Spearthrower wrote:Is there actually a dragon in your garage, Landrew? You talk an awful lot about it, but you seem suspiciously unwilling to open the door and let us look.

Seems like he's supposedly claiming not to be making any kind of claim that there is a dragon there, while simultaneously berating everyone for being too closed-minded to look to be sure there isn't, even if he hasn't told anyone where he lives, and/or for being so closed-minded that they dare to make their own decision about whether it might be worth spending their own time and money on such a task in the absence of any dragon-believers with enough confidence to offer to pay expenses.

I noticed this show was on TV so I flicked over... It is almost the stupidest thing I have ever watched, you could have sworn it is a parody made by 'The Onion' or something.

They reckon the reason human ancestors lived on and neanderthals didn't is because aliens modified our DNA. Then they start taking ancient myths literally and explaining them with aliens instead of Gods. I lost patience when they started trying to explain the global flood...

The shitty documentary was clearly just randomly thrown together with the intention of scamming money out of gullible people. There is 0 research behind any of it. It is a get-rich-quick scam. A very profitable one at that, I bet it took them a few weeks to make this and it is still regularly shown 2 years later.

So, has Lndrew pointed us to the evidence he claims exists yet?

patient zero wrote:So, has Lndrew pointed us to the evidence he claims exists yet?

Not yet. He probably knows that it's all bogus and doesn't want his evidence to be ridiculed.

Spearthrower wrote:Why is it that every time you are asked for evidence to substantiate a position, you suddenly cease and desist?

Not all evidence can fit in your pocket. It's simply reasonable to assume that intelligent life must exist elsewhere. Few scientists would disagree. But to assert that intelligent ET life has never visited this planet is almost as absurd as the notion that no ET life exists anywhere. We have seen for ourselves how rapidly technology can advance once it gets traction; we went from horses to the space travel in less than a century. We can't possibly imagine the extent of technology over billions of years.

If ancient aliens had left evidence, it's not likely to have survived intact for more than a few thousand years. There's no reason to assume that they would leave solid evidence behind anyway; that's something our own egos make us do, and besides, if they are truly intelligent, they probably realize how such evidence might disrupt our development.

If they were hostile, it's unlikely we would be here today, therefore we have to assume that if they are aware of our existence, they are obviously leaving us alone to develop on our own. If we had occasionally received instruction from them in the past, that's a matter of debate, not ridicule. Not all the evidence presented to support that argument is easily falsified.

I am not a believer in the ancient astronaut theory; that would require more evidence, which I do not posses. I am also not a disbeliever, nor a ridiculing, dismissive skeptic who makes negative assertions to seem to appear to win some sort of battle over the imagined "believers."

It's astonishing how unscientific some self-professed skeptics appear to be.

I'm sorry but that is silly, it sounds reasonable but pretty much all your premises are wrong or extremely questionable.

This in-particular:

But to assert that intelligent ET life has never visited this planet is almost as absurd as the notion that no ET life exists anywhere.

Is an utterly baseless assertion that no "skeptical" person would accept. IF you had evidence to support this instead of just some gut feeling, maybe it could be taken remotely seriously, but until then it is impossible to accept.

And everything from there on assumes this statement is true. So we can pretty much ignore it.

Not to mention you are working backwards. The reason there is no evidence left behind of aliens visiting earth isn't because they probably covered their tracks, it's more likely because they've never been here. You may as well argue that the lack of evidence for Santa Claus can be explained by him knowing better than to 'leave behind evidence' of his visit.

What you are claiming is almost reasonable, but the conclusion is just so extreme it can't be taken on such little evidence and with such bad explanations for the lack of evidence.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I'm sorry but that is silly, it sounds reasonable but pretty much all your premises are wrong or extremely questionable.

This in-particular:

But to assert that intelligent ET life has never visited this planet is almost as absurd as the notion that no ET life exists anywhere.

Is an utterly baseless assertion that no "skeptical" person would accept. IF you had evidence to support this instead of just some gut feeling, maybe it could be taken remotely seriously, but until then it is impossible to accept.

And everything from there on assumes this statement is true. So we can pretty much ignore it.

Not to mention you are working backwards. The reason there is no evidence left behind of aliens visiting earth isn't because they probably covered their tracks, it's more likely because they've never been here. You may as well argue that the lack of evidence for Santa Claus can be explained by him knowing better than to 'leave behind evidence' of his visit.

What you are claiming is almost reasonable, but the conclusion is just so extreme it can't be taken on such little evidence and with such bad explanations for the lack of evidence.

I'm sorry, but it sounds silly to make unfounded declarations, such as: "aliens have never visited earth, because they didn't leave a plaque." My rationale is up for debate, but you are simply disqualifying it out-of-hand.

Why?

No reason to believe something is one reason not to believe it.

From what I gather you are simply trying to take the burden of proof away from people claiming aliens have visited earth.

Once you accept they have visited earth (on virtually nothing), it leaves so many questions unanswered. The only rational conclusion is that they probably haven't been visiting us.

Basically the situation set up here makes a planet visited by aliens indistinguishable from a planet that hasn't been visited by aliens. The same logic could be used to imply santa is also watching us from above.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:From what I gather you are simply trying to take the burden of proof away from people claiming aliens have visited earth.

Once you accept they have visited earth (on virtually nothing), it leaves so many questions unanswered. The only rational conclusion is that they probably haven't been visiting us.

Basically the situation set up here makes a planet visited by aliens indistinguishable from a planet that hasn't been visited by aliens. The same logic could be used to imply santa is also watching us from above.

You obviously missed where I said "I am not a believer."

A scientific attitude is free of belief or disbelief. Skeptical forums however, are contaminated with disbelief beyond reckoning.

Disbelief as in denial, you mean?

What is your point then? The only rational conclusion we can come to is that aliens don't appear to be visiting earth. If they have been visiting earth undetected for the last few thousand years, it would still be indistinguishable from a planet without aliens visiting it.

That is the limit of our knowledge, to give the idea anymore credit would be to throw your intellectual standards out the window. That's what I thought the purpose of skepticism is for? Keeping the BS out so we can hold a consistent view of the world.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:What is your point then? The only rational conclusion we can come to is that aliens don't appear to be visiting earth. If they have been visiting earth undetected for the last few thousand years, it would still be indistinguishable from a planet without aliens visiting it.

That is the limit of our knowledge, to give the idea anymore credit would be to throw your intellectual standards out the window. That's what I thought the purpose of skepticism is for? Keeping the BS out so we can hold a consistent view of the world.

Even a junior scientist knows that unfounded assertions constitute a bias, therefore why must we assert whether ET visitors did not visit earth? We've already established that ET must exist, but why must we shackle them with the limitations of chemical rockets, incapable of interstellar space travel?

Science can't accomplish anything if everyone thinks they already have all the answers. Surely the science can only best function unimpaired by both positive and negative bias, so why are some skeptics so eager to render a strong bias when it's not needed? Surely that's not helpful to the scientific process at all.

No one is claiming absolutely certainty of anything.

We can't be 100% sure that aliens haven't come here in the past, or that they are watching you right now. But all we can conclude from the evidence available is that aliens don't appear to be here, and given the small chance they are here (and avoiding detection) it would require an extremely good explanation as to why they just float around the place before deciding to fuck off without saying hello. This situation would still be indistinguishable from a planet without aliens.

The rational conclusion clearly isn't "aliens are here and are avoiding detection". It is to assume, just like every other planet we have observed, that aliens don't appear to be flying around the area.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:No one is claiming absolutely certainty of anything.

We can't be 100% sure that aliens haven't come here in the past, or that they are watching you right now. But all we can conclude from the evidence available is that aliens don't appear to be here, and given the small chance they are here (and avoiding detection) it would require an extremely good explanation as to why they just float around the place before deciding to fuck off without saying hello. This situation would still be indistinguishable from a planet without aliens.

The rational conclusion clearly isn't "aliens are here and are avoiding detection". It is to assume, just like every other planet we have observed, that aliens don't appear to be flying around the area.

Imagine you are a scientist, given the task to render an opinion about alien visitation. Imagine that all the hostile skeptics won't burn you to a crisp in the media, and your department head won't try to find cause to fire you for exploring such subjects...

Based on what we know, can we really render any sort of verdict at all? Can we really dismiss all the evidence that has been presented as nonexistent? Unfortunately our civilization is not at a state of development where a truly unbiased study of this question is likely to be taken seriously, even if it were to be conducted correctly.

mindhack wrote:Disbelief as in denial, you mean?

Denial implies a willful refusal of facts. Disbelief can apply to anything.

What are you trying to say? Who is stopping scientists from trying to detect UFO's? Me? Someone on this forum? Who?

Based on what we know, can we really render any sort of verdict at all?

Yes, that aliens most probably aren't roaming around in our atmosphere. And there is no indication that they have ever visited earth.

Can we really dismiss all the evidence that has been presented as nonexistent?

What evidence?

Unfortunately our civilization is not at a state of development where a truly unbiased study of this question is likely to be taken seriously, if it were to be conducted correctly.

Nonsense, get the study done first and we'll see - Instead of claiming it "will never be done" because society wont accept it's conclusions.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:What are you trying to say? Who is stopping scientists from trying to detect UFO's? Me? Someone on this forum? Who?

Based on what we know, can we really render any sort of verdict at all?

Yes, that aliens most probably aren't roaming around in our atmosphere. And there is no indication that they have ever visited earth.

Can we really dismiss all the evidence that has been presented as nonexistent?

What evidence?

Unfortunately our civilization is not at a state of development where a truly unbiased study of this question is likely to be taken seriously, if it were to be conducted correctly.

Nonsense, get the study done first instead of claiming it "will never be done" because society wont accept it's conclusions.

What evidence? Said the mafia don to the jury...

But the point is that evidence deserves due process for science to do it's work. Unfortunately, some skeptics live to deny such evidence any sort of fair hearing. They dismiss anything purported to be evidence, simply because of what it might suggest; better to kill it in the womb than for it to see the light of day. I'd provide you with a list of authors who have documented this sort of behavior, but I'm sure they are already on the skeptics' "quacklist."

What are they afraid of? Is a neutral, scientific opinion really something scary?