Why aliens would be hidden from the public

[Nikolai]

A hypothesis or conjecture.

You completely left off the relevant part: "confirmed by observation, experiment etc.". It's like atomic theory, or germ theory, or the theory of universal gravitation -- it's an idea with considerable empirical support. And "conjecture" appears nowhere in the part relevant to sciences.

So explain to me how the amoeba got here.

Not the theory of evolution's problem, anymore than it's the theory of universal gravitation's problem to explain where mass came from.

Also, if evolution is the process of life evolving to be better,

It's not. It's the process of life adapting to its environment. No presumptions are made about "better".

then why do monkey's still exist?

Because evolution affects populations. It's why there are European Americans and Europeans. It's why there are African Americans and Africans.

Also, man didn't evolve from modern-day monkeys (or, to be more precise, apes). Man and modern-day apes have a common ancestor.

A house doesn't pop up out of the ground, it's built. A house doesn't turn into a highrise, it stays as the house it was built as.

Houses and highrises do not reproduce. Therefore, they are not subject to descent with modification. The theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about houses or highrises.

Something as complex as a computer doesn't slip and slide out of primordial soup: it is built and manufactured and programmed by humans.

The theory of evolution doesn't posit this, either. Nor does it posit that something as sophisticated as a modern-day amoeba was the first form of life.

As far as I can tell , evolution can't hold up to a logical analysis.

The ridiculous set of ideas you're calling "evolution"? Probably not. Evolution itself? Most certainly.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Nikolai

[John Crichton]

There's a difference between EVOLUTION (a scientific theory) and abiogenesis (a hypothesis talking about how first life came to be).

Evolution is a FACT...and not just micro-evolution, the same goes for macro-evolution. Abiogensis on the other hand is still open for speculation.

Here's a good summary: LINK

We are actively applying the theory of evolution in modern medicine to predict future outcomes. If the theory was wrong, we couldn't do that as accurately as we can.

Those saying complex life couldn't just have arisen spontaneously don't realise the time frames involved. We're talking about 3.5 BILLION (!!!!) years before single-celled organisms.

Odds of winning the lottery are small too, but guess what, someone ends up winning almost every week!

Edited February 4, 2014 by John Crichton

[Nikolai]

We are actively applying the theory of evolution in modern medicine to predict future outcomes. If the theory was wrong, we couldn't do that as accurately as we can.

I couldn't just leave this alone.

Many scientific disciplines depend on our concept of evolution being substantially accurate -- and all of them contain evidence, independently gathered and analyzed, that evolution is true. (They don't have to prove it true by replicating it in its entirety any more than forensic scientists need to replicate a murder in order to reconstruct the scene.) Evolution is used to develop better vaccines and better antibiotics, and tells us where to dig to find fossil fuels. Evolution is also used to understand the virulence of parasites; it helps us use natural resources wisely through its predictions concerning biogeography; it unifies biology under a central theory (removing it from being a useless collection of facts, and suggesting productive new areas of research); it provides a basis for bioinformatics, a billion-dollar industry, with its assumption of descent with modification; it is used to manage fisheries for greater yields; it is used to induce beneficial mutations in plant stock; it is used to create better pesticides, removing pests and producing greater yield in our agriculture; it helps us retrieve species from the brink of extinction (e.g., the kakapo bird); it shapes public health policy; it predicts unknown gene function, which aids in pharmaceutical development; it helps us idenitify disease reservoirs; it helps us predict the step-by-step transmission of disease, permitting greater control over its spread and treatment; it allows us to identify micro-organisms that cannot be cultured or recognized except through phylogenetic analysis; it helps us create and enhance antibiotics; it helps us create and enhance flavors; it helps us create and enhance strains of bacteria to break down biohazards; it helps us create and enhance enzymes; it helps us create and enhance biopigments; it helps us discern the function and folding of proteins and enzymes; it aids in creating genetic algorithms, which have applications in architecture, data mining, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, astrophysics, aerospace engineering, pattern recognition, military strategy, robotics, materials engineering, and systems engineering; it was the basis for the creation of countless statistical analysis techniques, including linear regression analysis and analysis of variance, which are used in innumerable ways to study many other things; its analysis techniques can be applied to determining the history of manuscripts and languages; and, in a non-trivial sense, it satisfies some kinds of curiosity and inspires others.

If evolution were not substantially correct, none of these would yield correct predictions.

Now, if someone could name one practical application of creationism (other than keeping dishonest teachers gainfully employed), I'd be seriously impressed.

Those saying complex life couldn't just have arisen spontaneously don't realise the time frames involved. We're talking about 3.5 BILLION (!!!!) years before single-celled organisms.

To be technical, we're talking about roughly 3.5 billion years of single-celled organisms. But that doesn't diminish your larger point. Odds calculated a posteriori tell us nothing.

[Nikolai]

And to stay on topic: if you eliminate the lie that is evolution, the chances of there being alien life dwindle to near zero.

As a side note, I'd like to see you defend this.

Assuming you reject evolution in favor of some kind of specialized and conscious design, how do you determine what the odds are that this designer would not make life on more than one world?

[sal_vager]

This has gone badly off topic, and has been a conspiracy theory thread from post one which would normally have been closed by now.

I think this thread has run its course, and is going to go over the edge if it keeps up, it's time to move onto other subjects guys.

Closing this one.