• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What if the aliens are evil?

Roguish

Member
(Is this DIR still alive? I see no posts since mid 2020...)

What if all or most of the aliens were (1) much more intelligent than humans,
and (2) had no good intentions toward humans whatsoever?

What if the aliens relate to humans the way cattle farmers relate to their cattle? That is, as objects to be exploited as resources and then discarded?

Or, worse yet, what if the aliens relate to humans the way a sadistic child relates to the ants in his ant farm?

What if the intelligence of the aliens exceeds human intelligence so greatly that for the aliens the idea of attempting some sort of equal relationship with humans is clearly ridiculous, in the same way that humans find the idea of an equal relationship with rodents ridiculous?

WHAT THEN?

(And isn't it silly that humans themselves exploit and destroy other living creatures on a massive scale, yet assume that if they were ever visited by (highly) intelligent aliens, that those aliens would not do the same to humans? This isn't just misplaced pride; it's dumb.)

P.S. What if the aliens had their own internet, and had a website on it called "Humans for slaughter, grades and standards", analogous to the one humans have for cattle?
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What subject? The possibility of aliens being evil and much more intelligent than humans?

Why don't you do the same?
Here is the full description of my book:

"How would you like to not only know the best things to think about now, but in thousands, millions and billions of years as well? This book will be like Star Wars™, but much more exciting with realistic science. We have so much more science ready to present as well. We present only science we are sure of and although the book is compartmentalized the reader can infer great plot. Two key events are discovering Aliens and colliding with the Andromeda galaxy in 6 billion years. Evaluating our chances of survival against possible Aliens requires observing how moral we each are! As being God is at the end of Kardashev scale, we look at various ways to play the role of God."
 

Roguish

Member
I'm not sure how your answer pertains to my inquiry (regarding the possibility of aliens being evil), but maybe we can discuss and it will become clear to me.
Evaluating our chances of survival against possible Aliens requires observing how moral we each are!
What do you mean by "survival"? Live in some kind of harmony with them? As I said in my inquiry, I am wondering how we would/should deal with evil aliens of much greater intelligence. Living in harmony with evil creatures does not seem to make sense. So what "survival" do you have in mind then? Defeat them in battle? That won't work either, since I my inquiry assumes that they are much more intelligent than us.
As being God is at the end of Kardashev scale, we look at various ways to play the role of God."
God is not at the end of the Kardashev scale, a totally exploitative civilization is. From what you write it sounds like (in your book) you assume that man should play God. I disagree with that. I believe it is man's fundamental mistake to try to play God.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm not sure how your answer pertains to my inquiry (regarding the possibility of aliens being evil), but maybe we can discuss and it will become clear to me.

What do you mean by "survival"? Live in some kind of harmony with them? As I said in my inquiry, I am wondering how we would/should deal with evil aliens of much greater intelligence. Living in harmony with evil creatures does not seem to make sense. So what "survival" do you have in mind then? Defeat them in battle? That won't work either, since I my inquiry assumes that they are much more intelligent than us.

God is not at the end of the Kardashev scale, a totally exploitative civilization is. From what you write it sounds like (in your book) you assume that man should play God. I disagree with that. I believe it is man's fundamental mistake to try to play God.
Right, so a civilization, us or Alien, is as powerful as its technology but also its morality; an evil Alien race would be weaker. We are likely at a huge disadvantage right now since the Alien race has spread through space already.

If it's a mistake to try to play God, why are we expanding our technology now? What do you think happens if we try to expand our technology for billions of years?
 

Roguish

Member
a civilization, us or Alien, is as powerful as its technology but also its morality; an evil Alien race would be weaker.
Weaker in military strength? Of course not. Being evil (i.e. having no morality whatsoever) allows one to be ruthless and merciless in battle. From a military point of view, it is an advantage to have no morality. We don't need aliens to prove this. It's clear from battles between human nations: they are won by those who have better technology and do not hesitate to use them in unfair ways.
We are likely at a huge disadvantage right now since the Alien race has spread through space already.
That I agree with.
If it's a mistake to try to play God, why are we expanding our technology now?
Humans have been misled into thinking that technology is their own invention, and that it is for their own good. That, combined with their lust for convenience and comfort, makes them eager for ever more technology.
What do you think happens if we try to expand our technology for billions of years?
We don't have to discuss "billions of years". It will only take a few hundred (or at most a few thousand) years before man will be completely enslaved by technology.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Weaker in military strength? Of course not. Being evil (i.e. having no morality whatsoever) allows one to be ruthless and merciless in battle. From a military point of view, it is an advantage to have no morality. We don't need aliens to prove this. It's clear from battles between human nations: they are won by those who have better technology and do not hesitate to use them in unfair ways.

That I agree with.

Humans have been misled into thinking that technology is their own invention, and that it is for their own good. That, combined with their lust for convenience and comfort, makes them eager for ever more technology.

We don't have to discuss "billions of years". It will only take a few hundred (or at most a few thousand) years before man will be completely enslaved by technology.
My book explains why good morals are superior militarily to bad ones.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Weaker in military strength? Of course not. Being evil (i.e. having no morality whatsoever) allows one to be ruthless and merciless in battle. From a military point of view, it is an advantage to have no morality. We don't need aliens to prove this. It's clear from battles between human nations: they are won by those who have better technology and do not hesitate to use them in unfair ways.

That I agree with.

Humans have been misled into thinking that technology is their own invention, and that it is for their own good. That, combined with their lust for convenience and comfort, makes them eager for ever more technology.

We don't have to discuss "billions of years". It will only take a few hundred (or at most a few thousand) years before man will be completely enslaved by technology.
Look at the Israelites also. Were they moral and did it help them militarily?
 

Roguish

Member
Look at the Israelites also. Were they moral and did it help them militarily?
I've already made the general point that being evil is an advantage in military operations.
What is the relevance of the Israelites to my inquiry about evil and highly intelligent aliens?

My book explains why good morals are superior militarily to bad ones
Why don't you explain it here, instead of mentioning your book again? (It's fine that you wrote a book, but I'm not going to order a copy. We're having a discussion on this forum, so please just make your point here instead of repeating several times that your argument is in your book.)

As for the Israelites, they attacked, oppressed, ousted, and in some cases genocided the tribes living in Canaan, as documented in the Old Testament. I wouldn't call that moral. And it's precisely because they did not have qualms about conquesting the resident tribes, that they were succesful.
 
Last edited:

Roguish

Member
I cannot type any more.
I have no idea what you mean by that. You can't type more because you're tired? Out of time? Annoyed? Sworn to secrecy?

I guess it doesn't matter. I don't know why you're commenting in my thread if you're only going to refer to your book. This is a forum: it's for talk, not for peddling your writings.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I have no idea what you mean by that. You can't type more because you're tired? Out of time? Annoyed? Sworn to secrecy?

I guess it doesn't matter. I don't know why you're commenting in my thread if you're only going to refer to your book. This is a forum: it's for talk, not for peddling your writings.
I do not want to get into trouble so I won't comment further.
 

Roguish

Member
I do not want to get into trouble so I won't comment further.
Trouble with who? The forum moderators? The aliens?

Anyway, you may have missed my point about the Israelites earlier, because I edited the post to add it after you had already replied. What I added was:

As for the Israelites, they attacked, oppressed, ousted, and in some cases genocided the tribes living in Canaan, as documented in the Old Testament. I wouldn't call that moral. And it's precisely because they did not have qualms about conquesting the resident tribes, that they were succesful.
This would be the same for aliens. If they cherish all sorts of moral concerns in their minds, they are going to have a difficult time conquering other civilizations. If, however, they don't care a hoot about morals and have extremly high intelligence (and advanced technology), well, then they're going to enslave or destroy us with great ease. And that is what my original inquiry was about.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I do not want to get in trouble with the moderators.

Since we are the only ones on this thread, let me just say that I've promised my customers to only release information from my books that I've advertised so I cannot answer your question.
 

Roguish

Member
I do not want to get in trouble with the moderators.
Which forum rule are we violating or close to violating? We are having a civil, on-topic discussion that falls in this subforum's category, aren't we?
I've promised my customers to only release information from my books that I've advertised
That is a very, very strange promise to make to customers. I've never heard of an author promising his readers that he (the author) would not be quoting his own book. Why would the author of a book make such a promise to customers, when he himself is the copyright holder?

As for the "information from [your] books that [you've] advertised", do you have that advertised info on a website or Youtube vid somewhere? I'd be interested to take a look. PM me about it if you don't want to post a link here.

Anyway, as far as this public thread is concerned, let's just stop talking about your book, and talk about the topic that this thread is about, without referencing your book. Surely you are still free to talk to people about topics similar to what is in your book? Or have you given up that right altogether?
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Which forum rule are we violating or close to violating? We are having a civil, on-topic discussion that falls in this subforum's category, aren't we?

That is a very, very strange promise to make to customers. I've never heard of an author promising his readers that he (the author) would not be quoting his own book. Why would the author of a book make such a promise to customers, when he himself is the copyright holder?

As for the "information from [your] books that [you've] advertised", do you have that advertised info on a website or Youtube vid somewhere? I'd be interested to take a look. PM me about it if you don't want to post a link here.

Anyway, as far as this public thread is concerned, let's just stop talking about your book, and talk about the topic that this thread is about, without referencing your book. Surely you are still free to talk to people about topics similar to what is in your book? Or have you given up that right altogether?
Hitler didn't win; the United States won.
 

Suave

Simulated character
(Is this DIR still alive? I see no posts since mid 2020...)

What if all or most of the aliens were (1) much more intelligent than humans,
and (2) had no good intentions toward humans whatsoever?

What if the aliens relate to humans the way cattle farmers relate to their cattle? That is, as objects to be exploited as resources and then discarded?

Or, worse yet, what if the aliens relate to humans the way a sadistic child relates to the ants in his ant farm?

What if the intelligence of the aliens exceeds human intelligence so greatly that for the aliens the idea of attempting some sort of equal relationship with humans is clearly ridiculous, in the same way that humans find the idea of an equal relationship with rodents ridiculous?

WHAT THEN?

(And isn't it silly that humans themselves exploit and destroy other living creatures on a massive scale, yet assume that if they were ever visited by (highly) intelligent aliens, that those aliens would not do the same to humans? This isn't just misplaced pride; it's dumb.)

P.S. What if the aliens had their own internet, and had a website on it called "Humans for slaughter, grades and standards", analogous to the one humans have for cattle?

Have you even ever considered the possibility we are them, we are the aliens? I suspect we might be the spawn of extraterrestrial beings SETI in vivo: testing the we-are-them hypothesis
 

Roguish

Member
Have you even ever considered the possibility we are them, we are the aliens? I suspect we might be the spawn of extraterrestrial beings SETI in vivo: testing the we-are-them hypothesis
Modern men are their spawn, yes. But that's not the same as being them. Modern men are hybrids, a mixture of the original men and the aliens. (This is clearly stated in Genesis 6:4, by the way.) And unfortunately we (or the vast majority of us anyway) aren't aware of this alien element in us, and not aware that this alien element is evil.

And that my initial inquiry. What do we do if the aliens are evil, and highly intelligent, and manipulating and controlling us, both by interbreeding (or having interbred) with us, and by deceiving us in extremely clever ways?
 

Suave

Simulated character
Modern men are their spawn, yes. But that's not the same as being them. Modern men are hybrids, a mixture of the original men and the aliens. (This is clearly stated in Genesis 6:4, by the way.) And unfortunately we (or the vast majority of us anyway) aren't aware of this alien element in us, and not aware that this alien element is evil.

And that my initial inquiry. What do we do if the aliens are evil, and highly intelligent, and manipulating and controlling us, both by interbreeding (or having interbred) with us, and by deceiving us in extremely clever ways?

There is indeed an "alien tablet" so to speak imprinted in our genetic code. The numeric and semantic message of "037" that's been embedded in our genetic coding by our genetic code's Creator gets conveyed to me who computes with a base 10 numeric system.

This is evident to me by how each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us present day Earthling human beings with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code
The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code
(Submitted on 27 Mar 2013 (v1), last revised 12 Jun 2017

Icarus, 2013, 224(1), 228-242
The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code

The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code

The significance of the semantic message "037" embedded in our genetic coding is well-explained in the following journal articles: .

Biosystems Volume 70, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 187-209 "Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code" Author: Vladimir I. shCherbak


Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code - PubMed

NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715 Masic, Natasa Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Propertiesof shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing

Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Properties of shCherbak's Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing - ProQuest

Cosmic ancestry theory can often explain the transitional evolutionary changes between species that aren't well-explained by traditional Darwinian evolution.

Viruses can insert new genes, which have never before encountered by a species, to become part of the species' genome. These transferred genes are a vital part evolution. According to Cosmic Ancestry, the horizontal transfer of genes by viruses and other means is essential for evolutionary progress.

Three New Human Genes
and De Novo Genes in General | What'sNEW


3 New Human Genes. by Brig Klyce



Entirely novel human-specific protein-coding genes originating from ancestrally noncoding sequences have been reported by two geneticists at the University of Dublin

Reference:

David G. Knowles and Aoife McLysaght, Recent de novo origin of human protein-coding genes, doi:10.1101/gr.095026.109, Genome Research, online 2 Sep 2009.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128040782000106.., by EurekAlert!, 1 Sep 2009.
Genes That Make Us Human | Science | AAAS, by Elizabeth Pennisi, ScienceNOW, 1 Sep 2009.
Three human genes evolved from junk, by Michael Le Page, NewScientist, 3 Sep 2009.
Genes That Make Us Human by Alan Boyle, MSNBC, 3 Sep 2009.

."Analyzing available data, they identified genes that are expressed in the human species but not in chimps. They then looked for simiar sequences in other primates, finding three. The chimp and macaque (unexpressed) sequences are nearly identical to the human one, but are interrupted by frameshifting insertions and stop codons.
Although the three human genes are known to be expressed from several lines of evidence, their functions are not definitively characterized. However one, chronic lymphocytic leukemia upregulated gene 1 (CLLU1), appears to have a role in that human disease. Its sequence among humans, compared to the matching one in chimps and macaques, is illustrated below.

cllu2.jpg



"Multiple sequence alignment of the gene sequence of the human gene CLLU1 and similar nucleotide sequences from the syntenic location in chimp and macaque. The start codon is located immediately following the first alignment gap, which was inserted for clarity. Stop codons are indicated by red boxes. The sequenced peptide identified from this locus is indicated in orange. The critical mutation that allows the production of a protein is the deletion of an A nucleotide, which is present in both chimp and macaque (indicated by an arrow). This causes a frameshift in human that results in a much longer ORF capable of producing a 121-amino acids-long protein. Both the chimp and macaque sequences have a stop codon after only 42 potential codons." © Genome Research 2009
CLLU1 is also disabled by a matching point insertion in the gorilla and gibbon, but not orangutan, genomes. The geneticists reason, If the ancestral primate sequence was coding, then we would need to infer that an identical 1-bp insertion occurred in four lineages independently, whereas if we infer the presence of the disabler in the ancestral sequence, then we must infer two independent 1-bp deletions. The inference that the ancestral sequence was noncoding is a more parsimonious explanation of the data, even without considering that the parallel insertion of a specific base into an identical location is probably less likely than the parallel deletion of one base. ...We hypothesize that these genes have originated de novo in the human lineage, since the divergence with chimp from ancestrally noncoding sequence.

Consider the human nucleotide sequence designated CLLU1, 121 codons in length. A codon, three nucleotides, may encode any of 20 amino acids, or a stop. (But this sequence is a gene, an open reading frame with no stops.)
Assume that the protein encoded by this nucleotide sequence needs ~25%, or 30, of its codons exactly right. In other words, only 1 out of 21 codons can occupy each of those 30 positions. The chance that 30 random codons will match this sequence in one trial can be estimated as

(1/21)^30 = ~10^-40
Assume that the remaining 91 codons in this sequence may vary widely, encoding any of 10 of life's 20 amino acids, but no stops. In other words, 10 out of 21 codons can occupy each of those 91 codon positions. The chance that 91 random codons will satisfy these criteria in one trial is approximately

(10/21)^91 = ~10^-30

Combining these assumptions, the chance that a given sequence of 121 random codons will constitute a working version of this gene is on the order of

10^(-40-30) = 10^-70 ..."

(This method copies Chandra Wickramasinghe's in The Legacy of Fred Hoyle, reviewed 2005.)

"If a new genetic program arrives by the strong panspermia process, intervening (ancestral) species should possess either nearly identical versions of it ...or nothing similar.."
Reference: New genetic programs in Darwinism and strong panspermia. by Brig Klyce 7 Apr 2002.
.At least some of the silent DNA is for future use ."]Reference: Why Sexual Reproduction?, first posted May 1996.
"Point mutations and other simple mechanisms can switch existing programs off and on."
Reference: Testing Darwinism versus Cosmic Ancestry. by Brig Klyce 24 Nov 2002
"This process would ...depend on sophisticated software management that can recognize an installed program."
Reference: A New Primate Gene. by Brig Klyce, 21 Feb 2005.
"New genetic programs will be continually offered for testing."
 
Last edited:
Top