|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2008 : 07:45:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
As much as I may *like* for this to be true (aliens, gov'ment conspiracies, advanced tech, general X-Files fodder), I'll ask again:
Where's his evidence?
|
Same place as everyone eles': in the delicious haze of wishful dreams, no logic necessary.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 09:39:03 [Permalink]
|
Filthy.....
The picture of that hottie you put up was almost obscene in it's eroticism - gorgeous curvy forearms (a little underarm hair, but lots of guys like me think that's sexy); long, slender legs; sexy, saucy butt; big, round green breasts - god, what a babe! She is gorgeous - totally unlike Coulter who looks like some kind of vile, ugly insect!
Filth you've misfiled this image in your arcane files. It can't possibly be a picture of Anorexic Annie - whose legs are sticks; who doesn't have boobs, green or otherwise; and whose ugly butt looks like the carapace of some kind of predatory cockroach!
You should apologize to the beautiful lady you pictured for comparing her loveliness to the repulsive ugliness of Anal Ann. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/28/2008 : 11:02:56 [Permalink]
|
'K, how 'bout this, then?
Coulter love.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 11:22:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Same place as everyone eles': in the delicious haze of wishful dreams, no logic necessary.
|
Yeah, shrooms tend to do that to people... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
SocraticGadfly
New Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2011 : 02:17:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Chippewa
According to Wikipedia, Edward Mitchell, the 6th human being to have walked on the moon, was interested in "paranormal phenomenon" before, during and after his Apollo 14 flight. So his belief in UFO landings is not fully acquired from his Apollo 14 experiences.
My opinion is that anyone who has stood rapt in awe at the Milky Way and the night sky (as seen from Earth) usually has the notion that we are not alone. This doesn't mean Roswell is real. It is perfectly fine for a skeptic who knows we live in an incredibly vast universe to also realize that we have no proof of alien life as yet. The feeling that alien life may exist is reinforced by subtle scientific data like the basic chemicals for life are found in space or simply the notion that life happened here so it could happen elsewhere. But this is in a different direction from comic book style aliens landing in saucers or even aliens in prettier Steve Spielberg style glowing spacecraft.
I imagine someone who is less critical of so-called paranormal and UFO claims, becoming an astronaut, joining the Apollo program and eventually actually standing on the Moon would have at least the same feelings of awe enormously reinforced by the awesomeness and historic importance of what they are doing. This might serve to convince them that alien beings have visited the Earth and uncritically accept anecdotal evidence.
|
|
There is no god and I am his prophet. - SocraticGadfly |
|
|
|
SocraticGadfly
New Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2011 : 02:18:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Chippewa
My opinion is that anyone who has stood rapt in awe at the Milky Way and the night sky (as seen from Earth) usually has the notion that we are not alone. |
Sorry, I'll counter Ed Mitchell, and your defense of his psyche, with Mersault from the end of Camus' "The Fall."
Not a direct quote, but close, from memory, as he awaits execution the next morning, from his prison cell:
"I opened my arms to the empty starlit sky." |
There is no god and I am his prophet. - SocraticGadfly |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2011 : 12:26:35 [Permalink]
|
Socratic Gadfly.....
Your interest in this old thread (July '08) is interesting.
Once upon a time, as a neophyte menber of SFN, I became embroiled in a very lengthy thread here that was exhaustingly critical of the possiblility of UFO's actually being of extraterrestrial origin. My position was then, and remains today, agnostic. Virtually all of the other participants in this old discussion were, well,....certainly not agnostic!
Practically all evidence of "alien" visitation remains anecdotal. That has not changed in the years from '08, although "reports" still flow in almost daily - mostly SOS - many from mildly deranged people. Sadly, relatively little of real value has been added to the enormous pile of "eyewitness" reports of visitors from space. Millions say that they have seen them, but no one can prove it.
Because you have been prompted to post twice on this perilous subject, I thought you might be interested in the following LINK
At the very least, you have to give Mitchell brownie points for the meticulous concealment of his insanity. It takes a Sherlockian degree of perspicacity to clearly see the man as a lunatic. But then again, look at the number of folks that voted for Barack Obama! As some clown once remarked, "You can fool most of the people, ALL of the time." And, Obama included, I remain firmly positioned in the mainstream of American fools.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2011 : 13:30:18 [Permalink]
|
I am not at all agnostic on the topic. Unless there are some laws of physics that are as yet unknown, there has not, is not and will not be alien visitors. If such creatures exist, the speed of light would limit their explorations well short of our confused, little community unless they are immortal. Immortality ain't happen', either.
Star Trek is not a series of documentaries, alas, so there is no reason to believe that anything out there is anything like us. Evolution being what it is, the chances are that they would have evolved in an entirely different environment. Indeed, they mght not even be sentient, as we know the term. They are probably not sentient at all -- "intelligence" beyond the need the gather sustenance and fend off predators, or be a predator, or woo the opposit sex, assuming that's necessary, has yet prove itself to have much survival value, and, as we are the only known example, it ain't lookin' good.
Star Trek rocks, doesn't it, but I fear that Dr. Mitchell has watched too much of it.
Welcome to SFN, SocraticGadfly!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/13/2011 13:37:27 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2011 : 14:42:09 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah, I'm about as agnostic about alien visitations as I am about leprechauns, werewolves, gods and so on. There's not a whole lot of reason to be agnostic about a particular hypothesis when what evidence we do have suggests that it is false. "We might learn something different in the future" (the most common excuse for agnosticism regarding UFOs that I've heard) applies to anything, and so consistency would demand agnosticism towards all sorts of drivel. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2011 : 16:46:01 [Permalink]
|
Dave....
| when what evidence we do have suggests that it is false. |
What would that evidence be?| consistency would demand agnosticism towards all sorts of drivel. |
I have a Fortean resolve to remain suspicious of drivel, but lacking sufficient evidence to firmly classify that which is only an inarticulate or foolish utterance as totally false, I will, unfortunately, remain agnostic toward such statements.
Different smokes for different folks. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2011 : 17:09:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
What would that evidence be? |
The laws of physics and our knowledge of biology.| I have a Fortean resolve to remain suspicious of drivel, but lacking sufficient evidence to firmly classify that which is only an inarticulate or foolish utterance as totally false, I will, unfortunately, remain agnostic toward such statements. |
So because we haven't searched every cubic inch of ocean, and thus cannot say that it's "totally false" that mermaids exist, you're agnostic about their existence?
Do you have a similar standard for things that are true - that they must be shown to be "totally true" before you'll relinquish an agnostic position?| Different smokes for different folks. |
Sure, if you want to rely on an unreasonable standard for falsity, you go right ahead. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2011 : 17:30:04 [Permalink]
|
Filthy.....
| Unless there are some laws of physics that are as yet unknown, |
What evidence is there that all the laws of physics are currently known?| If such creatures exist, the speed of light would limit their explorations |
Probably, if their place of origin was intergalactic. No speed of light laws to deny the possibility of an interplanetary origin in our solar system, however.
| Immortality ain't happen', either. |
When the date of the origin of life in the Universe is finally proven, I will agree with that statement. Some knowledge of what life is would be helpful to defend your position.| Star Trek is not a series of documentaries, |
NO, it is a rather childish movie and TV entertainment franchise.| the chances are that they would have evolved in an entirely different environment. |
I am unaware of the statistical mathematics that would substantiate that statement, but in a common sense manner of thinking, I feel it is reasonable. "Chances are" that they might be difficult to identify as alive, as in conforming to our current biological definition of life.| as we are the only known example, it ain't lookin' good. |
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2011 : 20:34:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
What evidence is there that all the laws of physics are currently known? |
What evidence is there that any law of physics discovered in the future will benefit the hypotheses that interstellar or intergalactic travel is practical or that non-human life capable of deliberate interplanetary travel exists in our own solar system?| No speed of light laws to deny the possibility of an interplanetary origin in our solar system, however. |
From where?| Immortality ain't happen', either. |
When the date of the origin of life in the Universe is finally proven, I will agree with that statement. |
The only deliberately space-faring species of which we are aware is not immortal. How could "the date of the origin of life in the Universe" have any bearing on the question, and why do you think anyone could "prove" such a thing?| Some knowledge of what life is would be helpful to defend your position. |
"What is life?" is certainly a sticky question. It's a good thing we can generally ignore it when we're talking about sentient beings in spaceships visiting the Earth. Such beings, from all the evidence we have at hand, aren't immortal, require food and have a limited lifespan.There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. |
That is nothing more than a plea based on ignorance to not dismiss an argument. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2011 : 20:34:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
|
I've seen that quote dragged out now by Christians, Scientologists, creationists, cryptozoologists, homeopaths, psychics, diviners, crystal healers, breatharians, Raelians, and ufologists, all of them mistakenly thinking it makes some point in their favor when actual evidence is absent. It doesn't. Credulity is not a virtue.
And let's not forget the quote's original context, which is a fictional play in which one character is attempting to convince another that talking ghosts are real. 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/13/2011 20:36:19 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2011 : 01:28:36 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Originally posted by bngbuck
What would that evidence be? |
Dave
The laws of physics and our knowledge of biology. |
Are these laws and this knowledge immutable - not ever subject to change or alteration, even replacement by newer concepts? Is it possible that our knowledge of biology and our understanding of physics is a process, not a finality - semper veritas?Dave
So because we haven't searched every cubic inch of ocean, and thus cannot say that it's "totally false" that mermaids exist, you're agnostic about their existence? |
Yes, but it has nothing to do with searching for mermaids or mermen. Unless I was persuaded that a mercreature was an impossibility, I would have to remain agnostic as to their existence. "Totally" probably does not belong in front of "false" It is almost an oxymoron in this context.
In a lifelong and largely unproductive search for wisdom, sufficient erudition to define the impossible has eluded me. It certainly is not that some event has never occured to the best of mankind's collective knowledge, because we are almost daily presented with evidence of that which has never happened before. Nor is it - outside of the realm of mathematics and constructs which are self-contradictory (like Steve Martin's "Cadillac up your nose" parody of Perry Como) - that the impossible does not exist.
God is rationally impossible yet despite eons of attempts, no one yet in the history of civilization has successfully offered argument conclusively demonstrating such impossiblity, or it's converse. If such persuasive arguments really did exist there would be no need for terms like atheism, agnosticism or theism; there would be no need for argumentation on the subject.
This is, I believe, because of the nature of the very concept of evidence. I have read pretty extensively on the subject of proof of existence; and there is a great deal to be learned about what constitutes evidence for the possible, but next to nothing on what constitutes evidence for the impossible. Perhaps your quest for knowledge has provided you with substantial reference on how to prove that a logically valid reality concept is impossible. I would be pleased to hear such reference and to receive an assist in settling this vexing problem that has troubled me for many years.
| Do you have a similar standard for things that are true - that they must be shown to be "totally true" before you'll relinquish an agnostic position? |
No, Truth is defined by evidence. Show me a live, swimming, talking, breathing/aquatic respiring merperson; and I will pretty much attest to its existence or truth. But the fact that you can't show me one does not negate its possibility of existence. Strong evidence is about the only standard for "truth" - depending upon the temporal frame of reference. For example:
"The sun will come up tomorrow" is a statement highly probable of truth, but not a certainty.
"The sun came up today" is as close to certainty as you are going to get in this sunrise business.
"The sun came up X million years ago, is a statement which may be true, may be false, or may be indeterminate - depending on the accuracy of the value that you assign to X. |
| Sure, if you want to rely on an unreasonable standard for falsity, you go right ahead. |
Thank you for your permission. I really don't understand why it was necessary, but I appreciate the gesture, nonetheless.
Perhaps you could offer your choice for a "reasonable" standard for falsity? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Moon-walker claims alien contact cover-up
