It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mathematicians say it is likely alien probes have reached earth.

page: 12
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

i'll spell it the way I want.

"it" is something people like you will never understand and is most likely why aliens keep us at arm's length



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

you guys just LOVE the "zero evidence" argument.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Arguments for a thing have to contain evidence, you know, or they are not arguments. In that way, the "zero evidence" argument is actually the only one that can be used.

Harte



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

GET ON TOPIC.

YOU WILL BE POST BANNED.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

im sure it didnt help you. if you had read it you would of understand that i can not discuss my beliefs with someone who trolled me for my use of the word "logic" in this sentence


I did not "troll" you. I honestly don't know why you think that.




for me equations dont mean much to me. dont really understand them. common sense says it is full of life,simple.i dont need a PHD to use logic.

I am asking what you mean by common sense and logic here because for me it doesn't make sense when there is zero evidence. If I said "the butler did it" without providing evidence and said it was common sense and logic, that doesn't work too well. That is why I say for me, its not a logical process when I say I believe we are not alone.




so i had said "common sense". do you need a PHD to use logic? you trolled me over the word "logic" without knowing its proper meaning!


You need logic to use logic. I did not "troll" you. The word "equation" applied to "logic" was wrong. The term "Logical Equation" from my source was questionable. I had other sources but I accepted Hearts correction simply because what he said made sense to me and was logical. Other than that, I assure you that I understand "Logic".


next time to you reply to someone try reading their posts. it might save you behaving like you did and showing yourself up.

I read your posts and my responses were appropriate.


(post by Eunuchorn removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed


I also wholeheartedly *believe* in almost infinite, other life-forms and I freely admit it's a belief, in the same as someone may believe that earth is the only inhabited planet.

Likewise, we don't have any other option than to BELIEVE, simply because we don't have data to confirm either one or the other view there, I think we established this already.
True




Those equations, and excuse me to say it, are dumb.

I don't know about "dumb". Maybe a little "overkill" just to say that we don't know enough


Because they can only be made going from our very limited view and understanding. Prime example would be to assume that space travel would never be possible by exceeding the speed of light. However, we don't know whether in XYZ years there are means to simply "short cut" those barriers, eg. with worm holes, warp drives etc...then such equations are as silly as THOSE were they predicted hundreds of years ago that in the future the streets will be full of horse *** since everyone will own a horse and a carriage to travel. (Or making an estimate how many horses and hay it would need to fly to the moon....if you get what I am pointing at)


I think the point of the paper was to not make any assumptions whatsoever
edit on 3-8-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian




I read your posts and my responses were appropriate.



notice at the start of my post is said "to me..." my common sense is not your common sense. i did not come here to prove my way of thinking to you. please dont read my posts.

i said "you dont need logic to use a PHD"

you said "logic is an equation BTW" you made this comment to me after that post was there a need for it?

was there a need to say "you thinking isnt working out to well for you"?

i do not have to show you MY way of thinking. i am not here to do that.

please leave me alone
edit on 4-8-2014 by ben555 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-8-2014 by ben555 because: way

edit on 4-8-2014 by ben555 because: "S



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Arguments for a thing have to contain evidence, you know, or they are not arguments. In that way, the "zero evidence" argument is actually the only one that can be used.

Harte

well of course you guys see "zero evidence", because you can't count in a non-linear way



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
FINAL WARNING!!!!!


originally posted by: elevatedone
*** ATTENTION ***

GET ON TOPIC.

YOU WILL BE POST BANNED.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy


well of course you guys see "zero evidence", because you can't count in a non-linear way

Thats an interesting comment. How do you count in a "non-linear" way? I think before you stated "non-linear" is non logical. Are you talking about "intuitive knowledge"? In that regard, I would understand what you mean a little better. So you would have your flat out beliefs based entirely on a non quantifiable "feeling" and the logical zero evidence argument based on actual quantified knowledge. I am just trying to understand why its so horrible to hold either opinion and why stating an opinion one way or another causes name calling.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalRazorIt is still probable that WE are the only civilization that has advanced technologically. Sad...but probable & quite mathematically possible.

It certainly is possible.


originally posted by: Eunuchorn

Yes, we are so advanced that we are physically bound to our planet and do not explore space.
OBVIOUSLY THERE CAN BE NO ONE AS ADVANCED AS US.
It's probable and quite mathematically possible that you're an idiot.


well technically, we are the most advanced species known. We seem to be exploring space just fine. I don't think you have enough information to determine the probability of the mental state of the poster
edit on 4-8-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Harte

Arguments for a thing have to contain evidence, you know, or they are not arguments. In that way, the "zero evidence" argument is actually the only one that can be used.



Harte


well of course you guys see "zero evidence", because you can't count in a non-linear way


Oh, here we go.

When there's no evidence, it's because of linear thinking.

This means if you want evidence, you're gonna have to imagine some up.

Reality doesn't work like that.

Harte



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
if alien probes did get here, I believe aliens that sent them would be flabbergasted by the amount of stupidity on this planet...

I would be...




new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join