posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:52 PM
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance
The major problem I have with the OP's logic is that he is trying to make a statement of fact by using methods that are usually reserved for finding
evidence to prove a theory. The theoretical idea that ET life most likely exists has not been in question for a long time -- there is plenty of
circumstantial evidence that science has collected over the years that tells us life most likely exists (and that theoretical evidence has been around
for years -- not just because of Kepler 352-A)
For example, I can use the scientific method in order to prove a theory that spot leopards could exist. I could do this by examining the DNA of
leopards in general, study the mechanisms for how spots form, and learning about other variations in markings of leopards and other big cats. By
doing this laboratory and data-gathering work, I could form a theory backed up by the evidence that I collected that says it is very possible for a
non-spotted leopard to exist...
...However, even though the evidence tells me they most likely can exist, I can never know if they do exists until someone finds one.
So the better way to find a non-spotted leopard is to search for one. You can provide as much evidence as you want that they theoretically can exist,
but that still wouldn't mean that they exist. Non-spotted leopards would remain only to be theoretic.
If you want to prove ET exists beyond the theoretical evidence we already have, than find some hard evidence. There is certainly enough theoretical
evidence that most likely exists, but until the find direct hard proof, the existence of ET is just theoretical.
By the way, non-spotted leopards are extremely rare, but have been seen.
edit on 8/1/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)