Why are Aliens always Humanoid?

[Aquila King]

3 hours ago, travelnjones said:

Well maybe you just ignore everything not having biped qualities.  What if Dolphins are aliens and you like no its just a dolphin.  They came here to helps us be became addicted to our delicious fish.  

Spoiler

...weredolphin

 

[Aquila King]

21 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

If I was a tool wearing, intergalactic spider alien - I reckon could carry about a dozen beers at once.

I'd love to see a drunk driving UFO.

[Will Due]

11 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Indeed

The laws of physics and the laws of chemistry, who wrote these laws?

 

 

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

If the evolution of matter is without design, random and haphazard, why do we see symmetry so often in nature?

If I throw a handful of marbles on the ground, they never end up rolling in symmetrical patterns. Yet atoms and molecules do. 

Something doesn't add up.

A handful of marbles is not the same as atoms. A single throw does not represent evolution.

The marbles do not  interact with each or form structures. They cannot combine to form different forms. They cannot exhibit different characteristics which atoms can do as they form various chemicals.

But atoms can form new things and those things can then interact to form even more complex forms.

[stereologist]

Just now, Will Due said:

The laws of physics and the laws of chemistry, who wrote these laws?

Nature did.

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Nature did.

Who wrote the laws of nature?

 

 

[stereologist]

Just now, Will Due said:

Who wrote the laws of nature?

Nature did.

[Golden Duck]

23 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

It's a matter of perspective. The tool wearing alien super-spider is only 1 inch tall. Are those Arachatarian beers or Earth beers? But then it IS a super-spider...

Arachatarian beers of course!  The standard size; you know, 22 glophughs.

[I'mConvinced]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

The laws of physics and the laws of chemistry, who wrote these laws?

 

 

Laws are a concept designed by humans to describe observations of a seemingly physical independent reality.

If you are going to use those laws to support a point then at least use them correctly.

If you are about to use them in a God of the gaps argument please don't bother.

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, I'mConvinced said:

Laws are a concept designed by humans to describe observations of a seemingly physical independent reality.

If you are going to use those laws to support a point then at least use them correctly.

If you are about to use them in a God of the gaps argument please don't bother.

Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct. Evil is a transgression of law, not a violation of the rules of conduct pertaining to life, which is the law. Falsehood is not a matter of narration technique but something premeditated as a perversion of truth.

 

 

[stereologist]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct. Evil is a transgression of law, not a violation of the rules of conduct pertaining to life, which is the law. Falsehood is not a matter of narration technique but something premeditated as a perversion of truth.

You are mixing up the meaning of law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

I tried to give you a simplistic idea of laws of science.

[I'mConvinced]

8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Evil is

There is no such thing as evil. It's a religious construct designed to give moral codes an authority that doesn't exist.

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You are mixing up the meaning of law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

I tried to give you a simplistic idea of laws of science.

Why split hairs?

Science discovers and tests the laws that were written for specific purposes. Like the law of gravity.

All laws are written by somebody.

 

 

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

There is no such thing as evil. It's a religious construct designed to give moral codes an authority that doesn't exist.

You're very unconvincing.

 

 

[I'mConvinced]

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

You're very unconvincing.

 

 

I'd be more concerned if I'd said something that did convince you. It would mean me abandoning reason and going on a magical mystery tour of whatever book you think has the answers.

[I'mConvinced]

11 minutes ago, Will Due said:

All laws are written by somebody

Only in a limited view that cannot accept that randomness is also a possibility.

[Will Due]

13 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

There is no such thing as evil. 

Lol. Sorry

[Will Due]

Just now, I'mConvinced said:

Only in a limited view that cannot accept that randomness is also a possibility.

That's just it!

All the evidence suggests it's anything but random.

You don't need to go to college to figure that out. 

 

 

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

Lol. Sorry

'Evil' is just a description of human behaviour. It's not something that exists beyond belief in a specific religion and it's description of the word.

We could say I'm close minded to evil because you have to accept a dozen other unprovable things before evil even becomes a factor. If you can prove your starting premise I'll admit to be close minded.

Randomness is a concept based in mathematics and is fundamental to quantum mechanics. God does play dice with the universe, if indeed it exists.

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

That's just it!

All the evidence suggests it's anything but random.

You don't need to go to college to figure that out. 

 

 

I disagree. Please present proof as suggestions aren't it.

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

The laws of physics and the laws of chemistry, who wrote these laws?

Nature did.

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

Who wrote the laws of nature?

Nature did.

 I can't believe I'm saying this...

...but I gotta side with Will Due.

[Aquila King]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

All laws are written by somebody.

This is sorta true and sorta not. It depends on your definition of a law...

To say that 'nature' created and maintains the universe is disingenuous. All of 'nature' itself (and the 'laws' that govern it) sprung into existence at the point of the Big Bang. It can't create and maintain itself. Either nature has always existed or something other than nature created it. It can't create itself.

Of course at the same time, looking at nature's 'laws' in the same way that we humans write laws is also disingenuous. The laws are merely descriptions of what naturally occurs. They may not be able to naturally assemble themselves from nothing, but at the same time they aren't 'written laws' in the same way that we write laws as humans, as these natural laws merely describe what occurs in the universe.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Why split hairs?

Science discovers and tests the laws that were written for specific purposes. Like the law of gravity.

All laws are written by somebody.

Laws of nature are based on observations and is not what you wrote. The following has nothing at all to do with scientific laws.

Quote

Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct. Evil is a transgression of law, not a violation of the rules of conduct pertaining to life, which is the law. Falsehood is not a matter of narration technique but something premeditated as a perversion of truth.

 

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

That's just it!

All the evidence suggests it's anything but random.

You don't need to go to college to figure that out.

Apparently you don't understand what is meant by random.

[stereologist]

15 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

 I can't believe I'm saying this...

...but I gotta side with Will Due.

Then you'll also be quite mistaken. The physical laws are not dependent on people other than to make the observations. The physical laws do not change with changing observers.

Take the conservation of charge law. It's not a human made up law. It is a description of the world we live in. It is what is natural. It is something that exists external to people. People don't create the law. People might state it.

Despite many many experiments and observations there is conservation of charge.

 

[Aquila King]

22 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Then you'll also be quite mistaken. The physical laws are not dependent on people other than to make the observations. The physical laws do not change with changing observers.

 I didn't say that they do. Can you quote me where I said such nonsense because I'm clearly at a loss here.

23 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Take the conservation of charge law. It's not a human made up law. It is a description of the world we live in. It is what is natural. It is something that exists external to people. People don't create the law. People might state it.

Despite many many experiments and observations there is conservation of charge.

Yeah, I agree with you whole-heartedly but that's irrelevant to what I was saying.  

I think we must have some sort of miscommunication somewhere because I never said anything to even suggest I don't agree with that. In fact that appears to me to be coming out of the blue.