If this question disturbs you, Why?

Question

We finally make it to Mars. We find the remains of anciet cities and all kinds of civilization relics. But we don't find a single creature. Not even a bone or hair.
With you current scientific philosophy. Would you be forced to look for natural causes for the cities and relics? Or would you conclud that they were designed by, unseen and unknown, intelligent beings?

Answer 1

I would study it in every possible way I could think of, and would recruit as many scientists in many fields as I could. I would need strong evidence to conclude that they were designed, but I wouldn't rule out that possibility without a really good scientific basis. I wouldn't rule it out just because I didn't like the possibility. Humans, especially scientists, are generally good at looking at objects and deciding whether they are 'natural' or designed. A true scientist would evaluate the evidence and decide how likely it was designed, even if he couldn't figure out who or what did the designing. Some would go to great lengths to argue against any designer, just to avoid acknowledging that the designer might be a God to whom they would be morally accountable.

Answer 2

What you have stated is impossible, and I'll tell you why.

We may find things that LOOK like cities so SEEM to be relics of civilization, but unless we know that they ARE such things (and thus produced by intelligent beings) they may be something else instead. This is a mistake that has been made many times in history - people THOUGHT they knew what was going on, but they really had no idea.

Scientists these days tend to be a bit more careful. I'd be surprised if you found too many who said that the 'face' on Mars (link 1) is anything more than an accident, for example, even though there are plenty of non-scientists who insist otherwise.

Answer 3

>"We find the remains of anciet cities and all kinds of civilization relics."

Well, obviously if we all agree that they are "civilization relics", then the question is already answered. Civilization is an artifact of intelligence ... so the conclusion that they are "relics of civilization" already leads to the conclusion of intelligence.

So the real question is whether and how we recognize them as "civilization relics." It would have to bear some resemblance to our own civilization.

For example, lets say it's just a bunch of hollow mounds. That *by itself* is not necessarily evidence that these are dwellings. We of course would first search for some natural explanation for such structures. (Wouldn't you?)

If these were not just shapeless mounds, but geometrical (e.g. rectangular), then again we would be justified in first searching for some natural explanation.

But if there are tables, chairs, eating utensils, pottery ... then of course we would call these "civilization relics".

So I'm afraid your hypothetical would have to be more precise.

And BTW, I find nothing disturbing in that question. Why?

Answer 4

In asking about these objects, you have presupposed that they are in fact artifacts of a long-departed civilization when you called them "ancient cities" and "civilization relics." This is a logical fallacy, especially when the question itself is about the origin of these objects. The question therefore disturbs me because, as is true of all fallacies, it shows some minimum combination of intellectual dishonesty and incompetence.

Had you worded your question in a way that was not open to such a criticism, the issue of whether the objects were created by long-departed intelligent beings would have been a legitimate one. If the objects had straight lines, reasonably perfect circles, or other shapes more closely conforming to ideal geometric shapes than would have been likely through natural processes or were composed of materials of a composition and uniformity not likely to be found in nature, then the theory that they had been created by intelligent beings would be pretty likely and the search would be on for more and better evidence of these beings, their origin, their capabilities, and their ultimate fate.

Answer 5

The answer is obvious, ancient cities and civilization relics are not caused by natural causes, so what's your point? And why would I find the question disturbing? I'd be thrilled at the prospect.

Answer 6

One idea given serious credence is that Earth life, or at least part of it, originated on Mars, so that is not something that has not been considered, I'm sure.

I remember reading of some experiments done in letting the human body seek its own rhythm as opposed to matching the 24-hour solar rhythm. The daily cycle settled into was a 30-hour day. Oddly enough, that matches the Martian solar day.

We are the "Little Green Men" and brought it all with us.

Answer 7

I would assume that all those old cities were built by the mayas, the incas, etc., but when Mars ran out of water and air, they all came here and built new cities, then they left here and went someplace else.
They probably have left ruins all over the universe.

Answer 8

I would assume that life at least used to live there. I would attempt to find out if they still did though that seems quite unlikely given the current hostility of the climate.

Answer 9

very interesting questions i would not think these cities would be natural causes i think something or someone would have to make these cities maybe they were humans or aliens as of right now we really don't know yet