I see eye to eye with you on more things than you probably think, atsguy, but what I am putting on trial are Lear's claims. Oil in Alaska and a presidential assassination are not tantamount to sentient beings living on Venus who construct cities and drive cars. Why can't people appreciate space for what it is, and appreciate it for its possibilities? Why does the answer have to inhabit the planet right next to us? These claims are so incredibly outlandish from the floor up. That is the problem.

Originally posted by ATSGUY

Originally posted by PartChimp
and if they still have people i nthe scientific world that question the existence of life in the universe, than i honestly dont no what to believe anymore.

I think most scientists will tell you that the odds are pretty good that there is life in the universe. There are so many stars out there that there is bound to be one that has the right mixture for life, I don't think anyone is debating that.

Since we(humans) can't go to Venus we send vehicles there to gather information. They are our eyes. The problem that most of the believers have is that they don't believe the people who made the vehicles are telling us the truth. They made the vehicels using Pythagorean theorem but don't believe the information that they send back.

I must apologize as I am not as as eloquent as most of you.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by sr71b]

Originally posted by PartChimp
I see eye to eye with you on more things than you probably think, atsguy, but what I am putting on trial are Lear's claims. Oil in Alaska and a presidential assassination are not tantamount to sentient beings living on Venus who construct cities and drive cars. Why can't people appreciate space for what it is, and appreciate it for its possibilities? Why does the answer have to inhabit the planet right next to us? These claims are so incredibly outlandish from the floor up. That is the problem.

Many things we know today were once outlandish. Alien contact might be the norm in 100 years, but for now it will remain an oddity.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Science is not a religion.

Religion is faith in the supernatural without evidence.

Science is knowledge of the natural world through observation and testing of natural law.

People who call science a religion do not know what science is and are trying to drag it down to the level of religion so it can be dismissed outright, just like every religion that the accuser does not believe in.

Actually, science is a tool and methodology. So it is not a religion in that sense. But it is in that the PEOPLE and INSTITUTIONS that make up the establishment science attempt to make you think that they are infallible, honest, objective and the authority on truth. In that sense it is a religion, because you are expected to take on faith, anything that the scientific establishment says, without thinking for yourself or questioning things. That's where the religion part comes in. So get that clear.

It is a fallacy to assume that people and institutions do not play politics, do not lie, do not suppress or cover up anything, do not serve powerful people and interests, etc. People do. All institutions are corrupted by politics, money and power, including the scientific establishment. So it is false for them to portray themselves as some impartial honest objective establishment that is free of bias or corruption. It isn't. But they want you to THINK that they are. And that's where the "religion" part comes into play.

Get it?

I don't understand Lear's points about life on other planets in our solar system. How does he know this?

Also, is he arguing that planets closer to the sun are not incredibly hot? If so, then how does he explain the seasons on Earth? For example, it is hotter during summer because the Earth tilts toward the sun. If that's so, then wouldn't Venus be too hot to have life?

How does he explain that?

George Noory is too stupid to ask such important questions. Instead, he asks dumb ones.