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.
game over man
reply to post by ownbestenemy
And...I agree with you...not sure why you are arguing with me.
Edit to clarify; For all readers:
The star distribution is hilarious in this thread. Some serious opinions! Hmmm I wonder why....
We just started looking deep into space.
Hubble launched in 1990.
Kepler launched in 2009.
Do we need a list of our satellite launches and discoveries? A little perspective maybe? Keep things in context? Or just an absolute opinion?
This is why I ask maybe you prefer to be the only life in the Universe.
edit on 27-3-2014 by game over man because: (no reason given)
yeahright
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Not so much. The Drake "equation" isn't math as much as it is a thought experiment allowing you to plug whatever assumptive variables in it you want for funsies to see a result.
I'll see your Drake Equation with the Fermi Paradox. Bottom line, I have no idea and I have yet to believe anyone else does, either. Claims and anecdotal evidence and channelers and abductees to the contrary.
I'm a 'skeptic' which means I continue to look. Skeptics aren't sure, they're ... skeptical. If I was sure, I'd quit looking.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Star formation rates are on solid ground, and the incidence of planets has a sound theoretical and observational basis, but as we move from the left to right in the equation, estimating each succeeding factor becomes ever more speculative. The uncertainties revolve around our understanding of the evolution of life, intelligence, and civilization, not physics. No statistical estimates are possible for some of the parameters, where only one example is known. The net result is that equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful.
game over man
That is the issue about solid evidence. Some people mistake the word evidence as proof, on both sides of the debate.
Maybe a discussion of what is considered good evidence?
I'm skeptical but not dismissal to AA theory or UFO sightings. Some people are dismissal but claim skepticism.
I've come to the conclusion after years of researching ufology that it is unreliable information. I'm more interested in our space studies. I am optimistic that space science will discover proof of aliens before ufology. I'm hopeful AA theory will gain more momentum. Or unknown discoveries in our ancient history in general. I don't know what happened to ufology.
game over man
reply to post by conundrummer
Well not to go case by case account of the AA theory, but I have gone to Peru and visited many ancient sites. I flew over the Nasca lines and every local called him the astronaut man. It is also the most difficult drawing because it is the only one nor on a flat surface but on a mountain side.
Now my problem with science is someone coming up with a logical explanation, confirming that to be the truth, when the answer is truly unknown. Nasca is an example.
amazing
Well this gets to, in my opinion, the whole point of the thread. Skeptics, come up with a plausible or possible solution and then stick to that as a hard truth instead of saying they don't know. Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be skeptical of everything but skepticism takes a bad turn when it says...all abduction cases are sleep paralysis, all lights in the sky are planes and let's not forget swamp gas. That's taking the lazy way out and that is NOT denying ignorance but spreading it.
game over man
reply to post by draknoir2
Well they usually don't...They are otherwise convinced. I'm guessing usually too lazy or not interested enough to discuss aliens without evidence.
However evidence to a skeptic is proof to a believer.
We have large amounts of methane detected on Mars. This is evidence of life. But it is not proof. We look at the evidence and decide. Majority of skeptics don't look at evidence, they wait for proof. This is why skeptics always say, "there is no evidence."
draknoir2
amazing
Well this gets to, in my opinion, the whole point of the thread. Skeptics, come up with a plausible or possible solution and then stick to that as a hard truth instead of saying they don't know. Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be skeptical of everything but skepticism takes a bad turn when it says...all abduction cases are sleep paralysis, all lights in the sky are planes and let's not forget swamp gas. That's taking the lazy way out and that is NOT denying ignorance but spreading it.
Unless you are directly responding to someone actually making those statements these are nothing but straw man arguments.
And what is wrong with a skeptic saying they do not know?
amazing
draknoir2
amazing
Well this gets to, in my opinion, the whole point of the thread. Skeptics, come up with a plausible or possible solution and then stick to that as a hard truth instead of saying they don't know. Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be skeptical of everything but skepticism takes a bad turn when it says...all abduction cases are sleep paralysis, all lights in the sky are planes and let's not forget swamp gas. That's taking the lazy way out and that is NOT denying ignorance but spreading it.
Unless you are directly responding to someone actually making those statements these are nothing but straw man arguments.
And what is wrong with a skeptic saying they do not know?
There is no straw man argument here. I'm not making stuff up and you know as well as I do that skeptics stick to dogma as much as believers and that both deny the facts and don't look at the data. There is nothing wrong with a skeptic saying they don't know. The problem is when skeptics or believers say that they do know....when both should be saying they don't know. Not railing against skeptics but railing against the brand of skeptics that assume they know the truth and act as if their opinions are anything more than opinions. You see what I'm saying and I'm not making stuff up so ...then the question is why would you bring up a derogatory term like "straw man" to invalidate my points? Questions or statements?
game over man
reply to post by draknoir2
Haha! Are you joking? I never jumped to that conclusion. There are better places to hide than in methane producing locations on Mars.
jazz10
No.
J ust
E qual
S afe
U nited
S ocieties
Focusing on the good of life following the 3 P's
Preservation of all life
Promotion of recovery
Prevention of it becoming worse.
Not hard really and guess what makes it all the better?
There doesn't need to be conflicts to achieve it.
It'll take one thing which is pretty hard at the moment.
Unity.
At present unity is made almost impossible. Impossible by those of the wicked system of things that is and has played us all off against each other for way way too long.
My message is this.
He's coming.
Have faith and be good or be good trying.
The divisions created either through colour, class, location, language or sex are all tools of leverage they use to achieve it, don't believe it.
You all know the truth.
You were all born with it.