in Bar Mitzvah training!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall that my rabbi told my hebrew school class that the Torah does not have any accent marks, so that the "Red Sea," was actually the "Sea of Reeds." In other words, the escaping slaves were able to walk across the reeds, but the Egyptians and their heavy chariots ended up sinking through them.

 

Wow, I was actually able to use something I learned in Bar Mitzvah training!!

 

Yes, the Hebrew word is actually "reed." The reeds still are present on the banks of the sea in some areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of opinions out there, with ‘factual data’ intermeshing or changing over the years to suit the modern opinions of the decades and our limits of understanding, both in the scientific and religous communities.

 

Absolutely. Presuppositions are always at play with any debate and the more honest we are able them, the easier it is to have a dialogue. Having spent the last decade or so working in politics, I understand that hyperbole, however, usually wins the day and any concessions are seen as a sign of weakness.

 

I have great respect for the scientific community and its endeavors. C.S. Lewis once said, "The universe rings true wherever it is fairly tested." This new study is just one piece of the amazing work that the community has put out over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, some theories have better predictive value than other theories. Evolution and natural selection ("Selection" is the key word. It is anything but chance.) do a better job of explaining the diversity of life than Noah's Ark which can't even account for kangaroos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still, some theories have better predictive value than other theories. Evolution and natural selection ("Selection" is the key word. It is anything but chance.) do a better job of explaining the diversity of life than Noah's Ark which can't even account for kangaroos.

 

Nobody approaches the big questions of life with a blank slate. We all ultimately find something that suits the system we've built.

 

If I presuppose there's no such thing as a being or a force greater than myself, certainly not one big enough to create all of what we see, then absolutely, I'm going to gravitate towards a set of explanations that are more naturalistic. And they will seem very convincing because they validate my system.

 

The same is true for the theist. If I presuppose that a being or force greater than myself is a necessary first cause to account for the complexities of life, then I'm going to gravitate towards a set of explanations that are more supernaturalistic. And they will seem very convincing because they validate my system.

 

Most people seem to fall somewhere on the spectrum between naturalism and supernaturalism - evidenced by the fact that a majority of Americans, at least, believe in macro-evolution as well as some divine supernatural being, namely God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody approaches the big questions of life with a blank slate.

 

That's a pretty broad stroke to paint. Scientists in general (there will always be exceptions) follow a rigid process of data collection and analysis that is designed to filter out presuppositions. Science sets out to advance our knowledge of the universe and existence, whatever that pursuit of knowledge might yield. If a scientist were to uncover compelling evidence of a divine creator, he would not try to bury it or to furiously seek out alternative explanations -- he would happily present the evidence as a leap forward in human understanding (it would be far too good for his career to do otherwise). In centuries of scientific methodology, no such compelling evidence has ever been uncovered. This doesn't suggest that findings are being molded to fit pre-existing beliefs; it just indicates that no evidence has been found.

 

Theism absolutely works with presuppositions because it's a belief system. It works with invariable truths that cannot be challenged by any evidence to the contrary. If a theist employs the scientific method, he works in reverse, starting with the conclusion and seeking evidence that supports it. Nothing else could be expected when you're working with beliefs. Science cannot work that way; its conclusions have to be subject to change as new evidence is uncovered ... hence the 'fluidity' of facts.

 

Comparing science and theism is just a futile activity. One is a methodology, one is a system of beliefs. They're miles apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is (not really), everyone in this topic is from a modern mindthink.

 

I again maintain that both religion and science are always influenced by the current decades and modern mindsets. Whatever that original religious message -- or scientific fact -- happened to be has been changed over the years to suit modern outlook and opinions, or re-taught with a modern connotation.

 

I'm not saying the opinions in this topic are wrong, I'm not saying they're right, I'm just sayin'. Should I really believe you? why you? Are you adding yet another opinion to what we've already been taught all these years?

 

Admiral A9, I recall that same story, either from religion or history class! Blast from the past!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I presuppose there's no such thing as a being or a force greater than myself, certainly not one big enough to create all of what we see, then absolutely, I'm going to gravitate towards a set of explanations that are more naturalistic. And they will seem very convincing because they validate my system.

 

An evolutionary process of natural selection and the expansion of the universe from an intense ball of matter and energy over billions of years to ultimately produce me would have to be bigger than me, don't you think? Once again you are misstating the theory.

 

I'm still waiting on an explanation for kangaroos, koala bears, kangaroo mice (mice with pouches), etc. So-called micro-evolution would not have turned just about all of Australia's indiginous mammilian life into marsupials in the 6,000 years or so since the Great Flood. Not enough time for such huge structural changes. It sets a process that many Christians don't believe in at all, evolution, and sets it at Ludicrous Speed. Plus how could it happen only in Australia? If all animal forms were on the Ark, the Ark landed, and all animal life disseminated from there then the DNA required to form pouches should be much more evenly distributed. Shouldn't there be marsupials everywhere?

 

The real big issue, however, is how animal life got from the Middle East to Australia to begin with.

 

Most people once believed Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. (A large number still do.) That doesn't necessarily make it so. Where the atheist differs from the theist is we know exactly what it would take to change our minds - direct and verifiable evidence to the contrary of what we now believe. It seems most theists, however, simply shut out whatever conflicts with their preconceived notions and either don't look at evidence to the contrary or don't understand it when presented.

Edited by V'Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I again maintain that both religion and science are always influenced by the current decades and modern mindsets. Whatever that original religious message -- or scientific fact -- happened to be has been changed over the years to suit modern outlook and opinions, or re-taught with a modern connotation.

 

Science has a long history of -challenging- modern viewpoints ... often despite the persecution of religious establishments. Yes, the conclusions change over time. What you see as change that is molded to suit modern outlooks I see as a basic advancement of understanding. Technology is a big part of it. More advanced technologies improve our abilities to collect and analyze data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can somewhat understand why people turn to religion to answer what science can't yet explain on a personal level. I don't agree with it, however, because the answer to these gaps is not to plug in religion but to develop a better science. When this religious filling of gaps is taken to the public or political arenas it is even harder for science to do it's job.

 

With Australia, however, even religion doesn't provide an answer without discarding everything we know about biology and geology.

 

Joe makes a good point. When a scientist presents research that runs contrary to what is believed to be true in the scientific community he is recognised, funded, and asked to continue his research. It is a huge leap forward in his career. When a religious person presents something that runs contrary to what is accepted in the religious community he is silenced, persecuted, outcast, even sometimes killed. I'll let you judge which system is more likely to arrive at the truth, let alone which has higher morals.

 

You are right about one thing, nobody approaches the big questions of life with a blank slate. I am guilty of this as well. I was once a Christian.

Edited by V'Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall that my rabbi told my hebrew school class that the Torah does not have any accent marks, so that the "Red Sea," was actually the "Sea of Reeds." In other words, the escaping slaves were able to walk across the reeds, but the Egyptians and their heavy chariots ended up sinking through them.

 

I think Red Sea is a metaphor. It is actually the Communist Sea. Or maybe that's where people from Red States go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<quote> That's a pretty broad stroke to paint. Scientists in general (there will always be exceptions) follow a rigid process of data collection and analysis that is designed to filter out presuppositions. Science sets out to advance our knowledge of the universe and existence, whatever that pursuit of knowledge might yield. If a scientist were to uncover compelling evidence of a divine creator, he would not try to bury it or to furiously seek out alternative explanations -- he would happily present the evidence as a leap forward in human understanding (it would be far too good for his career to do otherwise). In centuries of scientific methodology, no such compelling evidence has ever been uncovered. This doesn't suggest that findings are being molded to fit pre-existing beliefs; it just indicates that no evidence has been found. </quote>

 

Science, properly understood, is not a belief system, as you point out, but an investigation of observations made in hopes to better understand the universe. I'm with you, no disagreement.

 

Where science itself breaks down is when the human element is added. Where is the human element most present in the scientific method? Usually the analysis section. To demonstrate this, I'll use an analogy from my area of expertise. Say Gallup ran a poll today on President Obama's approval rating. Say he jumped 3 points from his last rating from 46 to 49 percent. Say that there were no major issues with the methodology (the questions asked were fair, no political party was oversampled, data was collected according to established norms) and that the margin for error is statistically insignificant. As they, the data speaks for itself. Or does it? A Democratic operative would say the data speaks for itself, that nearly half of America supports the President, and the upward trend suggests that people are more accepting of his policies. It also bodes well for his re-election in 2012. A Republican operative would also say, the data speaks for his self. A majority of Americans do not support the President, are suspicious of his policies and that few Presidents ever get re-elected with such low approval ratings.

 

So how can two people look at the same data and yet come to two different analyses? First, the majority of studies yield very narrow conclusions. The hypothetical poll above really only reflects what the 3,000 people sampled feels about the President. When you start considering implications, that's where humans begin to fill in the gaps. Now it may be true that these 3,000 people are fairly representative of all 300 million, but it is an extrapolation nonetheless. This is where our belief systems come into play. You state that there is no compelling evidence for a divine creator. That word "compelling" is a value judgement, it's based on your analysis of the data available. I respect your opinion, but I must respectfully disagree. For example, macroevolutionary theory depends on the first two laws of thermodynamics, rather, the suspension and breaking of those laws. How does the universe break its own laws unless some outside force acts upon it?

 

I appreciate the respectful dialogue, understanding that many here are not fans of religion, and by extension, me in particular. V'Roy, I'm afraid I will have to respond later to your posts. I can only write one long post per day. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, macroevolutionary theory depends on the first two laws of thermodynamics, rather, the suspension and breaking of those laws. How does the universe break its own laws unless some outside force acts upon it?

 

I can't wait to hear your explanation on this. I'm pretty sure I can predict your arguments and already have an answer for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we prove or disprove god, I'd just like to take this opportunity to welcome our new alien bacteria overlords. May they rule with an iron cell membrane, and punish with a swift and deadly cough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want everyone to know that we rarely allow discussions of religion or politics to go on here at the STSF Message Boards. These topics, in particular, hit a deep chord (cord?) in people and we do not want to create feuds or strong, personal arguments.

 

Right now, we are all discussing things in a very reasonable manner. However, if things start to get flame-y or if I receive complaints about the discussion, the entire thread will disappear.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The political polling analogy is just an awkward one for me. Obviously, the analysts have clear deep-rooted agendas -- one side pushing for re-election, the other pushing against. That supports your point about scientists and theists both working with presuppositions. But to me, the analogy is not applicable. I still see science as a concerted effort to approach questions with professional objectivity. Scientists as a rule do not seek to disprove theist ideas; many of their conclusions have simply tended that way.

 

If your only point is that data can often be limited in scope and wildly interpreted, I acknowledge that. The article in the OP merely presents evidence of microfossils in meteorites. The scientist's findings don't really tell us anything definitive (the article itself offers implications). Other scientists are now being invited to analyze. Their analysis can be used as the basis for future study. It's a learning process and one that will take a wide variety of perspectives into account. There will be various interpretations, but those interpretations will be arrived at and further explored scientifically. If evidence is found which proves any of their conclusions wrong, they will admit that they were wrong (something that scientists are capable of doing) and revisit the problem. You see a breakdown where I see advancement and personal bias where I see objectivity.

 

The Republican-Democrat analogy would suggest that the conclusion has already been decided and that the analysis will be tailored to support it. Again, the scientific method in reverse, a process that no good scientist would tolerate. The comparison fits religion perfectly. Religion deals in truths that can not be disputed or even analyzed -- they're just truths, and faith is all that's needed to accept them. Religion cannot be 'wrong.' There is no true analysis. If a pious man analyzes the plausibility of God, it's the same as a loss of faith. This, again, is where any meaningful comparison between science and religion unravels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0