No one piece of this evidence is decisive, and taken as a whole it is not even decisive to the degree needed for a scientific proof.
As I stated before, this helps make up a good base theory but not enough to quantify as enough evidence to say without a doubt that alien life exists. For some people sure I can see how someone like you would be satisfied by this but I don't believe for a sec this is enough to satisfy the scientific method and the community as a whole.
So my point still stands, no matter how much you scream "circumstantial evidence", it's not evidence of actual alien life. I would agree to potential but not actual.
This is a good example of why I can't take you seriously. Your quote here is literally directly beneath my quote above in your post. This is exactly the same point I was making when I said that you didn't even read my post, the point you didn't understand.
You don't have a grasp of logic or reason. You don't show any evidence
of critical thought. These are skills, not intelligence. You could be the smartest person in the world, but without these skills, you'll be wrong more often than you're right and you won't even know it.
You don't have the cognitive skills to employ the scientific method, or create a coherent logical argument. Your arguments are illogical, weak, nonsensical, and uninformed.
You keep saying that you do believe that alien life probably exists, but that there is no evidence.
I believe that the core of moon is made of Gouda, but I have no evidence. There is also no evidence that it isn't made of cheese, since no one has seen or directly evidenced the composition of the core of the moon. By your logic, this is a perfectly logical argument to make.
i hate to say it, but i agree w/ you. thomastmc posted some fantastic stuff in this thread, but it's not proof or evidence of alien life. it sure is promising and suggestive, but not proof. in all honesty, it'll be a VERY long time before we find proof of life. as much as i believe aliens exist, i still havent seen proof either, so...
i actually learned quite a bit from your bickering guys, thanks!
It seems this is the crux: Since alien life hasn't been directly evidenced, my information can't be "evidence" for their existence. No one piece of my information is definitive proof of alien life, so there is no evidence for alien life.
If this seems logical to you, you must extend that logic to any other situation were circumstantial evidence is used...---------
A woman is missing for 14 days. Her boyfriend is the last person seen with her. A dozen witnesses say they were in a very heated argument. She left, he followed.
He says he apologized for the argument, they made up, and each left to go to their separate homes for the night.
Some of her blood is found in the trunk of his car and on a shirt. She had a restraining order on him at one point. He has multiple counts of domestic violence and aggravated assault. He didn't show up to work or home for 5 days after they were last seen together.
There is no body, there is no weapon, there is no witness. There is no direct, absolute, or definitive evidence of a murder in this case.
Is there any
evidence of a murder here? Is there any
evidence that her boyfriend killed her? Even the determination that the blood belongs to the supposed victim is circumstantial evidence in any murder case.
All of this information is considered evidence that a murder has occurred, and that the boyfriend is guilty, in a murder trial. No one piece of evidence is definitive proof that there was a murder. Even taken together, one has to apply inductive reasoning to infer from the evidence that a murder has taken place.
People have been put to death with no more evidence than this. Is it faultless, no. Is it the best we can do, in many circumstances yes.----------
I stated in my post, right at the end, that even when all of this evidence is taken as a whole it doesn't meet the requirements for definitive proof, or what would be required for scientific confidence.
This wasn't about whether proof for alien life exists. Look at what was said before and in my really, really long post.
It was said that there is no evidence for alien life. I said there was a wealth of evidence for it. A challenge was made crassly for me to basically post up or shut up. I then provided a wealth of evidence for the existence of alien life.
It seemed ludicrous to me that someone would advocate an opinion, while at the same vehemently declaring that there was no evidence to support their opinion. How had they then drawn this conclusion without evidence? Unfortunately, I made this challenge in my post and it was ignored. Any request I've made for an explanation has gone unanswered.
Someone who draws conclusions without evidence, and/or can't understand that any information that suggests that a possibility is true is evidence for the truth of that possibility, can't be considered competent.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
Some people deserves to be on the ignore list, you know?
I learn a lot in each of these endeavors though. Even though it's often futile in many respects, it's interesting to see different kinds of peoples' brains in action.