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.

 

Well this changes Everything!

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
skeptics don't deny possibilites they deny, or more accurately, refute evidence.
I cannot talk for other people, but this sceptic here does not refute evidence. What I try to do is to understand the evidence and what it means, and then I "classify" that evidence as more or less likely to explain whatever it supposedly explains. This classification is as subjective as anyone else's opinions, so it can (and usually does) change with time and with the other evidence and related data that I gather through my life.


they won't deny possibilities, yet still say it could happen.
Obviously, it would be silly not to deny the possibilities and then say it could not happen, or am I misunderstanding what you mean?


I'd like to hear the "skeptics" explanation on how they can refute evidence of all things alien yet still proclaim that they exist.
I don't understand what you mean, to me, what you're saying makes no sense.




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   


and where there's water..


...there's fish?


Luna-Tuna?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
There are 2 factors that bug me when a self proclaimed 'skeptic' argues against the possibility of intelligent life existing on other planets, and having visited here.

I'll try to make these points brief, and I intend no offense to anyone in particular...

Point 1) Other Earthlike worlds likely exist.

I've heard self proclaimed 'skeptics' use the rationale that since we have yet to prove the existence of an Earthlike world, then they don't exist.

As Yeti pointed out already, they likely do, and a true skeptic would include the probability for such worlds in their factoring. That's a part of being a true skeptic, including current Science's understanding of the universe in your analysis...

Point 2) They could not have visited us, because the distances are too vast to cross.

This argument simply ignores the estimated age of the Universe, and the multitude of Star Systems within it. It is well known to those in the Astrophysics community, that the Universe is a lot older than the Earth, and that the Sol System in which we live is dwarfed in age by MANY systems (too many to accurately count). This fact (even if our estimated age is off, it's not off by THAT much...) MUST be included, in my view, when analyzing the probability that Intelligent Life from another world could have visited Earth.

There simply HAS BEEN enough time elapsed for an intelligent species (or several intelligent species...) to have developed Type 1 Civilization Status. This rationale clearly tips the scales to 'possible, if not likely' when factored into the question 'Have Aliens visited Earth?' - That is my opinion at any rate...

The existence of water on the Moon in my view does not specifically further the claim that Intelligent Life could have visited Earth, as I understand it, at least not in the same way that say, the estimated age of the Universe, or the sheer number of Star Systems within it does...

Having said all of that, ATSBeliever, I would tend to say that your OP statement really applies to those who call themselves 'skeptics' but really are pseudo-skeptical in their investigations and claims.

So instead of phrasing it as a 'blow to skeptics' I'd more call it a 'a blow to pseudo-skepticism', and to those who tend to argue that the universe at large will be found to be barren of life. These people aren't really skeptics, even though I've seen them claim to be... And Phage, they do exist here at ATS, unfortunately...

I must point out that true skeptics (as Yeti, Phage, etc. have already demonstrated in this thread) tend to include the perspective of current Science's understanding of the Universe in their analysis.

That's the best way I've been able to identify these individuals, internally within their arguments... Perhaps that helps you to understand the difference between true skepticism, and pseudo-skepticism...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by atsbeliever
 


It is indeed very exciting to see water located on the moon, and opens up all kinds of possibilities both in terms of possible life and of course the opportunities for lunar bases, and of course beyond.

It'll make the crash of the satellite into the south pole of the moon all the more exciting...

But hey... why the last sentence here... are you trying to annoy people... As a skeptic I am not frustrated, annoyed or feel anything other than excitement about news like this.

People with deep convictions (ie UFO believers) often become hostile and angry if others dare to do a sniff test. If I question someones facts on an issue doesn't that serve a good purpose... to help filter out the poor quality news and the fakes?

Other than the dig at skeptics... thank you for the post!



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I would like to add this link, however it will take a time to read. It is written by astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle who, it may seem is also a creationist. I have to assume at this moment, (although it is only an assumption) that this man is a true disbeliever of extraterrestrial life, but even there in this link, the gate is still somehow left open for an ET,"the heavens belong to God",(a biblical quote) or is to God alone? he also quotes Enrico Fermi's open question, "where is everybody" which was related to ET.

www.answersingenesis.org...



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



I've heard self proclaimed 'skeptics' use the rationale that since we have yet to prove the existence of an Earthlike world, then they don't exist.

As Yeti pointed out already, they likely do, and a true skeptic would include the probability for such worlds in their factoring. That's a part of being a true skeptic, including current Science's understanding of the universe in your analysis...


For me, the definition of a skeptic is someone who looks at the evidence and then makes their own informed opinion based on what they know from experience,research or any other circumstance that would allow them to make informed decision.

The skeptics that look at all things and immediately cry hoax, or completely refute the existence of other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, belong in the same box as the believers that categorically state that they KNOW that there is intelligent life and that FOR A FACT it has been here and are not open to hearing other thoughts on the evidence presented.

Blind devotion to a cause or purpose with a closed mind to other possibilities is never attractive and this is something prevalent on both sides of the fence. I personally don't care for getting messages calling me a multitude of names and bringing my character into question based solely on the point that I happen to disagree with someone and show why ( usually in detail ) I think that way.

All in all, something I don't understand is why people that state that they purely do not believe in extraterrestrial life even bother to come into this forum unless it's solely to troll people.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Itachimaru
 


Fully agreed and very well said!

Star from me


-WFA



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 




There are 2 factors that bug me when a self proclaimed 'skeptic' argues against the possibility of intelligent life existing on other planets, and having visited here.


Here's the deal. Proposing "Intelligent Life" on other planets is an ENTIRELY different subject from "Intelligent Alien Life Visiting Earth". It DOES NOT FOLLOW that just because intelligent life probably has arisen elsewhere in the universe, that it's come HERE to visit us.

While we cannot rule out technologies, hypothetically, that would allow interstellar travel at far faster than our understanding of physics will allow - we similarly cannot SUPPOSE them either. It is an unknown, but the WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE available to us at the present time suggest they are not possible.

"Intelligent Life in the Universe" as suggested by most who actually trust scientists to know what they're talking about (at least, far better than us) is encompassing the ENTIRE universe - of which we can only observe a small fraction. With the number of stars and planets contained just within this fraction, it's very likely that life - and intelligent life - eventually arose some of them. Much depends on just how robust Abiogenesis research and terrestrial inner-planets can prove to be. If Abiogenesis is an extremely rare event, we can ratchet it down. If it's extremely common, we can ratchet the estimate up. Similarly with planets discovered which are capable of starting the chemical reactions. From there, I feel it's likely that nervous systems will evolve similarly to ours, as a promoted motif of evolution. An example of one such motif which we can observe here is the development of "Wings" for gliding and flying in a substantial atmosphere. Insects, Birds, Mammals, Fish, Reptiles, and some Seeded plants have ALL developed adaptations for the wing in our atmosphere at one time or another - several times independently - with examples for most broad groups living today. And that's just what we know of. Further, Single Celled Eukaryotes, Viruses, Mold, and Bacteria all have examples of species which take advantage of the atmosphere for locomotion or seeding. We are not the first intelligent species on this Earth, nor the first technology using species. Merely the most advanced we know of.

But this is, of course, ignoring the vast distances in both space and time. It's only been 500 million years roughly, since the Cambrian explosion. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe over 14 billion years old. Humanity has only been here about 200~150k years, and as a technologically advanced species for about 8,000 years. (Since the Neo-Lithic Era and the dawning of the discovery of Agriculture) We only started seriously considering traveling to space in the last 100 years. We only reached the MOON 50 years ago. And with our level of technology, and the pace at which it's advancing... there's a very real possibility we might not make it out of the next century. Michio Kaku's famous dangerous "Transition from Type 0 to Type 1 Civilization" which most people here are familiar with.

It's entirely possible that highly advanced technological societies are popping up and extinguishing themselves at a constant rate in our own Milky Way galaxy... but at intervals so far removed from each other in scale of time, no two would be within traveling/detection distance in the same span of time.

It's very unlikely that we're being visited according to the very limits of speculation our current knowledge allows.



And this is just ENDING on the point of where one would pick up the next and separate claim "we are being visited" to discuss on it's own merits alone. At best, in the final analysis, there is only a handful of actual "unidentified" documented examples of odd aerial phenomena. Being unable to explain an object does not validate the claim of Alien intelligent life visiting us. It ONLY provides evidence that something was documented in the sky of which thus far has no explanation. And UFO sightings, generally those verified by ground based equipment as well as observation by witnesses and photography, are the best current available evidence there is. Nothing else thus far provided has passed the litmus of close scrutiny. Let ALONE provided evidence that it was from intelligent beings from another planet.

You might feel these kinds of methodologies for evaluating the strength of evidence, limiting the scope of claims to their relevant subjects, etc,... Science... is limiting and obtuse considering how "closeminded" it may seem, but it is the ONLY reason why we're at the technological point we are now... and it's only been in the last 500 years that a truly effective framework has been assembled for that methodology. Science isn't close minded, because we'd have never have made this progress without the willingness to consider new ideas. However, it's far more productive to falsify poor ideas, than to try to prove them. It's a process of systematically increasing the resolution onto the understanding of reality... and it's still a work IN progress. Always will be.

reply to post by smurfy
 



I would like to add this link, however it will take a time to read. It is written by astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle ... www.answersingenesis.org...


No offense, but epic fail. Check for sources of bias. Answers in Genesis is pushing a YEC agenda to validate scripture above all else - even at the cost of honesty. They could give a damn about evidence of any kind, unless it can be twisted or spun to support their already pre-established suppositions.

From their Mission Statement:



By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.


AIG: Mission Statement

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
What is there to be skeptical about. 90% of the matter in the universe is composed of hydrogen. The possibilities of water being found in this solar sytem alone is extremely high as this planet contains about 70% water. As for the rest of the universe, no suprise to me.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 

Ok...
1...

But the OP said "life".



[edit on 9/25/2009 by Phage]


Well, 1 because I spoke for myself. I'm not going to scan all of the posts in every UFO thread and record every skeptic that agrees with me or me with them. I would expect those that read your comment to chime in if they so desire. And while the OP did say "life" ("With the discovery of water ALL OVER the moon, I think the chances for finding life out there again just skyrocketed.") the OP also said "again". When was life out there found the first time?



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkwind.

Originally posted by atsbeliever
A huge blow to the skeptics




Quotes like this annoy me.

Could you provide me with a link that shows someone stating that there is no water on the moon or anywhere else in the universe? If not then stop your ignorance. In fact, you will only find a tiny percentage of sceptics telling you there is no life elsewhere in the universe. Maybe you need to re-learn your understanding of what sceptism is?



(edited spelling)

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Hawkwind.]


You said: "In fact, you will only find a tiny percentage of sceptics telling you there is no life elsewhere in the universe." Actually, no self-respecting, 100% skeptic will utter statements that are articles of faith. A true skeptic demands irrefutable evidence before the claim is supported. Only alleged skeptics accept life elsewhere in the universe. I surely don't. Someone saying doesn't make it so. Irrefutable evidence certainly does.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package
I think the main issue with skeptics is their continual proclamation that there is no "evidence" that ET's have visited this planet.... when that is purely not the case.

I find this view extremely irritating and beyond skepticism... that's where we are talking personal beliefs getting in the way of reasoning. Their personal beliefs are we haven't been visited... so they take no notice of the actual evidence there is.... regardless of whether it is anecdotal or otherwise.... and they do this whilst hiding behind quotes from Science... such as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"... etc etc etc.

At the end of the day for the Skeptics to say there is no proof that ET's have ever visited us..... then they are basically calling 1000's of eyewitnesses liars.... every person connected with Roswell..... every alien abductee are all making it up and delusional.... every airline pilot that has spotted these things many many years ago... all delusional... not to mention men like Col Philip Corso complete and utter liars.

We are talking about 100000s of bits of evidence that the skeptics have to come to the conclusion is "bull#".... except they like to use the word "inconclusive" to stop them from having to change their belief system and admit they were wrong. Only 1 piece of evidence has to be right to prove ET existence... yet the skeptics don't wanna hear about it. They want that giant billboard in the sky to tell them look its real.... and it all comes down to their ego. The good old Ego... is a very powerful weapon.


Total Package, you are not qualified to criticize skeptics. You comments stems from a mind that doesn't understand what makes a skeptic tick. This is because you are a believer and believer does not question, which skeptics do naturally.

You said: "that's where we are talking personal beliefs getting in the way of reasoning." Wrong. Beliefs are created by mental conditioning and skeptics are not mentally conditioned. Of course, I'm really talking about myself. I don't have a belief system because I understand beliefs.

Trust me, if there was "actual evidence" any skeptic would be happy 'cause that's what they/we seek. You quote Sagan's famous saying: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" which is based on Hume's Maxim: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish…" Replace "miracle" with "extraordinary claim".

["The statement is self explanatory; if someone makes an extraordinary claim, there better be extraordinary evidence to back it up. If, for example, someone made the claim that an alien race has made contact with earth, we would need sufficient evidence to verify the claim, such as an alien space craft, or an actual alien. The extraordinary claim would need extraordinary evidence.

At the heart of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a healthy and normal skepticism. There are far too many charlatans and con-men in the world who make extraordinary claims without evidence to back them up. Unfortunately, too many people lack the necessary skepticism and critical thinking skills to help them avoid being duped by con artists and wild theories.]

You side with the "1000's of eyewitnesses" who may have claimed to either have had an experience with aliens, or have seen them, or whatever. Yet not one single "eyewitness" has furnished any evidence to turn the tide in their favor.

You say: "every person connected with Roswell....." A UFO never crashed near Roswell, this is all romantic fluff. If a UFO really crashed near Roswell it would have been REAL news and not forgotten for over 30 years. And whenever possible, accept the original reports and not what popular authors want you to believe so that you can enrich them, something which is too late.

I could go on taking your comments apart with logic, common sense and reason. That's what skeptics employ. That's what believers are lacking.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


I'd love to see some of that amazing evidence. Because I've been looking at the same pictures, videos, and witness transcripts as you, unless you happen to have a secret stash you're holding back. I don't like a blob in the sky being identified as an alien craft. If it's an alien craft, prove it! Millions of anecdotes, blurry videos, and out of focus photographs don't mean anything other than that the culture of UFOs and aliens is a popular one, and more people are looking up at the sky and finding things they personally can't explain.

Now, what I dislike even more, is when a believer claims all skeptics are calling all people who provide evidence liars, cheats, hoaxers, or what-have-you. No, I don't think every single bit of evidence was a hand-crafted hoax, and in fact, most all of them except the hoaxes are just people misidentifying terrestrial occurrences. It's pretty damn insulting to be labeled in such a judgmental way.

It must be very frustrating to want this whole scientific process to be over, and for alien visitations just be a fact, but we're not there yet. And we never will be without skimming the skin of the explainable, terrestrial, misidentified evidence off the gravy of the truly unknown.

And, as for the OP and the skeptic comment, I can now say, "Whew, what a blow. But... You still have to prove it."


[edit on 26-9-2009 by EsSeeEye]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


I guess by your lengthy explanation that you wouldn't consider me a skeptic based on my anti-ET statements.

That's too bad 'cause in my 71 years I've never met a truer skeptic than me. It's romantic to say that there are probable worlds similar to earth and that either these probable worlds or others contain life, some of which may be visiting earth.

Hogwash!

No one on earth has any evidence of any worlds similar to earth, meaning atmosphere, water, life!

We have UFOs flying all over this planet and the moon that we are aware of and that is all we are aware of. We have no concept of what or who is inside the UFOs, if they're craft as we envision them, and as I've stated a million times perhaps there is no one inside the UFOs, they could be piloted remotely. IF they're being piloted remotely then it goes without saying that there is a remote pilot somewhere. But we don't even have an inkling of where this somewhere is.

Let's get real, irrefutable evidence before anyone makes any comment about the reality of something we have no clue about.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Ed, I like what you're trying to do, I really do. I have issues with your extreme views only because it's going to give you trouble in other realms. What are your views on evolution? It's a well-known fact, though has yet to be witnessed in large scale to the degree that should be required by the views you're attributing yourself to.

Math and statistics are there for a reason, and shouldn't be discounted. That doesn't mean your objectivity is totally unwelcome, of course, because I'm personally surprised to see it, and kind of like hearing things from your perspective.

That said, disregarding the mathematical probability of life somewhere else is the same as picking up a rock on the street and denying the possibility of bacteria on it. Is it possible that there are no bacteria? Sure. But the laws of probability will be against you.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
reply to post by atsbeliever
 


Ha! Just in time to bomb the moon on the 8th of October. You've got to bomb somethin' why not the moon?

[edit on 25-9-2009 by pluckynoonez]


No way! We're Earthlings. We blow up Earth things!



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Ed, I like what you're trying to do, I really do. I have issues with your extreme views only because it's going to give you trouble in other realms. What are your views on evolution? It's a well-known fact, though has yet to be witnessed in large scale to the degree that should be required by the views you're attributing yourself to.

Math and statistics are there for a reason, and shouldn't be discounted. That doesn't mean your objectivity is totally unwelcome, of course, because I'm personally surprised to see it, and kind of like hearing things from your perspective.

That said, disregarding the mathematical probability of life somewhere else is the same as picking up a rock on the street and denying the possibility of bacteria on it. Is it possible that there are no bacteria? Sure. But the laws of probability will be against you.


I don't think about evolution, I just exist in it. It doesn't matter to me in one lifetime how we came about and how we have progressed as humans. No one really knows where we came from so being here now is all I care about. As long as the religious version of creation is not pushed on me, I'm a happy, evolving human. Evolving means my brain can be brought up to speed and it has.

My "extreme" views are based solely on spending 71 years waking up every day and experiencing what comes while I'm awake. I've never seen anything out of the ordinary to make me go bananas with assumptions. I'm too aware of my world and how I exist in it.

The majority of humans love to believe this and believe that because they are not as questioning as they should be if they were operating with their minds 100%. A person learns not to put their hand on a hot stove after the first time because their burn is their evidence. Most humans continue to touch the flame.

While there are those on ATS who enjoy my "extreme" views the majority, again, resents my "extreme" views and express their feelings in a harsh and hostile way telling me I should not be here. Perhaps they're right, I'm wasting my time since like minds are in the minotiry here.

Perhaps I'll just troll and look at what may be of interest without getting involved. I might as well since I do not seem to be reaching anybody. My experiences and my vast intelligence don't count to those who prefer to believe in alien abductions, that a UFO crashed near Roswell, etc.

I'll weigh my continuance here.


[edit on 26-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Keep in mind that you'll rarely ever convince anyone of anything in an argument over the internet, but as long as you continue to promote clear, concise, logical reasoning, others outside the argument will be reading it as well.

In other words, you can accomplish two things by debating on forums like this: Evolving and cementing your own views through your personal introspection while you ponder the arguments, and reach others outside the argument.

I think you're doing both. Keep it up.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhagePlease point out a single skeptic (on ATS) who has said otherwise. Please point out a single skeptic (on ATS) who has denied the possibility of extraterrestrial life.


Be more than happy to


It will take some time finding the relative posts but having heard those denials over the past three years from many skeptics it won't take me that long. YOU perhaps can say that but I will find you a few dozen



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
I'm not sure why they're bothering to report on it, since most everybody knows about it already.


"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join