Ancient Aliens Debunked Documentary

originally posted by: neutronflux

Yeap. Your a flat earther.

Ok. Then prove there is only life on earth. There is still in all probability life in other solar systems. You cannot say life doesn’t exist outside earth without exploring all the possibilities.

Again. You are confusing problems of distance and communication. The problem is not from a lack of habitable planets, and lack of possibilities.

I'm not confusing anything. I already stated that intelligent species might exist, just not in our present era.
That is why it would have to be a coincidence of timing, like I said.
A pretty big coincidence, once you accept that aliens we will never know about are equivalent to aliens that don't exist.
After your sermon on how big numbers get, consider the age of the universe.

originally posted by: neutronfluxSo? Then you have proof there is only life on earth? Or you only believe there is a likelihood of no life outside earth?

I'm talking about intelligent aliens, not bacteria. I stated that already as well.

originally posted by: neutronflux

So, it seems that you can't answer the question, and you don't understand my other point:
"There is no evidence that (fill in the blank) doesn't exist in other places."

It’s a false argument. The question cannot be fully answer until the whole universe is explored. Out of literally billions of planets, it only takes one planet other than earth with life to prove you wrong. I’ll take those odds any day.

You accuse me of a false argument, when it is YOU that said "There is no evidence that life doesn't exist in other places."
No evidence that life doesn't exist somewhere?
That's not only a false argument, that's a fallacy.
You committed exactly the same fallacy when you said "Then prove there is only life on earth."

originally posted by: neutronflux

For weak-minded buffoons, that means that we can substitute any term - such as "pogo stick riding ducks" for "intelligent aliens" and not lose one whit of logic.

Really? Coming from the person that made this statement?

And beyond all that, exactly what is the difference between there being no intelligent aliens and there being no intelligent aliens we will ever know about?

I guess you being a math teacher, it most really suck when you cannot intimidate people.....

How am I attempting to intimidate anyone? I'm making an argument here while being "countered" win non sequiturs and fallacies.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Now. Are you going to answer to: “Should we not use time and resources to look for life outside earth? And why?”

We are doing so as we speak. But, for the fifth time, I'm talking about intelligent alien life, not bacteria.

originally posted by: neutronfluxOr are you really a flat earther, and you believe there is nothing to explore? That would be the logical reason you assert there is only life on earth.

First the ad hominem, then the straw man argument.
Do you actually have anything intelligent to say, or do you simply blurt nonsense as a matter of course?

Harte

originally posted by: zatara
Who was first with the "alternative" view on history...Sitchin or von Daniken? Can it be possible that one of them has used the succes of the other to make some money with a fantastic story...based on a true story.

Von Daniken was before Sitchin, but neither was the first.
Here's an earlier work, probably the first written in the same type of format/style as later authors:
Morning of the Magicians

Harte

a reply to: Harte

In good faith, can you really say there is no evidence? It comes back to distance. What standard test would normally be ran to prove or disprove life on an exoplanet that would be meaningful to conduct on a planet 1000 light years away. So you are going to say there is no proven evidence of life on a proposed habitable planet 1000 light years away because of our limited perception and technology to run a test that is meaningful?

It’s like a blind man that only dreams in black and white saying there is no evidence of colors.

Or do you define if a species is intelligent solely on its ability to broadcast?

I still stand by my example:
In the past, we had a pretty good idea other stars had plants. In fact, it be right out stupid to assume our sun was the only star with planets. We didn’t have proof of other plants around distance stars until the right technological was developed. However, there was always other planets orbiting distance stars. The proof was always there, our perception had to grow to find the truth.

You get it now.....

And still stand by:
The question cannot be fully answered until the whole universe is explored. Out of literally billions of planets, it only takes one planet other than earth with life to prove you wrong. I’ll take those odds any day.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Harte

In good faith, can you really say there is no evidence? I

So, what evidence is there?

What reliable tests have been conducted that have produced conclusive results concerning the estimated 100 billion planets in our galaxy.

Would the below comparison be an exaggeration.

We can equate our search for extraterrestrial life at this point to someone saying a whole city is free of a flea infestation by examining a single fiber pulled from a single building’s carpet.

originally posted by: neutronflux
What reliable tests have been conducted that have produced conclusive results concerning the estimated 100 billion planets in our galaxy.

Would the below comparison be an exaggeration.

We can equate our search for extraterrestrial life at this point to someone saying a whole city is free of a flea infestation by examining a single fiber pulled from a single building’s carpet.

If the entire world consists just of the fibre then you can say we have no evidence for fleas. There is a possibility of fleas somewhere but at this time we have no evidence they exist.

You appear to be confusing possibility with plausibility and probability.

Is it possible that aliens exists? Yes
Is it possible that aliens don't exist? Yes

There is a lack of evidence to proceed beyond that.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: neutronflux
What reliable tests have been conducted that have produced conclusive results concerning the estimated 100 billion planets in our galaxy.

Would the below comparison be an exaggeration.

We can equate our search for extraterrestrial life at this point to someone saying a whole city is free of a flea infestation by examining a single fiber pulled from a single building’s carpet.

If the entire world consists just of the fibre then you can say we have no evidence for fleas. There is a possibility of fleas somewhere but at this time we have no evidence they exist.

You appear to be confusing possibility with plausibility and probability.

Is it possible that aliens exists? Yes
Is it possible that aliens don't exist? Yes

There is a lack of evidence to proceed beyond that.

My other point is our technology is not adequate to began to give conclusive results of life concerns planets 1000s of light years away.

There is a lack of evidence to proceed beyond that.

What tests are we conducting on planets 1000s of lights away that can accurately determine there is a lack of evidence?

Is the sole determining factor if an alien race is intelligent if they can broadcast a detectable signal to earth?

Ancient Aliens series must be meant as a mockery of the UFO community. Because noone can be so dumb as those guys.

I sometimes turn it on to have a good laugh.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Harte

In good faith, can you really say there is no evidence? It comes back to distance. What standard test would normally be ran to prove or disprove life on an exoplanet that would be meaningful to conduct on a planet 1000 light years away. So you are going to say there is no proven evidence of life on a proposed habitable planet 1000 light years away because of our limited perception and technology to run a test that is meaningful?

No. I am saying there's no evidence. For whatever reason.
What you are saying is that there could be evidence, if we could just find it.

As I pointed out to you in another post, that position defies logic, since exactly the same thing could be said about any fantastical thing one can dream up.

There is no evidence. Until there is, it cannot be asserted that there is life elsewhere. Only hypothesized.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Then name one test we can conduct right now on a planet 1000 light years away that gives conclusive positive results that planet is lifeless?

Out of the estimated billion planets in our galaxy, how many are greater than 1000 light years from earth? Probably easily over 90 percent.

Your the one saying there is no proof of life when there is not even a practical conclusive test we can run to detect life on distance planets.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Harte

Then name one test we can conduct right now on a planet 1000 light years away that gives conclusive positive results that planet is lifeless?

Out of the estimated billion planets in our galaxy, how many are greater than 1000 light years from earth? Probably easily over 90 percent.

Your the one saying there is no proof of life when there is not even a practical conclusive test we can run to detect life on distance planets.

You just can't let your mind wrap around how this works, can you?
Nobody has asserted that ANY planet is "lifeless."

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Harte

Then name one test we can conduct right now on a planet 1000 light years away that gives conclusive positive results that planet is lifeless?

Out of the estimated billion planets in our galaxy, how many are greater than 1000 light years from earth? Probably easily over 90 percent.

Your the one saying there is no proof of life when there is not even a practical conclusive test we can run to detect life on distance planets.

You just can't let your mind wrap around how this works, can you?
Nobody has asserted that ANY planet is "lifeless."

Harte

Then answer the question....

Then name one test we can conduct right now on a planet 1000 light years away that gives conclusive positive results that planet is lifeless?

I still stand by my example:
In the past, we had a pretty good idea other stars had planets. In fact, it be right out stupid to assume our sun was the only star with planets. We didn’t have proof of other planets around distance stars until the right technological was developed. However, there was always other planets orbiting distance stars. The proof was always there, our perception had to grow to find the truth.

Hard to assess the results when you cannot even administer a test with conclusive results. Is that false?

a reply to: Harte

I think this cheesy child’s joke outlines your logical fallacy.

What was the tallest surface mountain on earth before Mount Everest was discovered. Mount Everest.

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Harte

In good faith, can you really say there is no evidence? I

So, what evidence is there?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Harte

I think this cheesy child’s joke outlines your logical fallacy.

What was the tallest surface mountain on earth before Mount Everest was discovered. Mount Everest.

Nope.
Kangchenjunga

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Sorry, the reality was Mount Everest was the tallest mountain. It took mans perception to catch up to the truth.

Hey Harte, i know your interests are in ancient history but what are your views on the modern UFO phenomena?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Harte

Sorry, the reality was Mount Everest was the tallest mountain. It took mans perception to catch up to the truth.

No the real answer is some other mountain that doesn't exist anymore, according to your logic.

After all, you can't prove it didn't exist.

Harte

originally posted by: Xabi87
Hey Harte, i know your interests are in ancient history but what are your views on the modern UFO phenomena?

I'm up in the air.

There's obviously something. What it is I don't know.
So I leave to people that think they do.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Harte

Sorry, the reality was Mount Everest was the tallest mountain. It took mans perception to catch up to the truth.

No the real answer is some other mountain that doesn't exist anymore, according to your logic.

After all, you can't prove it didn't exist.

Harte

Lots have changed over millions of years. Sad you don’t realize “truth” is always in flux and limited by our prospective of short lives. .

The Appalachian Mountains May Have Once Been as Tall as the Himalayas

The Himalayas started to form "only" forty million years ago, a relatively brief time span in geologic terms. If you had a time machine, where would you find the planet's highest point ever? The answer might be closer to home than you realize.


Three hundred and thirty million years ago, the continent we now know as Africa pushed itself right into the eastern coast of North America, forming the supercontinent of Pangaea. During the Pangaean era, you could walk straight from New York to Morocco, and from Florida to Sierra Leone. In the year 300,000,000 BS (Before Snooki), the Jersey shore wasn't shore at all.

I guess by using your logic Pangaea never existed.