Sign in to follow this  

Humans could contact aliens within 12 years

Recommended Posts

thomastmc    531

You said "Im not grasping the concept of circumstantial evidence", to which I debated that point. Instead of countering that point, you resort to another silly dodgy post. You have no interest in actual debating, only stating your beliefs and running in circles ignoring counter posts. You come across a few articles talking about "building blocks of life" and assume it means life. Iv tried to counter every post you have made, you are the one that has yet to even try to counter my counters. Nothing you provided would remotely count as enough circumstantial evidence to qualify as evidence of life. Bits of pieces is not enough. Again you can't provide a single study to make this claim.

Yeah, it's funny that you don't know what I meant. Anyone who has read my post through to the end, and retained it to page 4 will know though.

Your "counters" are always the same argument, over and over again.

Summed up it is: "There is no evidence of alien life. You can't say that there is evidence for alien life because no one has found alien life."

You don't respond to what's being said to you or attempt to understand the core of a point.

Counter, counter my counter. Counter this counter that. My counter to your counter to the floor. Instead of "countering", ask questions that will better help you understand why someone thinks what they do. Try to get to the core their reasoning. Adjust your points to fit what the person has said to you. You know, take what they say into account in your reasoning...

Really, this is absurd... You still act as if proclaiming an opinion while at the same time proclaiming that there is no evidence for your opinion is just fine...

No more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    4,552

Ok you want me to go over your list with more complexity, fine.

In order for the concept that life is common and abundant in the galaxy to be a valid position, these conditions would logically need to be met.

1: Planets must exist outside of the solar system.

2: There must be a significant amount of Earth-like planets where life can take hold and thrive.

3: The materials that create life should be abundant and wide spread throughout the galaxy.

4: Life must not be fragile, but rather able to survive robustly in harsh environments.

5: If life is not an aberration on Earth, there should be evidence that the processes of the Universe create the possibility for life in the same way those processes create the possibility for galaxies, stars, and planets.

I dont disagree with this. One thing we haven't talked about is that we base this list of what we know of life here on Earth. But for all we know, else where in the universe these conditions could be thrown out the window. We ONLY know of what life is based on what on our own planet.

1-2 Planets must exist outside of our solar system and Earth-like planets should be abundant

quote snip

There are estimated to be 200-400 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy. Some stars probably don't have any planets, and some stars probably have more than the eight planets of our Sun. Most stars have at least one planet.

A conservative compromise of these estimates and the evidence is that there are around one trillion planets in the Milky Way galaxy orbiting stars. This assumes that there are around 300 billion stars in the galaxy and an average of almost 3.5 planets for every star.

This is a trillion planets. Most planets probably don't have the properties that we would consider to be conducive to life. Though, life could just as easily take hold on a moon of a giant planet, like Jupiter. Consider that Jupiter has 63 and that Saturn has 62 known moons.

Again based on what we currently know, yes we agree

3-5 The materials that create life should be abundant and wide spread throughout the galaxy. There should be evidence that the processes of the Universe naturally create the possibility for life.

Complex Organic Matter Discovered Created by Stars Throughout the Universe

Physicists Freeman Dyson has said that it appears as though the Universe was anticipating our existence. A recent discovery seems to support his observation: In 2011, astronomers discovered that organic compounds of unexpected complexity exist throughout the Universe, suggesting that complex organic compounds are not the sole domain of life but can be made naturally by stars.

Most interestingly, this organic star dust is similar in structure to complex organic compounds found in meteorites. Since meteorites are remnants of the early Solar System, the findings raise the possibility that stars enriched the early Solar System with organic compounds. The early Earth was subjected to severe bombardments by comets and asteroids, which potentially could have carried organic star dust.

http://www.dailygala...e-universe.html

This complex organic matter exists in vast molecular clouds in space, such as nebulae.

http://en.wikipedia....Molecular_cloud

Found: A Batch of DNA Molecules That Seem To Have Originated in Space

This is big news, of course, because if the ingredients for life were brought here from some external source, there?s always the possibility that the same thing has happened elsewhere in the universe--possibly many times over.

http://www.popsci.co...originate-space

NASA Researchers: DNA Building Blocks Can Be Made in Space

"People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life," said Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

"For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space." Callahan is lead author of a paper on the discovery appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

http://www.nasa.gov/...meteorites.html

Possible Key to Life's Chemistry Revealed in 50 Year Old Experiment

"(Early life) didn't care if that amino acid was formed in space or a lightning strike in Earth's atmosphere or came out of a hydrothermal vent? So in the end, it is possible life got started from acquiring building blocks from a wide variety of sources."

"At some level, the universe seems to be hard-wired to create amino acids, provided you have the right elements present and energy," (Scott Sandford, a research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in California) said.

http://www.livescien...acids-life.html

Again this part talks about finding bits of components of bigger pieces, in this case those bigger pieces would be DNA. Again Ill resort back to the cake analogy. This is akin to finding components that make up sugar, not even the other ingredients but the compounds that make it up one little part. Sugar is made up of "C12 H22 O11", so this would be like they found H22 and O11, they still don't have C12.

They didn't find DNA, they found materials that in part helps make up DNA.

4 Life should not be fragile, but rather robust and able to thrive in extremely harsh environments
Methanogens are unique among organisms in their ability to survive a wide range of temperatures, from the freezing point of water to 185 degrees Fahrenheit and everything in between.

Some of these hardy organisms also live in oxygen-starved environments, without sunlight or carbon, and scientists believe that studying these microbes could reveal the boundaries of extreme environments that support life here on Earth and on other planets.

http://www.genomenew...3/extremo.shtml

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supported an extremophile sampling expedition to Loihi in 1999. Microbial mats, including a never before seen jelly-like organism surrounding the 160?C vents were collected for incubation and study at the Marine Bioproducts Engineering Center.

http://www.research....spot_loihi.html

Odds of Alien Life on Newly Spotted Exoplanet Are "100 Percent" Says Its Discoverer

Steven Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UC Santa Cruz, said he had "almost no doubt" (which seems slightly different than 100 percent sure) that life exists on Gliese 581g, an exoplanet Vogt and colleagues discovered via the Keck Observatory that is orbiting in the "habitable zone" surrounding the red dwarf Gliese 581.

Vogt's statement might make for a bold prediction -- especially given the number of life-bearing planets we've found thus far -- but his statement is more an endorsement for the persistence of life than a declaration that he's found it elsewhere in the galaxy. "Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent," Vogt said to reporters.

http://www.popsci.co...net-100-percent

Once again I agree, we know for a fact that life can survive extremely harsh environments. I do not doubt that life has the ability to survive the harshness of space let alone what a planet can throw at it.

A breakdown of this wealth of evidence

1: Complex organic matter is made in space, and drifts in clouds in stellar nurseries.

2: DNA and amino acids are created in comets and asteroids.

3: Amino acids can also be created with the basic chemicals and conditions found on newly formed planets in varied ways.

4: The ingredients that we know are needed for life are abundant and widespread throughout the Universe.

5: The number of Earth-like planets for life to take root on or in is a fittingly astronomical number, on the order of tens of billions.

6: Life is not fragile, and is often found to exist in conditions that were once thought impossible.

7: Life doesn't have many requirements to exist, and those few requirements are met with abundance in the Universe.

8: As some of the scientists quoted have stated, it seems that the conditions and processes of the Universe are configured in a way that naturally creates life in abundance, just as it is configured in a way that naturally creates stars and planets in an abundance.

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.

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.

One last point to which I think you are over looking. That scientist have somewhat of a general obligation to being open to any and all possibilities. You can't generally rule something out just simply because you don't like the idea of it. Science could prove that every aspect that's needed for life exists out there. But until life itself is actually found, no matter how small the odds are, there is always that open possibility that it just never happened anywhere else. Having all the components of life, the sweet spots for planets, doesn't automatically equate that life will automatically arise. Til life is found, that odd exists.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+exotoxic    450

if "aliens" have been visiting earth as much as people claim then why have we not picked up any signals?? If they were using some undetectable technology then making another radio telescope is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crisp    3,271

Walls of text, this thread just got serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.    1,259

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.

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! :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
compl3x    6,257

Big deal. Hum has been in contact with aliens for years. Just ask him. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled    3,880

Really, this is absurd... You still act as if proclaiming an opinion while at the same time proclaiming that there is no evidence for your opinion is just fine...

No more...

Some people deserves to be on the ignore list, you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    4,552

Some people deserves to be on the ignore list, you know?

Ah yes, don't like what someone says, don't like that their opinion or view differs from your own, off to the ignore list. Very grown up of you growled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thomastmc    531

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! :laugh:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freak180    549

Its clear that some people are devoted to misguided information because "evidence" we obtain..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Googintosh    6

Anyone who has read my post through to the end, and retained it to page 4 will know though.

Sorry. I have read them all and I agree with mudslag. But I did enjoy your personal attacks because they were so full of irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thomastmc    531

Sorry. I have read them all and I agree with mudslag. But I did enjoy your personal attacks because they were so full of irony.

Care to elaborate? Where do you find fault?

Yes, when someone crassly accuses me of "talking out of my ass" as mudslag did, I don't treat them with the respect that I would give someone who's being cordial. I also loose quite a bit of respect for someone when they ignore their errors and make comments that are totally void of basic reason.

Glad you took pleasure from them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    4,552
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 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 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.

So we have a difference of opinion, you think I lack a grasp on logic and reason, I could say the same about you. Our opinions of each other are irrelevant. FYI the feeling is reciprocated. For someone claiming Im illogical, weak and so forth, you have an uncanny ability to not debate any points Iv actually made against yours. Iv laid out my reasons why I don't agree with your view, I think it's kind of weak to jump to attacking and whining about how I can't be taken serious instead of even trying to counter anything Iv stated.

You keep saying that you do believe that alien life probably exists, but that there is no evidence.

Yes I take it on faith that alien life exists and I base much of that on what you listed. Because I agree that from a circumstantial evidence POV that all goes to the odds that it's true, but from a strict evidence POV, it's not enough. As I stated before it helps build a good theory, but a still unproven and full one at that. One of the problems with circumstantial evidence, it's not 100% fool proof.

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.

If you truly believe that's how my arguments are going, then you have some reading comprehension issues.

Can you provide any kind of scientific study or anything really that is peer backed and says based on our current knowledge and understandings of life, the universe and what's in it, that there is without a doubt evidence for life beyond our planet? You are so sure that what we have counts as evidence for life beyond Earth, it should be easy enough for you to provide. Ill be more then happy to look it over and try to be as open as I can to it. Or do you plan on just ignoring this part of my post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thomastmc    531

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.

If you truly believe that's how my arguments are going, then you have some reading comprehension issues.

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

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    4,552

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.

Can you provide any kind of scientific study or anything really that is peer backed and says based on our current knowledge and understandings of life, the universe and what's in it, that there is without a doubt evidence for life beyond our planet? You are so sure that what we have counts as evidence for life beyond Earth, it should be easy enough for you to provide. Ill be more then happy to look it over and try to be as open as I can to it. Or do you plan on just ignoring this part of my post?

See I can play this game too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thomastmc    531

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.

The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method

Other Earth science?related discoveries that caused major conceptual changes in the way humans view their world were the discovery that Earth is spherical and not ?at; that all the planets revolve around the sun, not around Earth; and that fossils give us a detailed, logical record of the evolutionary development of biological organisms on Earth.

Today, incredible discoveries are being made in the ?eld of astronomy, all based again on circumstantial evidence and observation with increasingly more powerful and varied telescopes.

http://www.geosociet...tureScience.pdf [Page 8]

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    4,552
The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method

Other Earth science?related discoveries that caused major conceptual changes in the way humans view their world were the discovery that Earth is spherical and not ?at; that all the planets revolve around the sun, not around Earth; and that fossils give us a detailed, logical record of the evolutionary development of biological organisms on Earth.

Today, incredible discoveries are being made in the ?eld of astronomy, all based again on circumstantial evidence and observation with increasingly more powerful and varied telescopes.

http://www.geosociet...tureScience.pdf [Page 8]

http://www.geosociet...tureScience.pdf

Same document page 6

Unfortunately, many hypotheses in geology cannot be directly

tested in a controlled experiment (e.g., the origin of the Grand

Canyon cannot be discovered by using this approach). Geolo-

gists must collect data by mapping or collecting specimens.

They must rely on circumstantial evidence, which is subject to

interpretation, and therefore can be challenged.

Let me repeat it in case you miss it again

They must rely on circumstantial evidence, which is subject to

interpretation, and therefore can be challenged.

Funny how you keep ignoring this part, kind of how I thought you might.

Can you provide any kind of scientific study or anything really that is peer backed and says based on our current knowledge and understandings of life, the universe and what's in it, that there is without a doubt evidence for life beyond our planet? You are so sure that what we have counts as evidence for life beyond Earth, it should be easy enough for you to provide. Ill be more then happy to look it over and try to be as open as I can to it. Or do you plan on just ignoring this part of my post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    4,552

http://voices.yahoo....540.html?cat=17

What is Circumstantial Evidence?

Circumstantial Evidence is much less absolute and is subject to probability. It is more objective but less able to directly prove a crime. It is more often able only to disprove something definitively. Ironically enough Circumstantial evidence, being mostly scientific, is what is often more reliable than Direct Evidence as it does not change based upon the experiences of those observing the event.

Circumstantial Evidence encompasses any and all evidence that is not direct. Anything and all forensic evidence is included in this as they provide only suggestions and probably clues, no direct and absolute explanation for the event.

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

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth.

What you are offering is circumstantial evidence, what Im looking for is direct evidence. Your circumstantial is not only NOT enough but only suggests. Therefore it still is not evidence of actual life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thomastmc    531

http://www.geosociet...tureScience.pdf

Same document page 6

Let me repeat it in case you miss it again

Funny how you keep ignoring this part, kind of how I thought you might.

They must rely on circumstantial evidence, which is subject to interpretation, and therefore can be challenged.

The Theory of Plate Tectonics again is an excellent example. Alfred Wegener took some of his own studies and the work of others and realized that the continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean ? t together, and not just in shape, but in geology and fossil content as well. He proposed a hypothesis that the continents had drifted apart based on this ?circumstantial evidence,? which was not accepted in his lifetime. It took decades for technology to advance enough for scientists to discover additional evidence to support his claim that the continents had once been together (the Atlantic Ocean ?oor was younger than the continents and had formed between them). As more and more evidence was produced, his hypothesis was modi?ed and re?ned into a theory we now know as Plate Tectonics.

page 6

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 according to you, Plate Tectonics has no evidence or proof or scientific consensus because it is based on circumstantial evidence. Add to that the planets orbit the sun, and almost all of the scientific knowledge you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freak180    549

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    4,552

So according to you, Plate Tectonics has no evidence or proof or scientific consensus because it is based on circumstantial evidence. Add to that the planets orbit the sun, and almost all of the scientific knowledge you have.

Actually according to science...I don't doubt evidence. Want to red herring in something else now?

http://en.wikipedia....Plate_tectonics

Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: ?????????? "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The model builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first decades of the 20th century. It was accepted by the geoscientific community after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Can you provide any kind of scientific study or anything really that is peer backed and says based on our current knowledge and understandings of life, the universe and what's in it, that there is without a doubt evidence for life beyond our planet? You are so sure that what we have counts as evidence for life beyond Earth, it should be easy enough for you to provide. Ill be more then happy to look it over and try to be as open as I can to it. Or do you plan on just ignoring this part of my post?

What's wrong, cat got your tongue regarding my question?

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

Except the big question I keep posing to him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thomastmc    531

Actually according to science...

What's wrong, cat got your tongue regarding my question?

Except the big question I keep posing to him.

I've asked you a question repeatedly that you have failed to answer, but I run from nothing...

I have never said that there is definitive proof, or that there is scientific consensus. Your question is a canard. I have said several times that there is no definitive evidence or proof. Did you ignore that, not read it, not comprehend it? Why do you keep running from the fact that I've said this?

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.

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 I ask, or will you run... Does the Theory of Plate Tectonics, theory or not, circumstantial evidence or not, have scientific consensus? Did you not learn about Plate Tectonics in grade school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thomastmc    531
You are so sure that what we have counts as evidence for life beyond Earth, it should be easy enough for you to provide. Ill be more then happy to look it over and try to be as open as I can to it. Or do you plan on just ignoring this part of my post?

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.

Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

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.

The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method

Other Earth science?related discoveries that caused major conceptual changes in the way humans view their world were the discovery that Earth is spherical and not ?at; that all the planets revolve around the sun, not around Earth; and that fossils give us a detailed, logical record of the evolutionary development of biological organisms on Earth.

Today, incredible discoveries are being made in the ?eld of astronomy, all based again on circumstantial evidence and observation with increasingly more powerful and varied telescopes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics (page 8)

You're just so blatantly wrong about simple concepts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    4,552

I've asked you a question repeatedly that you have failed to answer, but I run from nothing...

I have never said that there is definitive proof, or that there is scientific consensus. Your question is a canard. I have said several times that there is no definitive evidence or proof. Did you ignore that, not read it, not comprehend it? Why do you keep running from the fact that I've said this?

So I ask, or will you run... Does the Theory of Plate Tectonics, theory or not, circumstantial evidence or not, have scientific consensus? Did you not learn about Plate Tectonics in grade school?

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.

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?

So now that Iv answered your question, you can do the same Right?

You're just so blatantly wrong about simple concepts...

Really so you want to recap that again, fine

page 6

http://www.geosociet...tureScience.pdf

Unfortunately, many hypotheses in geology cannot be directly

tested in a controlled experiment (e.g., the origin of the Grand

Canyon cannot be discovered by using this approach). Geolo-

gists must collect data by mapping or collecting specimens.

They must rely on circumstantial evidence, which is subject to

interpretation, and therefore can be challenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thomastmc    531

So correct me if Im wrong, you believe there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that alien life exists, yes or no?

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.

I have never said that there is definitive proof, or that there is scientific consensus. Your question is a canard. I have said several times that there is no definitive evidence or proof. Did you ignore that, not read it, not comprehend it? Why do you keep running from the fact that I've said this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.