Humans could contact aliens within 12 years

[mudslag]

Which brings me back to this post

There is quite a wealth of evidence, which in itself is proof.

The circumstantial evidence that you posted does not amount to proof of alien life.

[thomastmc]

Really so you want to recap that again, fine

"They must rely on circumstantial evidence, which is subject to

interpretation, and therefore can be challenged."

Yet you admit that this theory that has been challenged does have scientific consensus...

I don't know much at all about plate tectonics theory and it's circumstantial evidence or direct, and yes I did learn about it in grade school but don't remember much as Iv never held much of an interest in it, that and it was decades ago. What I do know is that it's an accepted theory by the scientific community.

Just because circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone in the court of law in no way means it's enough for an outright scientific consensus.

So how were you not wrong?

[mudslag]

Yet you admit that this theory that has been challenged does have scientific consensus...

Sure in regards to that theory but that doesn't mean the circumstantial evidence you refer to in this thread regarding life isn't subject to interpretation or can't be challenged.

So how were you not wrong?

First off, those last 2 posts you have of mine are in regards to 2 different subjects. With that in mind, are you telling me that plate tectonics theory is based solely on circumstantial evidence and nothing else, if so can you back that up? Are you also saying that if one theory draws a consensus based on circumstantial evidence, that it is a rule for all other theories? If you believe that can you also back that up?

[thomastmc]

Which brings me back to this post

The circumstantial evidence that you posted does not amount to proof of alien life.

That's the best you've got?

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. However, given this collection of evidence, it is very difficult to hold a reasonable doubt as to the existence of alien life.

[mudslag]

That's the best you've got?

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. However, given this collection of evidence, it is very difficult to hold a reasonable doubt as to the existence of alien life.

So then you agree that the wealth of evidence, in this case the circumstantial evidence YOU posted, IS NOT in itself proof? I just want to be clear on this.

[Twiddle]

This thread would be the one active at 4 A.M. :rofl:

I have nothing further to add, carry on...

[thomastmc]

With that in mind, are you telling me that plate tectonics theory is based solely on circumstantial evidence and nothing else, if so can you back that up? Are you also saying that if one theory draws a consensus based on circumstantial evidence, that it is a rule for all other theories? If you believe that can you also back that up?

I don't know much at all about plate tectonics theory and it's circumstantial evidence or direct, and yes I did learn about it in grade school but don't remember much as Iv never held much of an interest in it, that and it was decades ago. What I do know is that it's an accepted theory by the scientific community.

The fact that you can't grasp the idea of what circumstantial evidence is enough, or know enough about Plate Tectonics to be able to determine that for your self speaks volumes.

Why don't you go look it up... You'll learn at least one thing.

http://en.wikipedia....antial_evidence

http://en.wikipedia....late_techtonics

[mudslag]

The fact that you can't grasp the idea of what circumstantial evidence is enough, or know enough about Plate Tectonics to be able to determine that for your self speaks volumes.

Why don't you go look it up... You'll learn at least one thing.

http://en.wikipedia....antial_evidence

http://en.wikipedia....late_techtonics

http://csep10.phys.u...h/evidence.html

The original conjectures concerning plate tectonics were based on circumstantial evidence like the shapes of continents being such that they would fit well if pushed together. Today, we have a much broader set of evidence in favor of the hypothesis.

Indications of Tectonic Activity

Among the classes of evidence for continental drift and the underlying plate tectonics we may list

Richter magnitude 5.0 are plotted for a 10-year period. The concentration is striking, and indeed this plot serves to define the plate boundaries extremely well. Here is a clickable map of current volcanic activity on Earth.There are ridges, such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (see figures above and below) where plates are separating that are produced by lava welling up from between the plates as they pull apart. Likewise, there are mountain ranges being formed where plates are pushing against each other (e.g., the Himalayas, which are still growing). ...

http://earth.usc.edu/classes/geol150/stott/variability/tectonics.html

So now that is out of the way maybe you can direct your answer to post 81

http://www.neowin.ne...#entry595421304

[thomastmc]

So now that is out of the way maybe you can direct your answer to post 81

http://www.neowin.ne...#entry595421304

Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.^[1] Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.

http://en.wikipedia....Direct_evidence

Explain how the evidence you have just posted is direct evidence of Plate Tectonics...

[mudslag]

Explain how the evidence you have just posted is direct evidence of Plate Tectonics...

I see you quoting me asking you to answer post 81 but Im not seeing an answer. Id be happy to go over the links I provided if you regarding the plate tectonics if you would bother to answer the question I asked of you a few posts back. Im just looking for a direct answer from you.

So then you agree that the wealth of evidence, in this case the circumstantial evidence YOU posted, IS NOT in itself proof? I just want to be clear on this.

[thomastmc]

Thomastmc are you a god of some sort? You sure know the answer to everything.

In some ways yes... I have this magical box that gives me access to a vast amount of all of the knowledge of humankind. All I have to do is ask a divine spirit a question and it gives me the answer. Watch, "Google, what is logic?" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic Taadddaaaa

It also helps to know about what you're talking about. If this topic were about football or neurosurgery or martial arts, I would not be in it, because I know next to nothing about those subjects.

[thomastmc]

A timeline of post 81...

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. However, given this collection of evidence, it is very difficult to hold a reasonable doubt as to the existence of alien life.

If this was a court of law you might be able to make a case but in the realm of science no one in the scientific community is saying here is evidence of life and we base this off what you have listed above. If it were truly that simple, you would be able to find a scientific article based on peer reviewed journals supporting said claim.

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. Hence why you don't see science as a whole coming out saying yes without a doubt life elsewhere exists. Because science tries as best as it can to not only be as precise as it can, meaning that finding "two of the four nucleobases of DNA" isn't enough.

You don't seem to get that "circumstantial evidence" is not enough to come to a conclusion that life outside our own planet exists. Just because circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone in the court of law in no way means it's enough for an outright scientific consensus.

So correct me if Im wrong, you believe there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that alien life exists, yes or no? If yes, based on that circumstantial evidence, is there a scientific backed theory? Or is this your personal belief based on the circumstantial evidence?

The circumstantial evidence that you posted does not amount to proof of alien life.

So then you agree that the wealth of evidence, in this case the circumstantial evidence YOU posted, IS NOT in itself proof? I just want to be clear on this.

I see you quoting me asking you to answer post 81 but Im not seeing an answer. Id be happy to go over the links I provided if you would bother to answer the question I asked of you. Im just looking for a direct answer from you.

[mudslag]

Ill take that as a Yes for $200 Alex

[thomastmc]

I see you quoting me asking you to answer post 81 but Im not seeing an answer. Id be happy to go over the links I provided if you regarding the plate tectonics if you would bother to answer the question I asked of you a few posts back. Im just looking for a direct answer from you.

You aren't grasping what direct evidence is either...

Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.^[1] Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.

http://en.wikipedia....Direct_evidence

For the evidence you posted to be direct evidence of the Theory of Plate Tectonics, it would have to prove in and of itself that without any other explanation continental plates do exist, and that the entire Theory of Plate Tectonics is valid.

The existence of the tide is a piece of direct evidence that is used in the Theory of Plate Tectonics. You can witness the tide occurring over 12 hours yourself. This direct evidence of the tide in relation to the Theoryof Plate Tectonics is circumstantial evidence, because it is not direct evidence of the Theory of Plate Tectonics.

It's amazing how much you focused on the notion that Plate Tectonics was a scientific theory earlier, but now you disregard it when considering whether there is direct evidence of the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Why would it still be a theory if it was proven by direct evidence?

[thomastmc]

Ill take that as a Yes for $200 Alex

Wow, you ask a question at least seven times after the answer was already given to you, even after it was given to you repeatedly in between those seven times, and you consider that winning.

Your Jeopardy reference doesn't even make sense... It's fitting that you chose the lowest dollar amount for it though.

Second, if you have evidence, then by all means post it. I see you suggesting there is but don't bother to post a single shred of it.

So unless you can provide said evidence, then you're talking out of your ass by saying there is a wealth of it.

We DO NOT how ever have evidence of alien life itself.

No where do I deny the probability or likelihood of the existence of alien life, I deny that proof or evidence for it currently exists.

There is no evidence for alien life, period.

So then you agree that the wealth of evidence, in this case the circumstantial evidence YOU posted, IS NOT in itself proof? I just want to be clear on this.

If this was a court of law you might be able to make a case...

You don't seem to get that "circumstantial evidence" is not enough to come to a conclusion that life outside our own planet exists.

You claimed over and over again that there was no evidence. Then you admitted that there is circumstantial evidence yourself. You admitted that in a court of law I might be able to make my case.

Just because circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone in the court of law in no way means it's enough for an outright scientific consensus.

I don't know much at all about plate tectonics theory and it's circumstantial evidence or direct, and yes I did learn about it in grade school but don't remember much as Iv never held much of an interest in it, that and it was decades ago. What I do know is that it's an accepted theory by the scientific community.

Then you claimed that circumstantial evidence wasn't even viable for scientific consensus. Then you admitted that a theory based upon circumstantial evidence does have scientific consensus.

You try to manipulate the argument to fit your needs, but that's hard when everything you say is in writing.

You were wrong... have the balls to admit it...

[mudslag]

You aren't grasping what direct evidence is either...

For the evidence you posted to be direct evidence of the Theory of Plate Tectonics, it would have to prove in and of itself that without any other explanation continental plates do exist, and that the entire Theory of Plate Tectonics is valid.

The existence of the tide is a piece of direct evidence that is used in the Theory of Plate Tectonics. You can witness the tide occurring over 12 hours yourself. This direct evidence of the tide in relation to the Theoryof Plate Tectonics is circumstantial evidence, because it is not direct evidence of the Theory of Plate Tectonics.

It's amazing how much you focused on the notion that Plate Tectonics was a scientific theory earlier, but now you disregard it when considering whether there is direct evidence of the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Why would it still be a theory if it was proven by direct evidence?

Technically I posted links from University of Southern California and University of Tennessee that mentioned direct evidence of plate tectonics. If you have an issue with how they use that term, take it up with them. My original argument with you was your claim that the wealth of information, the circumstantial evidence you provided, was proof enough for the existence of alien life. A point you never proved.

So if you want to argue your point over what is or isn't direct vs circumstantial evidence in regards to plate tectonics, you won. I dont have enough interest in that discussion to continue, I concede to that argument. FTR you brought the subject of plate tectonics in post #67 into the discussion, not me.

[thomastmc]

Technically I posted links from University of Southern California and University of Tennessee that mentioned direct evidence of plate tectonics. If you have an issue with how they use that term, take it up with them.

You posted that thinking that it was evidence that showed there was direct evidence for Plate Tectonics, because you didn't understand what direct evidence and circumstantial evidence were. Be honest...

My original argument with you was your claim that the wealth of information, the circumstantial evidence you provided, was proof enough for the existence of alien life. A point you never proved.

I never said that I had proof. You said there was no evidence. I did show evidence. You've admitted that.

FTR you brought the subject of plate tectonics in post #67 into the discussion, not me.

And you brought the subject of apple pie into the discussion... (Strictly for the record)

[thomastmc]

No where do I deny the probability or likelihood of the existence of alien life, I deny that proof or evidence for it currently exists.

There is no evidence for alien life, period.

If this was a court of law you might be able to make a case...

Just because circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone in the court of law in no way means it's enough for an outright scientific consensus.

I don't know much at all about plate tectonics theory and it's circumstantial evidence or direct ... What I do know is that it's an accepted theory by the scientific community.

So if you want to argue your point over what is or isn't direct vs circumstantial evidence in regards to plate tectonics, you won.

[mudslag]

Wow, you ask a question at least seven times after the answer was already given to you, even after it was given to you repeatedly in between those seven times, and you consider that winning.

Your Jeopardy reference does even make sense... It's fitting that you chose the lowest dollar amount for it though.

You claimed over and over again that there was no evidence. Then you admitted that there is circumstantial evidence yourself. You admitted that in a court of law I might be able to make my case.

I don't have the energy to keep on baby stepping you through our discussion. You have yet to provide any evidence of alien life, I base that off one of your original post saying "There is quite a wealth of evidence, which in itself is proof.". I have not backed away from my original statement that there is no supporting evidence of such life.

The circumstantial evidence you provide is for evidence of the building blocks of life, which is still different then evidence that equates proof of life.

As for the court of law reference, my point was if you could bring this argument to court, you would stand a better chance of making your case that your circumstantial evidence would be sufficient to win approval. Where as on the science stage it wouldn't be good enough to win that claim. Again something you haven't proven me wrong about.

Then you claimed that circumstantial evidence wasn't even viable for scientific consensus. Then you admitted that a theory based upon circumstantial evidence does have scientific consensus.

You try to manipulate the argument to fit your needs, but that's hard when everything you say is in writing.

You were wrong... have the balls to admit it...

As for this part, post my whole post to get the proper context.

You don't seem to get that "circumstantial evidence" is not enough to come to a conclusion that life outside our own planet exists. Just because circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone in the court of law in no way means it's enough for an outright scientific consensus. Just because someone believes we are not alone doesn't equate that belief is backed by enough evidence.

You posted that thinking that it was evidence that showed there was direct evidence for Plate Tectonics, because you didn't understand what direct evidence and circumstantial evidence were. Be honest...

Honestly i posted it to get you to move on.

I never said that I had proof. You said there was no evidence. I did show evidence. You've admitted that.

You said "There is quite a wealth of evidence, which in itself is proof", but I address that above.

And you brought the subject of apple pie into the discussion... (Strictly for the record)

Huh?

I need sleep now, Ill finish up later.

[thomastmc]

I need sleep now, Ill finish up later.

Don't bother... consider yourself to have had the last word. There's no point in continuing this...

[TPreston]

Classic overreaching you cant do statistics with one planet with life

[Luc2k]

Where exactly is this alien life of which we have evidence of existing? (requesting grammar nazi support)

[thomastmc]

Where exactly is this alien life of which we have evidence of existing? (requesting grammar nazi support)

Any information that suggests that a possibility is true is evidence of the truth of that possibility.

One could easily ask the same question of the quark or the Higgs boson or the core of a star. How can we know that they exist and what they're made of and how they work if we can't even see them, touch them, or directly measure them?

That's also probably the most asked question about human evolution, hence the term "missing link".

[margrave]

Why would you want to contact them? They just anal rape...er... probe people.

[TPreston]

Any information that suggests that a possibility is true is evidence of the truth of that possibility.

One could easily ask the same question of the quark or the Higgs boson or the core of a star. How can we know that they exist and what they're made of and how they work if we can't even see them, touch them, or directly measure them?

That's also probably the most asked question about human evolution, hence the term "missing link".

But with all the above we have direct observational evidence, You are overreaching we have no theory of the origin of life and to make things worse a sample size of 1.