Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away

Paul stop arguing for the sake of it.

Any provision of 'Evidence' wouldn't pass through the thinness membrane of your fronatal lobe. As you have already decided none
exists.
And the existance of any evidence is never going to be a proof anyway.

For example:
I state I'm certain I will learn something new in the future.
Tomorrow I do, but then that is now and not new, so I can never have such evidence to back up that claim. (I know you going to try
getting around that one - don't)

My ET is nothing like your ET or anyones elses vision of what an other intelligent lifeform may be like. And in the famous words of
Aurthur C Clarke - "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine."

As I understand your possition, you don't doubt ET could exits somewhere, but that the vast reaches of this Universe will binds us
all to our respective solar system.
That is simply so unimaginative of you Paul.

Nothing is more certain than the fact the Human race will never be confined to any container - even one thats infinite in size.
Because we have GUTs, we think outside the square or tetrahedron or whatever...

Regards
Robert

"Paul Lawler" wrote in message 25.201...
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in

The conditional evidence implies that ET is most probably infinitely
smarter than you, and mobile. Thus, I suggest you start referring to
your best modeling of the best available evidence, instead of sticking
your head up your ass

When arguing with an idiot like you, yes.

Of course, some humans claim intelligence, but you convincingly fail
to demonstrate it.

Your meltdown into multiple ad hominem attacks only serves to underline
your failure to produce EVIDENCE instead of speculation.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 28/09/2004



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:55:41 GMT, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:

October 3, 2004

Paul Lawler wrote:

Your meltdown into multiple ad hominem attacks only serves to underline
your failure to produce EVIDENCE instead of speculation.

Your denial of the evidence only serves to demonstrate your success at
producing unfounded skepticism instead of performing critical scientific
analyses.

But you argued against real scientific methods of analysis.






--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com

"Prooves your a idiot!"
- Ferrt displays his brilliance

October 3, 2004

DrPostman wrote:

Your meltdown into multiple ad hominem attacks only serves to underline
your failure to produce EVIDENCE instead of speculation.


Your denial of the evidence only serves to demonstrate your success at
producing unfounded skepticism instead of performing critical scientific
analyses.



But you argued against real scientific methods of analysis.

No, I advocate any and all scientific methods of examining and analyzing
evidence, as opposed to say, proclaiming on the usenet, that there is
absolutely *NO* evidence, which is clearly false. That would be like
proclaiming there are no bits, particles and waves in the universe. It's
nonsense. It's worse than nonsense. It's ... unfounded skepticism.
Nonsense is easily refuted. Skepticism is very difficult to quantify in
units of 'spin', without any evidence as you claim, how could you
possibly even form a skeptical hypothesis? It's a complete
contradiction. The only reasonable scientific conclusion I can come to
from the evidence of your unfounded skepticism, is that you are a
complete idiot.

Now, once you provide some evidence to support your claim that there is
*NO* evidence, perhaps I can take you seriously.

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

October 3, 2004

"George Dishman" wrote in message :

We can _predict_ how many are out there based on the
evidence of the _measured_ frequency of larger planets
in systems, the known limitations on our ability to
detect them and our ideas on planetary formation, but
the scientific method then suggest that we confirm
those ideas by actual measurement.

That is your absolute scientific method.

Not mine, it was around long before I was born. However,
I'm glad to see you understand it.

Other scientific methods suggest we look
at all the evidence, and that there is no single scientific method, and those
methods are allowed to evolve over time. I suppose that concept isn't
mentioned in
your federal rulebook of the scientific method.

We can of course look at all the evidence, and conclusions
are often reached by combining disparate pieces of evidence,
but that doesn't change the scientific method which is to
accept conclusions only where they are traceable to specific
measurements. While you may wish to relax that rule, you
have yet to convince anyone else that I have seen.

You will go far, by not making any predictions based on evidence which
itself is confirmed by empirical observation. Prepare for greatness,
George.

The _evidence_ I am aware of which is supportive of the
hypothesis of extra-terrestrial life consists of the Viking
soil experiments (which were more likely to be the result of
inorganic chemistry), ALH84001 which is still controversial
and really tenuous and, IMHO the best so far, the recent
detection of methane in the Martian atmosphere. Now if
you want to put those together in some way that's fine, but
what people have been pointing out is that there is very
limited _evidence_ to consider, regardless of your method.

No, they have been claiming that there is *NO* evidence, which I
simply point out to be nonsense.

There may well be more that I don't know about, but can
you can add any _specific_ pieces of _evidence_ to that
list for me to consider?

They are too numerous to mention, I suggest you do a little basic
research.

May I suggest : http://xxx.lanl.gov/ for starters.

If you don't follow that, show the calculation by which
you obtained the value of "by the billions" and cite the
specific observational data on which it is based.


Hubble HDF and UDF - simple calculations indicate the number of large galaxies
in a
WMAP estimated universe of 13.7 billion years old is 1 billion, and I
observe
one Earthlike planet in one average galaxy. The result follows.

Good attempt. Now, where is your evidence for the figure of
"one Earthlike planet in one average galaxy".

Earth to George, do you copy, over.

To clarify,
how do you know Earth isn't the only one that meets the
criteria for "Earthlike" in the whole of the Virgo cluster?
PLease state first your criteria for a planet to be
considered "Earthlike" and then cite the measurements from
which you obtained your figure of a mean of 1.0.

The point is, if you want to do science, which you clearly don't, then
you have to make the leap to prediction, and you have to have some
basis of 'faith' in the basic framework of 'scientific methods and
results'.

Oh, and don't just say "If you take a big enough volume,
there must be a billion in it.", let's see a result in
the form of Earthlike planets per system or per galaxy
or per cubic mega-parsec, whatever you like.

Whatever ...

You do believe there is evidence of universality of physical laws via
spectroscopy,
at least back a finite period of time, don't you?

I believe that certain specific measurements have placed
tight constraints on the possible variation of the laws
(for example the variation of the fine structure constant).
I couldn't cite that evidence but I am sure there are
people in this group who could. The key here is that I only
believe it because there are specific measurements that
support that hypothesis. You are reaching a conclusion
without even being able to state on which particular
observations you are basing your claim. That is
unscientific.

Only to your absolutist and obsolete perspective of science. I base my
predictions on the totality of evidence available, otherwise, when
something breaks in the scientific basis, I wouldn't be able to
distinguish it from the parts that still work. You demand that we
operate the machine completely disassembled. It won't work, nothing
gets done, but you seem comfortable with that. I prefer to repair it
piece by piece as it fails, but use it when it functions properly, to
get where I want to go, even though I don't exactly know where I am
going. You aren't going anywhere, George.

Hint : it's called prediction. The cosmos is a lot bigger than current
observations, and always will be, that is how science progresses.

But then again, you are all so comfortable in your ignorance.

Have fun looking at all the pretty little lights, George.

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

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

No, I advocate any and all scientific methods of examining and analyzing
evidence, as opposed to say, proclaiming on the usenet, that there is
absolutely *NO* evidence, which is clearly false.

Golly Thomas,
What evidence did you have in mind? And don't drag those Martian rocks
in as they are not conclusive.

Thomas Lee Elifritz

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:48:14 GMT, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:

October 3, 2004

DrPostman wrote:

Your meltdown into multiple ad hominem attacks only serves to underline
your failure to produce EVIDENCE instead of speculation.


Your denial of the evidence only serves to demonstrate your success at
producing unfounded skepticism instead of performing critical scientific
analyses.



But you argued against real scientific methods of analysis.

No, I advocate any and all scientific methods of examining and analyzing
evidence, as opposed to say, proclaiming on the usenet, that there is
absolutely *NO* evidence, which is clearly false. That would be like
proclaiming there are no bits, particles and waves in the universe. It's
nonsense. It's worse than nonsense. It's ... unfounded skepticism.
Nonsense is easily refuted. Skepticism is very difficult to quantify in
units of 'spin', without any evidence as you claim, how could you
possibly even form a skeptical hypothesis? It's a complete
contradiction. The only reasonable scientific conclusion I can come to
from the evidence of your unfounded skepticism, is that you are a
complete idiot.

Now, once you provide some evidence to support your claim that there is
*NO* evidence, perhaps I can take you seriously.



Take me seriously about what?







--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com

"Prooves your a idiot!"
- Ferrt displays his brilliance

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:48:14 GMT, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
:

October 3, 2004

DrPostman wrote:

Your meltdown into multiple ad hominem attacks only serves to underline
your failure to produce EVIDENCE instead of speculation.


Your denial of the evidence only serves to demonstrate your success at
producing unfounded skepticism instead of performing critical scientific
analyses.



But you argued against real scientific methods of analysis.

No, I advocate any and all scientific methods of examining and analyzing
evidence,

As long as they support your predetermined conclusion.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I wanted a car I could run down pedestrians with. But one with a comfy ride, like a sofa on wheels." - Father Haskell

"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' 4/27/04 )

"Nope, Lockheed provided the cover for 9-11 due to abuses of it's system. They're guilty as charged. But ultimately it was Bechtel who concocted the
9-11 events." Alexa connects some totally different dots. 8/6/04 )

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

(Thomas Lee Elifritz) wrote in

"George Dishman" wrote in message :

The _evidence_ I am aware of which is supportive of the
hypothesis of extra-terrestrial life consists of the Viking
soil experiments (which were more likely to be the result of
inorganic chemistry), ALH84001 which is still controversial
and really tenuous and, IMHO the best so far, the recent
detection of methane in the Martian atmosphere. Now if
you want to put those together in some way that's fine, but
what people have been pointing out is that there is very
limited _evidence_ to consider, regardless of your method.

No, they have been claiming that there is *NO* evidence, which I
simply point out to be nonsense.

Methane in the Martian atmosphere proof of intelligent ET life? You may
say nonsense, but so far factual nonsense all the same. You are free to
provide any observable empirical evidence to the contrary... oh, wait.
All you have it speculation and prediction. Sorry, I forgot.

There may well be more that I don't know about, but can
you can add any _specific_ pieces of _evidence_ to that
list for me to consider?

They are too numerous to mention, I suggest you do a little basic
research.

Bzzzt... "He who asserts must prove." You don't get to shove the burden
of proof off on anyone else when they ask you for specific evidence by
pointing them to general sources.

Only to your absolutist and obsolete perspective of science. I base my
predictions on the totality of evidence available, otherwise, when
something breaks in the scientific basis, I wouldn't be able to
distinguish it from the parts that still work.

Hint : it's called prediction. The cosmos is a lot bigger than current
observations, and always will be, that is how science progresses.

We all know that it's prediction... since you have provided no observable
evidence. And just to make it clear (again), I agree with your
prediction. But that still doesn't make it evidence. Despite your
previous claim to the contrary, there is a very big difference between
evidence "FOR" intelligent ET life and evidence "OF" intelligent ET life.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in
:

Paul Lawler wrote:

Your meltdown into multiple ad hominem attacks only serves to underline
your failure to produce EVIDENCE instead of speculation.

Your denial of the evidence only serves to demonstrate your success at
producing unfounded skepticism instead of performing critical scientific
analyses.

Whatever did I expect, your a rank amateur astronomer.

If that's intended to be another insult, I'm not offended. I think that's
a fairly accurate statement of fact. Except--for the sake of being as
accurate as possible--I would change it to rank amateur "observer" rather
than astronomer.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in news:i518d.2631
:

The only reasonable scientific conclusion I can come to
from the evidence of your unfounded skepticism, is that you are a
complete idiot.

Again with the ad hominem attacks? Since we are having a conversation in
English words of more than one syllable, you are obviously quite erroneous
in your "scientific" conclusion. It appears that you must be using one of
your "conditional" scientific methods.

Now, once you provide some evidence to support your claim that there is
*NO* evidence, perhaps I can take you seriously.

Bzzzt. We all know it is impossible to prove non-existence, and besides I
am not claiming NON existence. I am not even disputing it is likely. But
that doesn't change what we can observe. Why don't you stick with your
burden of proof. We're still waiting for the evidence for the existence of
(not evidence in support of the possibility of) intelligent
extraterrestrial life.