Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Twiddle

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag

Ill take that as a Yes for $200 Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston

Classic overreaching you cant do statistics with one planet with life

Link to post
Share on other sites
Luc2k

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
margrave

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By zikalify
      Europe's telescopes can handle broadband satellite interference
      by Paul Hill



      A new study has found that European telescopes will be “moderately affected” by internet satellite constellations being launched by SpaceX, OneWeb and others but that the effect of the additional satellites will be manageable. Critics have argued that firms haven’t sought public consensus to fly the satellites and that they could impact astronomy.

      According to the authors of the paper, Olivier Hainaut and Andrew Williams, the private satellite constellations will have varying impacts in the field of astronomy. Fortunately, most of the impact is negligible with work in the first and last hours of the night being most impacted when more of the satellites will reflect the light of the Sun, which will be either rising or setting.

      Discussing the visibility of the satellites, the authors wrote:

      They also found that flares and occultations by the satellites will only have a small impact on observations. They found that light trails will ruin around 1% of telescopic exposures using narrow to normal field imaging and spectrotelescopic techniques in the visible and near-infrared during the first and last hours of the night.

      More impacted will be wide-field exposures and long medium-field exposures which will be affected about 3% of the time during the first and last hours of the night. The biggest impact will be on ultra-wide imaging exposures done by very large telescopes such as the Vera C. Rubin Observatory. They will be significantly impacted with 30 to 40% of exposures being compromised during the first and last hours of the night.

      To mitigate these problems, the researchers recommend that the astronomical community, satellite companies, and government agencies conduct co-ordination and collaboration.

      Source: Astronomy & Astrophysics via BBC News

    • By Stergios Georgopoulos
      Slooh offers Its live telescope feeds of outer space to everyone for free
      by Stergios Georgopoulos



      Slooh, a robotic telescope online service that provides live streams of outer space, announced that it has opened its live telescope feeds to the public for free. The company was the first service to offer live viewing through a telescope via the web but its feeds were previously available to paying members only.

      The firm owns several telescopes both at its main observatory on the Canary Islands and at a secondary observatory in Chile, which offers views from the Southern Hemisphere. It also has partnerships with many other observatories around the world.

      Paige Godfrey, Slooh's director of research, said in a statement:

      As of today, all you have to do to view the live streams is to sign up for a free account. However, you will still have to pay if you want to control the telescopes and point them at the space objects of your choice. There are two types of paid accounts; ‘Apprentice’ members can point the telescopes at 500 popular objects in the night sky for $4.95 per month, while ‘Astronomer’ accounts can point the telescopes at any object in the sky and cost $24.95 per month.

      Source: Space.com | Image via Slooh

    • By zikalify
      Telegram 4.0 released, bringing several major additions
      by Paul Hill



      Telegram 4.0 has officially been released and is available right now from iOS and Android’s respective app stores. The release is a major one bringing with it video messages, Telescope, Instant View support on most websites, and bot payment support.

      Video messages on Telegram work in exactly the same way audio recordings work. To record a message, you tap the audio record button to flip to video record mode, then press and hold the record button. The update also allows you to swipe up on the record button if you want to record a video without having to keep your thumb pressed on the button. This now works when recording audio, too.

      Telescope extends video messaging. When channel owners publish video messages to their followers, it is also given a public URL for non-Telegram users to access and watch the content; the URL can be found on the channel's Telescope page. The full library of a channel’s video messages can be found at telesco.pe/channel_name. Telescope allows content to spread outside of the Telegram network and attract new followers.

      Instant View has been available for a while now on Telegram, but was limited to Telegram’s own website and articles posted on the telegra.ph blogging platform. Now, many more compatible websites will be able to be cached on Telegram's servers giving users faster access to the content within Telegram, rather than having to open a web browser. Instant View has also gained more functionality, it allows you now to adjust the font, font size, theme colour, and brightness.

      The last major addition to Telegram in version 4.0 is the inclusion of bot payments. Bots have been around for a while, but now vendors which run bots can build in payment options allowing for a more streamlined purchasing experience. Payments on Telegram aren’t actually processed through Telegram itself, and thus the service stores none of your data; instead, it ties in with other services such as Stripe.

      Source: Telegram

    • By Hum
      Even after dismissing witchcraft with a rational mind this is still really, really weird.

      Dubbed the Black Ring of Leamington Spa, the strange phenomenon was captured by Georgina Heap, 16, on her iPhone on Friday evening near Warwick Castle.

      Fire services have said no fires were reported at the time and the Met Office have said it does not appear to be weather-related.

      Heap said it was "the weirdest thing I have ever seen".

      "I looked up at it and thought 'what the hell?', it was amazing.

      "It was just floating there like a cloud and then it disappeared. It wasn't birds either.

      "There were about ten of us who stopped what we were doing and watched."

      UFO expert, Nick Pope, described the video as "truly bizarre" and ruled out it being a smoke ring.

      He added: "One other possibility is that the shape is made up of millions of bees or other insects, but I've never heard of insects behaving in this way before, so if this is the explanation, it's a real-life X-File."
       

       



      source