Monday, January 17, 2011

Of ghosts and those pesky aliens

A business associate and I talked a bit during a breather taken in a grueling work session and for some reason the conversation ventured on the paranormal.

I am not one to take ghosts and extra-terrestrials seriously, which is why I was taken aback when he said that he believes in ghosts and extra-terrestrial life. It's not often that I have nothing to say, which he might have taken as a sign to continue and explain why he holds to a belief of the paranormal.

Apparently, an event occurred some time ago, he continued, where he and a friend who was with him, felt a hand touching them on their knees, while there was no one else in sight. One thing I wouldn't do is offer an explanation especially one that would discount his account of what they experienced. He was there, I wasn't. All I know is that, should there be such things as ghosts, which can interact with us, they would be spirits and exerting sufficient pressure on anything so that touch could be recognized would not be in the purview of a spirit. But, what do I know.

Without missing a beat he offered his explanation of his belief in extraterrestrial life. There are billions and billions of stars out there and each star is a sun with planets, he offered, and it is just not reasonable to believe that there wouldn't be life out there, some less advanced than what we are and some even more advanced. It is just that simple, he concluded, after relating a story told to him by a friend that a spaceship landed in Malibu a while ago. Why don't these folks have cameras with them when they need one?

I have heard the billions-and-billions theory before and, on the face of it, it sounds plausible. If plausibility could live with a few bedsores, that is. The millions of years between species, to explain the belief in Darwinism, came to mind. There always seems to be an inexplicable gap in which things "could have occurred" in the logic; the bedsore, if you will, in the plausibility reasoning.

Not to digress from the aliens from outer space monologue, the space and time continuum that holds the Darwin Theory together, fails to explain why -- if species evolved from other species producing more complex species by selective breeding -- there is not a single specimen of specie trapped in a fossil that is not a completely developed species. Surely, if selective breeding would cause, at first at least, a massive amount of life to be extinguished due to some failure or deficiency of the evolving species, having not yet adapted to the new conditions, some, no, perhaps one single fossil would have survived.

That's all too technical for me, anyway. A question closer to my pay grade is how was it possible for so many species to evolve male and female genders out of the same gene pool, so that a male and a female would be totally different and yet so similar that they are genetically compatible and arrive at the same place at the same time so that they can procreate. The place and time spoken of here are a few miles and a few days apart, miniscule dots on the timeline and geography proffered. The chances that a male and a female of each species that survived could get together at the exact viagra-moment without some outside intelligent planning and execution, just seems impossible.

It seems reasonable to believe, if the Theory is true, that the majority of these males and females would never have met to procreate causing millions of them to die off without offspring and leave fossils, somewhere, clearly showing their pre-evolved deficiencies until they got it right and took the next step on the evolution path. But, not one made it to stone.

Back to the billions and billions of stars and other people living somewhere else.

It's the same incomprehensible space and time continuum that's supposed to mold our reasoning to accept these chasms in their theory as truth. But, let's look at the probability that there is other life out there, somewhere, in spite of billions of stars with planets.

The earth is such a fine balancing act with exact temperatures, gaseous mixes, gravitational pull, sun distances from the earth, seasons, heat in the earth's inner core, oceans and their size, ocean temperatures and movement, atmospheric pressures, cross pollination of plants, different life forms that sustain one another as food, symbiosis, and other benefits, the exact earth's orbit around the sun, the earth's rotation, the wobble of its axis, and many other factors, that even if there were trillions of stars out there, the chances that all factors to sustain life would be present in their exact measure at the exact moment required in the exact amount, is almost impossible.

We talked a bit about other things for a while before getting back to work without me saying anything about this.

Afterwards, I thought I'd rather write about it, so that I don't get interrupted.


  1. I, too, strive to find the clinching answer to confirm my belief system, which happens to coincide with yours. The only possible fallacy here (pardon the unintentional pun) is that species can procreate without need for gender. That doesn't make us wrong; it only means we are still searching for the key.

  2. I grant you that there are species that procreate without gender separation, but they are never found in more intelligent species, especially mammals.

    Nobody "knows" where life started; we make judgments based upon best evidence. The level of "knowing" upon which my writing of this response is based is different from the level upon which I "know" that my parents are really my parents, for instance. I have to make a judgment based upon these old people living in our house since I can remember, bossing me around, paying for my upkeep and upbringing and loving and caring for me my entire life. From that I make a judgment and conclude that I "know" they are my parents. Family likenesses and other personality traits that I might share with them just confirm my judgment.

    So, there won't be a clinching answer forthcoming anytime soon for any of us and not only for this, but for many things in life. One may, however, expect to arrive at a firm conviction that certain things are true based upon our judgment of the facts and other things that support that. Only then may we truly "know" that what we believe is true.

    But, the quantum time-leaps that Darwinists make to mask the flaws of their theories such as trying to explain how dumb things evolved into intelligent things without adding anything to the mix is scientifically unsustainable and insults one's intelligence.

    Thanks for commenting.


Comments are moderated. Comment to your heart's content. I will not publish all comments but only the best of those that are pithy, relevant, smart and in good taste.

About Me

Seeking the truth until I find it.