• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Creationist Ken Ham Says Aliens Will Go To Hell So Let's Stop Looking For Them

How does he know whether aliens believe in God or not?
 
ecofarm said:
Cardinal is pretty sharp, he just finds the "killer aliens!!11!!" thing amusing. He's surely capable of understanding one position having all of the evidence, logic and reason, and the other being pure fantasy. And he understands the value of evidence (however incomplete) over pure speculation.

Gath? *snicker*
Click to expand...

Alllllll the evidence? C'mon, Eco. It's all very well and good that we're gradually moving away from the "kill anything that walks after we've invaded their country" model that was all the rage before the 20th century*, but your position demands that highly advanced technology requires the sort of social and philosophical advancement you're talking about, and I've seen nothing to suggest that this requirement is even particularly necessary, considering a)We're the only example of it, b)we haven't really seen that social evolution through long enough to see if it even takes, and c)we've had 6000 years of technological advancement and barbarism has barely been neutralized in that time. Your assumption that aliens would follow any sort of similar path to our own and arrive at a more socially advanced level is nothing more than pure optimism.

*No, I'm not saying that people don't still kill everything that walks after they've invaded a country, only that the kind of asshattery that allows history to remember them as conquering heroes has been replaced by a model that regards them as monsters and punishes them if possible.
 
You heard it here first, folks. Eco considers himself to be a "Realist." :lamo

I'm honestly not sure if the irony scale goes high enough to even measure something like that.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm not an optimist. I'm basing my assessment on reality, while you are basing your assessment on nothing. I'm a realist (making assessments based upon actual evidence) and you're just making up fantasy.

All the evidence is on my side. Making up labels for me is not going to change that. Spew your fantasy all you want, but know that it's counter to all evidence.

Pretending that your assessment is equal to mine is intellectually dishonest. Concede the debate, join us in reality. Give up the Chicken Little costume, enough scaring ignorant children.
Click to expand...



Lets take the last 114yrs to disprove your theory, do you want to do the body count or shall I??
 
Gringo allstar said:
Lets take the last 114yrs to disprove your theory, do you want to do the body count or shall I??
Click to expand...

Good plan. You do it. Let's see the difference between the way governments behaved before and after 114 years ago.

And keep in mind, numbers are irrelevant, this is about motive.
 
ecofarm said:
Good plan. You do it. Let's see the difference between the way governments behaved before and after 114 years ago.

And keep in mind, numbers are irrelevant, this is about motive.
Click to expand...

All you need is the potential for atrocity, which all things on earth demonstrate to one degree or another. The potential alone is reason enough to exercise extreme caution when meeting (or outright hiding from) alien life instead of walking right up to them and saying "Hey guys! Whatcha doing?"

Your position in this thread is squarely in vaccines-cause-autism territory.
 
Cardinal said:
All you need is the potential for atrocity,
Click to expand...

There's always a potential for anything. That doesn't change the fact that civilization recognizes rights more with time.

Your position in this thread is squarely in vaccines-cause-autism territory.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Your position in this thread is base purely on fantasy and ignores sociological considerations. You are discarding all available evidence, logic and reason, and substituting a Chicken Little costume.
 
ecofarm said:
There's always a potential for anything. That doesn't change the fact that civilization recognizes rights more with time.
Click to expand...

Fantabulous. Assuming as a given that aliens will be benevolent is still stupid.
 
ecofarm said:
There's always a potential for anything. That doesn't change the fact that civilization recognizes rights more with time.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? You just said there's a potential for anything. So is there a potential for aliens to come here with the exclusive purpose of eating us?
 
Cardinal said:
Wait, what? You just said there's a potential for anything. So is there a potential for aliens to come here with the exclusive purpose of eating us?
Click to expand...

Of course. There's a potential for anything. Do you honestly expect anyone to claim a speculation about aliens to be impossible?

Do you believe in absolutes?

Nonetheless, all evidence, logic and reason points to aliens also experiencing social development. To expect aliens to slaughter wantonly is nonsense, it's like worrying about being struck by lightning on a clear day. Yes, I know that happens, but that doesn't mean I go around telling everyone it will happen to them.
 
ecofarm said:
Of course. There's a potential for anything. Do you honestly expect anyone to claim a speculation about aliens to be impossible?
Click to expand...

Great, then it's stupid to assume that aliens will be benevolent, and therefore we should be ultra-cautious. /debate

Jesus H. Christ...
 
Cardinal said:
Great, then it's stupid to assume that aliens will be benevolent, and therefore we should be ultra-cautious. /debate

Jesus H. Christ...
Click to expand...

It seems you've lost track of the debate. I've bolded the part I object to below:

Cardinal said:
We should stop looking for them because if we found them very very bad things would likely happen to us.
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
It seems you've lost track of the debate. I've bolded the part I object to below:
Click to expand...

So? Who here agrees that my position is more likely to preserve the existence of humanity, and that Eco's position is ****ing insane? Raise your hands.
 
Cardinal said:
So? Who here agrees that my position is more likely to preserve the existence of humanity, and that Eco's position is ****ing insane? Raise your hands.
Click to expand...

Yes, my position is insane. That's why the world's greatest minds have decided to attempt contact. If only they heard your Chicken Little routine, surely they would change their position.
 
ecofarm said:
Yes, my position is insane. That's why the world's greatest minds have decided to attempt contact. If only they heard your Chicken Little routine, surely they would change their position.
Click to expand...

Jesus, it's like talking to that guy who says Israel should respond to rocket attacks by doing nothing and hiding behind the Iron Dome.
 
Cardinal said:
Jesus, it's like talking to that guy who says Israel should respond to rocket attacks by doing nothing and hiding behind the Iron Dome.
Click to expand...

"Anything can happen, so let's hide" is your position. My position is based on the same logic and reason that guides those who make these decisions.
 
Hatuey said:
It doesn't seem likely that a civilization with a "hive mind" would engage in interstellar traveling. A civilization with hive mentalities would most likely stall at a Type I civilization (which is not enough for interstellar travel). Why do I think this? Well, let's take some examples on our own planet: Ants have remained in the same basic shape during a period where most mammals, birds, fish and dinosaurs managed to evolve into everything from pack hunters to omnivores to carnivores and went extinct. Think of it this way: In the period where some dinosaurs transitioned into birds, ants changed in minute ways. So how would this translate into a larger/more intelligent species? Pretty much the same. You'd have a civilization that is practically unchanged and so focused on the survival of the species that a sizeable risk like interstellar travel would be borderline unthinkable.

First, you have the issue of what colonization or even attacking another civilization actually entails from a social perspective. A species that is sending out a colonizing/attacking force needs to be developed to the point where it can send a sizeable and expandable force. It needs to have resources to spare as well as well as population to spare. It would also need to have a defined social structure, system of writing and be either a type II or III civilization. It needs to have knowledge of mathematics as well as some sense of aesthetics. These are all qualities which take tens of thousands of years to develop.

Then (for them to be of a hive mind) individuals within the society need to have developed to the point where all the things which come attached with an advanced social structure and knowledge of mathematics have been discarded/ignored or skipped altogether. So you'd have a civilization that somehow gained the mathematical knowledge as well as social development to achieve interstellar travel and then skipped/ignored/discarded aesthetics, arts, economics, philosophy and religion. Does that sound likely? That a species achieved interstellar travel but is somehow immune to all of the little nuances which have existed in every civilization we know of? Of course not. So we can immediately discard the idea that a "hive mind" species colonizing the universe is likely.

Then, you have the "life" issue. It's pretty well established that species with any sort of intelligence tend to be restricted by finite lifetimes. Whether this is based on the observation of creatures from our planet or not, there is only so long a creature can live and/or be kept alive. Is it possible to keep a being alive for 10,000 years of interstellar travel? Doubtful. Tissue degradation, contamination, illness, ship maintenance, all would have to be taken into consideration. You'd need a small force just to keep the ships maintained for the immense amount of time it takes to get from one star to another. Then you'd need substinance and whatever gas they breathe in ample supply for that force. So just keeping a supporting cast through the trip would take immense amounts of resources.

In conclusion, not only is a colonizing group of aliens an unlikely possibility, it seems illogical for a civilization to spend resources on a trip that may result in the decimation of a percentage of its population as well as the loss of resources. I'm looking at this from a realistic perspective, not a sci-fi perspective.
Click to expand...


1. I never said ants. I said insect-LIKE. Meaning highly cooperative among their own kind, but possibly having little or no empathy for those not of their kind.

2. I am familiar with these arguments, but they are based on assumptions about things we know nothing of and can merely speculate upon. Also, the parameters for interstellar travel are not necessarily fixed by low-end assumptions such as taking 10,000 years for the journey... if that is the case we will probably never meet any aliens at all. However recent recalculations regarding the Alcubierre Drive indicate that 'FTL' may not be science fiction, but a real possibility.... just to name one factor that could change a lot of the assumptions commonly made.
 
Cardinal said:
Great, then it's stupid to assume that aliens will be benevolent, and therefore we should be ultra-cautious. /debate

Jesus H. Christ...
Click to expand...



Even if they were benevolent, more or less, contact with a more advanced race often tends to have a devastating effect on the lesser culture, as we've often seen here on Earth.
 
Goshin said:
Even if they were benevolent, more or less, contact with a more advanced race often tends to have a devastating effect on the lesser culture, as we've often seen here on Earth.
Click to expand...

The advanced status was only technological, and it was not benevolent at all.
 
ecofarm said:
The advanced status was only technological, and it was not benevolent at all.
Click to expand...

In one or two easily digestible sentences, please explain why you believe reaching out to aliens is rational, and not likely to result in our destruction.
 
Cardinal said:
In one or two easily digestible sentences, please explain why you believe reaching out to aliens is rational, and not likely to result in our destruction.
Click to expand...

I hold the same reasons as those that make the decisions. We see clearly with time comes social development. Thus, the chance of a vastly more developed alien race being evil is almost nil. Given the insignificant chance of evil aliens, it makes sense to attempt contact. After all, they would manage contact with or without us eventually, so there's really nothing to lose.
 
Goshin said:
Which is exactly my point. :D
Click to expand...

No, it's my point. The difference between the levels of advancement between the colonialists and Africans was nothing compared to the difference required for interstellar travel. Further, that slight difference was merely technological. It also supports my point because we see, today, that Western society has advanced well beyond our national ethics just 200 years ago. In the time it will take to develop interstellar travel, our policies will be nothing like what they were during colonialism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom