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.

 

So, how many extraterrestrials can fit on the head of a pin?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by evilution
The Big Bang theory, as well as other theories formulated by the scientific community, are also supported with the word science, but scientific theories are also 'speculation', educated guesses or opinions @ best, nothing more. The word 'theory' is synonymous to the word 'speculation, so let us not forget that fact.


Theory and specualtion are closely related. In the scientific world, however, 'speculation' infers the absence of sufficent evidence, whereas 'theory' implies that sufficient evidence has been found in order to make an assumption plausible.

Another key characteristic of scientific theory is peer review. A theory is not accepted until the results can be verified by more than the source making the claim. The Big Bang theory is much more than an 'opinion' as there are numerous data from many different branches of science to support it.

This is the difference I was referring to.




posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality

Originally posted by evilution
The Big Bang theory, as well as other theories formulated by the scientific community, are also supported with the word science, but scientific theories are also 'speculation', educated guesses or opinions @ best, nothing more. The word 'theory' is synonymous to the word 'speculation, so let us not forget that fact.


Theory and specualtion are closely related. In the scientific world, however, 'speculation' infers the absence of sufficent evidence, whereas 'theory' implies that sufficient evidence has been found in order to make an assumption plausible.

Another key characteristic of scientific theory is peer review. A theory is not accepted until the results can be verified by more than the source making the claim. The Big Bang theory is much more than an 'opinion' as there are numerous data from many different branches of science to support it.

This is the difference I was referring to.


However, in the scientific community, the Big Bang model is not the only theory in harmony with the key evidences which support it. It's just the most popular one.

Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations.

Also,


An expanding universe, the microwave background radiation and nucleosynthesis—these are the three key elements of the Big Bang model that seem to be very well verified observationally. They set a standard for any competing model (as quoted in Peterson, 1991, 139:232).

Truth be told, however, none of these concepts is without its own set of problems, and as a result, many scientists have acknowledged a number of critical flaws in the scenario you have just read. Hoyle stated the matter quite succinctly when he wrote:

As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the big bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome. ...I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers (1984, 92:[5]:84, emp. added).


And so, when u have more than one plausible theory, from the scientific community, that explains 'something', then, IMHO, it is an educated guess.

If the Big Bang did occur, it was a unique, non-repeatable happening. It was not an observed event. Therefore, it cannot be studied by the scientific method. It cannot be duplicated and tested over and over by means of direct experimentation. It is a mathematical construct, an artificial model using mathematics.

I feel I'm digressing here. I have to go to work now, so I hope to continue later on.

[edit on 21-6-2005 by evilution]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Evilution,

I'm still failing to see the connection between a scientifically accepted theory and personal opinion backed by unproven 'science'.

The point is, statements are made claiming the have knowledge of alien DNA, alien sexual preference, and their ability to alter time (all statements made within the past week). Yet, if proof of the existence of aliens is still lacking, then how can these claims be made? They can't. You can't claim to know the behavior of something that doesn't exist. And until bullet proof evidence arises, all these claims are merely speculation--lacking any kind of proof whatsoever.

So...back on track now, let's try and debate the points for which the thread was created. Defining 'speculation' and 'theory' is just swell, but it won't help to answer the important question: just how many aliens can fit on the head of a pin?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
A comment to the person who said 'please do not feed the Trolls'

Normally I am right there with you, but this place should be a little different. If we cannot talk with people who do not share our beliefs and convince them then I would have to say our beliefs need some work.

So when someone says 'I do not believe in any conspiracy because there would be leaks' it gives us the change to inform them.

No leaks, no we have way, way too many leaks. We have document after document, witness after witness, so many that the problem is knowing which ones to believe.

We do not have hard and fast proof, obviously if we did then we would be talking about totally different things here. What we have is evidence and the need for each of us to make a determination of what it means on our own. Like all things of this nature the very personalities of the people involved have a lot to do with what they decide.

Logic does not have to win. Everyone knows that there are some people who would not admit to the existance of Aliens no matter what you put in front of them. They have that choice, always. When we finally do have open contact, how many people are going to scream HOAX for the next 100 years? Will there ever be a time when everyone accepts their existance, nope, not a chance. There is still a Flat Earth Society in existance last time I checked. And sure most know it is a joke, but they remain together anyway.

But you see I feel that each person that gets onboard for the search puts us that much close to getting that proof.



If the Big Bang did occur, it was a unique, non-repeatable happening. It was not an observed event. Therefore, it cannot be studied by the scientific method. It cannot be duplicated and tested over and over by means of direct experimentation. It is a mathematical construct, an artificial model using mathematics.



Excellent, you just earned yourself a Way Above!




A.T
(-)


[edit on 6/21/05 by Alexander Tau]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
There's nothing new under the sun.

And simultaneously, there have always been things not visible to the human eye.

I am leaning a lot closer to the possibility of hidden higher intelligence, than physical extraterrestrials, so to speak.

Spirits, if thats not too much of a throw back for people. Ghost used to mean the Soul inside every person, only becoming a wandering ghost after (violent, unpleasant, or other wise unresolved) death, but now, people sooner believe there are genius aliens than that the human mind and brain are two co-operating but separate entities.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
The point is, statements are made claiming the have knowledge of alien DNA, alien sexual preference, and their ability to alter time (all statements made within the past week). Yet, if proof of the existence of aliens is still lacking, then how can these claims be made? They can't. You can't claim to know the behavior of something that doesn't exist. And until bullet proof evidence arises, all these claims are merely speculation--lacking any kind of proof whatsoever.


This is kind of which came first, the chicken or the egg type of argument. I have a rose bush growing in my front yard. I can't prove to you that there is a rose bush (never mind the digi-cam for a sec
). I can't prove to you that the blossoms smell sweet or that they are red. I have no way of scratching you with one of the thorns. And until I go outside and see it with my own eyes it effectively is not there.

(I'm with you on the DNA, sex, time stuff though)



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alexander Tau

Everyone knows that there are some people who would not admit to the existance of Aliens no matter what you put in front of them. [...] Will there ever be a time when everyone accepts their existance, nope, not a chance.

How about putting some bullet proof evidence in front of me?
Oh right, worldwide government conspiracy.
Convenient.





But you see I feel that each person that gets onboard for the search puts us that much close to getting that proof.

So the limiting factors are conspiracy and limited numbers? Care to give a time frame for when the 'front page' evidence will be uncovered?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   
BackToReality,

You seem to have 2 skills, misunderstanding what people are trying to say, and then mocking them for it.

What is so hard to understand about the idea that the more people looking the better our chances of discovering some truths?

And frankly, if I did have proof I would not bother showing it to you. Maybe you are the sort of person who makes jokes about everything, maybe not. But here it just comes off as insulting. I have yet to put anyone on Ignore but you are really making me think about it.

Sad too, you have a brain and I wish it were trying to help rather than just being contrary.

I respect your point of view, too bad you cannot seem to do the same.

A.T
(-)



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Evilution,

I'm still failing to see the connection between a scientifically accepted theory and personal opinion backed by unproven 'science'.

The point is, statements are made claiming the have knowledge of alien DNA, alien sexual preference, and their ability to alter time (all statements made within the past week). Yet, if proof of the existence of aliens is still lacking, then how can these claims be made? They can't. You can't claim to know the behavior of something that doesn't exist. And until bullet proof evidence arises, all these claims are merely speculation--lacking any kind of proof whatsoever.

So...back on track now, let's try and debate the points for which the thread was created. Defining 'speculation' and 'theory' is just swell, but it won't help to answer the important question: just how many aliens can fit on the head of a pin?



BacktoReality, question do you belive in A higher being as GOD ? If so where is the physical proof in which you believe?

Aliens & Angels similarities:
1. Both are desceding from the skies
2.Both are seen by people choosen people
3.Both leave no physical edvidence
4.Both have ability of levitation and mystic powers
5.Both have rivals, explained as Evil or Devil

Do you get the point? We can go on and on forever!!!!

So obviously you believe in something since your on this site.

And if your here for pure skeptism than I know you ain't got a Life!!!!!

So stop whining, oh we don't have any proof. Duh!!!!

Obviously your looking into these threads for something and the truth is out there and in here its all around you. You can't escape reality.



[edit on 22-6-2005 by 2ndSEED]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alexander Tau
BackToReality,

You seem to have 2 skills, misunderstanding what people are trying to say, and then mocking them for it.

Well thank you. But if I am misunderstanding what anyone says, then they should reply and correct me. Replying is a pretty easy process.




What is so hard to understand about the idea that the more people looking the better our chances of discovering some truths?

Never denied that it was, Mr. Tau. I simply asked a very simple question: "What is your timeline?". Is this mocking?




And frankly, if I did have proof I would not bother showing it to you.

Come now, that is not very nice.






Sad too, you have a brain and I wish it were trying to help rather than just being contrary.

Indeed Mr. Tau. I think this is where the difference between us begins: You believe that I am hurting.




I respect your point of view, too bad you cannot seem to do the same.

Not true at all. If I try and convince you of something, you can be sure that I will include some rock solid evidence. I only expect the same in return.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndSEED
So stop whining, oh we don't have any proof. Duh!!!!

Exactly Seed; exactly.




Obviously your looking into these threads for something and the truth is out there and in here its all around you. You can't escape reality.

I find this to be a very interesting statement to follow the one above it.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I did not back down from this discussion. I stopped argument because it is clear that those that I am engaged with are not on par with the terminology or information that I am conveying. If they are not clear on what empiricism, logic, inductive or deductive reasoning is, then there is no point of continuing.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join