Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away

edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

Ah yes... but if you recall the original statement was EvoBob saying
that the existence of extraterrestrial life was "obvious" to anyone.
I challenged him to prove that there is extraterrestrial life, and he
responded with, "prove there is not." The burden of proof remains
with him.

confusing levels of discourse is not being logical
especially when you dont even realize the different levels

Sorry... which part didn't you understand? The claim that the existence
of extraterrestrial life is "obvious" or the response that the
observable evidence doesn't support that claim.

September 30, 2004

Paul Lawler wrote:

edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

Ah yes... but if you recall the original statement was EvoBob saying
that the existence of extraterrestrial life was "obvious" to anyone.
I challenged him to prove that there is extraterrestrial life, and he
responded with, "prove there is not." The burden of proof remains
with him.

confusing levels of discourse is not being logical
especially when you dont even realize the different levels

Sorry... which part didn't you understand? The claim that the existence
of extraterrestrial life is "obvious" or the response that the
observable evidence doesn't support that claim.

Both actually, because most of the observable evidence (the totality of what
we know and understand of mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology)
*does* support the claim, and precious little of it refutes the claim. What
is your particular problem with distinguishing 'proof' from 'evidence' and
'probability'? Is it the spelling of 'evidence', the pronunciation of
'evidence' or the meaning of 'evidence' that you do not understand?

Absolutists, you just gotta love them.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote in message ...
P.S. Asking me to give proof that something does not exist is a logical
fallacy.

another idiot attempting to be logical

i hate to break it to you
but somethings can be proven not to exist
and this can be very important

you can start with the halting machine
and go on to things like invisible variables in quantum mechanics

That proves nothing though, other than the
same thing that 1420Hz water holes prove,
that idiots and chemists exist.

The only thing that proves anything
in the whole experiment, is that
there is a detection, not a signal,
1000 light-years away, which is not a
proof of anything.

Invisible variables in QM don't prove anything
either, other than that Thermodynamics exists.

The only thing that would prove anything was
the signal came from someplace that knew
what dark matter was, and for some reason
or other was sending a sginal back in time
to humans to tell them that their
Theory Of Relativity is wrong.











arf meow arf

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in

Idjits arguing, I just love usenet science.

It has very little to do with 'proof'. Educate yourself idhts.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/

Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative.

Technically, of course, you are correct, but in a debate context the words
"proof" and "prove" do not carry the same meaning as a mathematical
context.

It has to do with 'evidence' and the totality of scientific evidence
clearly indicates that ET is far more probable, nearly infinitely more
probable, than NO ET.

It appears that it is human intelligence on the Planet Earth that
seems to be in such short supply.

It's a known fact that 50% of the population of the United States is of
below average intelligence? g

The evidential basis lies with the claim, not the claimant.

I understand what you are saying, and in fact I agree. However, I still
stand by my contention that to say it is "obvious" is inaccurate, as the
currently demonstrable evidence does not support the existence of ET (i.e.,
they are probably out there, but we haven't seen any yet).

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in
:

September 30, 2004

Paul Lawler wrote:

edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

Ah yes... but if you recall the original statement was EvoBob
saying that the existence of extraterrestrial life was "obvious"
to anyone. I challenged him to prove that there is
extraterrestrial life, and he responded with, "prove there is
not." The burden of proof remains with him.

confusing levels of discourse is not being logical
especially when you dont even realize the different levels

Sorry... which part didn't you understand? The claim that the
existence of extraterrestrial life is "obvious" or the response that
the observable evidence doesn't support that claim.

Both actually, because most of the observable evidence (the totality
of what we know and understand of mathematics, physics, chemistry and
biology) *does* support the claim, and precious little of it refutes
the claim. What is your particular problem with distinguishing 'proof'
from 'evidence' and 'probability'? Is it the spelling of 'evidence',
the pronunciation of 'evidence' or the meaning of 'evidence' that you
do not understand?

It is the equating of probability with evidence. Again, I agree that
probability is in favor of extraterrestrial life; however, concrete
observable evidence is not yet available so one cannot say that it is
"obvious" there is extraterrestrial life. Currently N=1.

Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative.

It has to do with 'evidence' and the totality of scientific evidence clearly
indicates that ET is far more probable, nearly infinitely more probable, than
NO ET.

Indeed, that's me!
Demonstrate me for me,
Please? Just let me sit on your knee,
Now, to hear your story for me.
I'm all ears: All in a day's work, yessiree.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

September 30, 2004

Paul Lawler wrote:


It is the equating of probability with evidence. Again, I agree that
probability is in favor of extraterrestrial life; however, concrete
observable evidence is not yet available so one cannot say that it is
"obvious" there is extraterrestrial life.

All evidence is observable, otherwise it wouldn't be evidence. The
probability of extraterrestrial life is so astronomically high, it may
as well be unity.

Currently N=1.

QED. Your brain must be dead.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

the signal came from someplace that knew
what dark matter was, and for some reason
or other was sending a sginal back in time
to humans to tell them that their
Theory Of Relativity is wrong.

Wrong!? Superkewl!
That's our song!
Come, mama, let's dance,
Prance around in the dark
Afterlight, or afterlife?
Hell no! It's THIS life --
You're late for our very important date;
Yes, I promised I'd not be late;
But, hey, you know me -
I got ADD. Bad math,
Great verbal.
Got any herbal tea for me?
I'm here to stay; let's hit the hay.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in news:9NZ6d.1909
:

September 30, 2004

Paul Lawler wrote:


It is the equating of probability with evidence. Again, I agree that
probability is in favor of extraterrestrial life; however, concrete
observable evidence is not yet available so one cannot say that it is
"obvious" there is extraterrestrial life.

All evidence is observable, otherwise it wouldn't be evidence. The
probability of extraterrestrial life is so astronomically high, it may
as well be unity.

Currently N=1.

QED. Your brain must be dead.

Now QED is a mathematical proof. g

Two facts still remains:

probability of intelligent ET life = astronomically high
evidence of intelligent ET life = zero

I understand what you are saying, and in fact I agree. However, I still
stand by my contention that to say it is "obvious" is inaccurate, as the
currently demonstrable evidence does not support the existence of ET (i.e.,
they are probably out there, but we haven't seen any yet).

Yo! Here!
Hear?
That's obvious to you and me.
As for the rest, who cares?
They too busy playing a game of musical chairs,
A game in which the payers circle a ring of chairs,
The oon not finding an empty seat,
Being elliminated.
By the way, who won, who lost?
What does this silly Morning Crest cost?
Seems to me, it free,
Yes? That's just my guestimate.
My I sat as an invited guest,
A special VIP?
It's me!
V.


_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A