UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2015, 11:33 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 06:18 PM)Free Wrote:  Yes, I do.
No you don't actually which is why you have done pretty much everything EXCEPT what I asked you to. It's also why you instantly follow up with your insistence that you know what I want by asking me to answer my own fucking question for you. Jesus Cocksucking Christ boy.

Quote:But, I will give you one chance to tell me exactly what would qualify as evidence of alien visitation on earth.
First off my little Dunning-Kruger child, you don't give me or anyone else "chances" any more then we give you. Your ignorance is the only thing that outstrips your arrogance.
However to answer my own fucking question for you... What would count as evidence would be....

Anything that can be independently verified, can be subjected to a battery of empirical tests and experimentation, which is evidently demonstrable. Like I have been saying. For goddamn 3 threads now. If you would like some examples off the top of my head of evidences that could be used to support the alien visitation hypothesis here are a few:

A piece of recovered technology well past our ability to produce or replicate.
Wreckage/debris that can be confirmed through testing as having spent long periods of time in space which is not of human construction which can also be ascertained via empirical evaluation and is not naturally forming.
Biomass which is not native to Earth which is super SUPER easy to test and establish.
Much more obviously. The theme, which should be obvious to you, is that these things can be independently established, tested, and demonstrated. Basically anything that could be submitted to peer review with the honest expectation of passing the process.

All things which you do not have in support of your presupposition.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
26-09-2015, 11:56 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 09:07 PM)Free Wrote:  Don't you mean that the evidence is interpreted to support the Big Bang?
Nope, rational people (read: not you) do not assume a conclusion and then try and interpret the evidence to fit the conclusion. The verified evidence came first and then the Big Bang Theory was the name given to the explanation that did the best job of fitting the totality of the evidence we had in one cohesive and coherent explanation.

It's the best explanation for the substantiated evidence in our possession, it's not a conclusion we try to make the evidence fit as if BBT is The Truth or some kind of endgame/conclusion.

Quote:How can that question be a strawman when he said the following
Because those are not the same thing? The BBT is the prevailing theory BECAUSE it best explains the overlapping, demonstrable, verified, and substantiated evidence. That does not mean the explanation is a "conclusively proven fact" because new evidence could be discovered that is not as well explained in the BBT as in some potential new theory. We could find evidence tomorrow that leads us to a better explanation than the BBT but that does NOT mean there is not actual evidence to support the current theory. The current theory only exists BECASUE of the evidence.

So yes it was a strawman, but I'm sure you will plug your ears to it.

Quote:The only actual evidence of the Big Bang would in fact be the physical evidence of the Big Bang ie; the singularity.
So cause and effect is another area of logic you can't seem to grasp. There are literally hundreds of scientific discoveries and evidences that support the current model of the BBT as being the best explanation. How the hell did you graduate in High school in Canada without learning this?


Quote:And yours just got handed to you because you didn't follow the conversation.
Every time you do this you do nothing but reaffirm to everyone present your complete and abject ignorance of how science is done, what constitutes evidence, and how to spot a fallacy.
Is it really necessary for you to pretend to win every exchange at the beginning, end, and middle of every other fucking post your write? Especially when you are so consistently wrong. How fragile is your ego, fuckin' 'ell.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 12:18 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Think about dinosaurs, Free. We have a shit-ton of fossils. Actual physical evidence that anyone can look at. Anyone is free to apply their own interpretation to them as well, so for example creationists allege that they are only a few thousand years old. UFOologists might for example allege that they are in fact alien remains.

But then we apply scientific method to choose between the competing explanations. We theorise how they got there and see if the theory makes sense. We check fossils against the strata they are in, we use physical dating methods. We arrange them in order of date and see that they get more complex as time goes on.

We become very much more confident that we have a correct explanation when the theory matches the data, even more so when new data fits with what we already know. If something *doesn't* fit, say a fossil dog is discovered in strata before dogs evolved (in light of the current theory). Then somehow this has to be explained or the theory must be modified.

Now for evidence of aliens, let's say you *do* find... bits of a UFO made from an unknown alloy, covered with strange symbols and with properties unknown to us before. Can we yet say that it was aliens? No. We still haven't eliminated humans as a source for it. Maybe alloy experts take a look at it and say things like "it's beyond what we could achieve even in 500 years". It's still only *one* piece of data, and there's no guarantee that the extra-terrestrial hypothesis holds up.

Evidence has to be pretty goddamn strong before it can be accepted as fact. You haven't even got a single physical sample that you can point to. *All* you've got is eyewitness testimony, which is all that there is for Bigfoot, ghosts and any other of a number of urban legends. Somehow you are able to discount ghosts and bigfoot, but you love the idea of aliens so much that you can't discount that hypothesis.

I get that you had this amazing experience with a UFO but... there's way too much leeway for it to have been something that you and your other witnesses saw and misinterpreted, that one cannot take *even your direct experience* as evidence. *You* should be self-aware enough to realise that your experience doesn't pass muster. I think you are, on some level, since it took you a very long time to present it in the thread - instead you went on a long chase after the O'Hare incident.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
27-09-2015, 01:36 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Another example. Let's say that someone *does* find a rotting, huge, hairy foot in the forest somewhere in the US. It's clearly not a human foot. Experts agree that it is a foot of a human-like creature. The foot is preserved and long scientific articles are written about everything from the bone-structure to the DNA, as well as lots of articles speculating how the damn thing got there. Bigfoot is seriously discussed for the first time in academic circles.

Now, that's a lot stronger evidence for something which might be Bigfoot, but it still doesn't prove that bigfoot exists. It's still only one data point, and there's no link yet between the foot and the tales of bigfoot sightings. People might be more interested in following up on such tales in light of the foot, but that's about it.

Similarly, even if you *had* physical evidence, let's be generous and make it a full-on *actual* flying saucer... you still haven't got a link between *it* and the tales of UFO sightings from before.

There will always be doubt even if aliens were to walk right up and introduce themselves. What's the guarantee that it's not some elaborate government hoax? Since you guys are comfortable hypothesizing elaborate government cover-ups then it should be just as believable that they are capable of hoaxing you too.

But *right at the moment*, you haven't got *anything*, other than these anecdotes, which... don't mean anything, given the known human propensity for exagerration, false positives, misinterpretation and the gamut of ways in which an eyewitness can be mistaken.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
27-09-2015, 02:18 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Listen guys, you wont believe this but I will tell you anyway. I went out see. To play with this band. And on the way there was this thing in the sky!!!

Now check this out. I did not know what it was??? So it was unidentified!!! And it was up in the sky!!!

UFO, right?

I saw it and am a witness. Sadly I forgot I had my android with the really cool camera. But I am an eye witness.

You must believe me! Right, Free???

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
27-09-2015, 02:32 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 02:18 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Listen guys, you wont believe this but I will tell you anyway. I went out see. To play with this band. And on the way there was this thing in the sky!!!

Now check this out. I did not know what it was??? So it was unidentified!!! And it was up in the sky!!!

UFO, right?

I saw it and am a witness. Sadly I forgot I had my android with the really cool camera. But I am an eye witness.

You must believe me! Right, Free???

No, there weren't 12 of you, and you haven't said anything about the UFO going orbital. So this is not evidence for aliens.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 02:51 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 02:32 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 02:18 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Listen guys, you wont believe this but I will tell you anyway. I went out see. To play with this band. And on the way there was this thing in the sky!!!

Now check this out. I did not know what it was??? So it was unidentified!!! And it was up in the sky!!!

UFO, right?

I saw it and am a witness. Sadly I forgot I had my android with the really cool camera. But I am an eye witness.

You must believe me! Right, Free???

No, there weren't 12 of you, and you haven't said anything about the UFO going orbital. So this is not evidence for aliens.


But I saw it and said like

[Image: Omg-did-you-see.png]

And I think Hitler was driving!!!

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
27-09-2015, 06:14 AM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2015 06:35 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 10:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 09:07 PM)Free Wrote:  Don't you mean that the evidence is interpreted to support the Big Bang?

No, I don't. The evidence came first leading to the hypothesis which was tested by further evidence.

No, the evidence was observed and interpreted. Objects appeared to be moving away from a central point, therefore Big Bang. The following is the history of the Big Bang. You will note the many uses of the words "observe" and "interpret."

"In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe. Also, the red shifts themselves were not constant, but varied in such manner as to lead to the conclusion that there was a definite relationship between amount of red-shift of nebulae, and their distance from observers.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided a comprehensive observational foundation for Lemaître's theory. Hubble's experimental observations discovered that, relative to the Earth and all other observed bodies, galaxies are receding in every direction at velocities (calculated from their observed red-shifts) directly proportional to their distance from the Earth and each other.

In 1929, Hubble and Milton Humason formulated the empirical Redshift Distance Law of galaxies, nowadays known as Hubble's law, which, once the redshift is interpreted as a measure of recession speed, is consistent with the solutions of Einstein's General Relativity Equations for a homogeneous, isotropic expanding space. The isotropic nature of the expansion was direct proof that it was the space (the fabric of existence) itself that was expanding, not the bodies in space that were simply moving further outward and apart into an infinitely larger preexisting empty void. It was this interpretation that led to the concept of the expanding universe. The law states that the greater the distance between any two galaxies, the greater their relative speed of separation. This discovery later resulted in the formulation of the Big Bang model.

In 1931, Lemaître proposed in his "hypothèse de l'atome primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began with the "explosion" of the "primeval atom" — what was later called the Big Bang. Lemaître first took cosmic rays to be the remnants of the event, although it is now known that they originate within the local galaxy. Lemaître had to wait until shortly before his death to learn of the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, the remnant radiation of a dense and hot phase in the early universe."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...ang_theory

"the redshift is interpreted as a measure of recession speed ...It was this interpretation that led to the concept of the expanding universe ... This discovery later resulted in the formulation of the Big Bang model."

It is clear that firstly objects in the universe were observed, and upon these observations redshifts were interpreted, then from that interpretation a concept was created, and from that concept we formulated the model known as the Big Bang.

In short, anecdotal evidence was interpreted, and that interpretation lead to a concept, and the concept of the Big Bang came from interpretations of the aforementioned evidence.

And dat's da fact, Jack.

Quote:
Quote:How can that question be a strawman when he said the following:


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid864735

The only actual evidence of the Big Bang would in fact be the physical evidence of the Big Bang ie; the singularity.

Nope. A singularity is only one hypothesized source. Hawking has stated he doesn't think there was a singularity, but he doesn't doubt that there was a Big Bang.

Ummm ... didn't my statement explicitly state a Big Bang, with an example being the singularity? How can you sweepingly say "nope" to my position of there being a Big Bang and then imply there was one by using Hawking as confirmation?

Quote:
Quote:There's no fucking strawman here dude, except your stupid accusation of one.

And yours just got handed to you because you didn't follow the conversation.

Have a good day, Chas,

Big Grin

You're a fool. You keep claiming victory when you haven't even scored a point.

It isn't a matter of victory, but an obvious fact that you didn't even bother to study the history of the Big Bang before responding to me, and your responses to my other replies indicate a reply that appears to not understand what my position actually said.

Seems to me you are the only fucking fool here.

In conclusion to this issue, the history of the Big Bang confirms that the evidence was observed and then interpreted to be evidence to support the Big Bang theory. Those observations and interpretations are still in use today.

Therefore, my whole point here is that you all "believe" in the Big Bang theory based upon anecdotal evidence and the interpretation of that evidence.

And those are the facts in this matter, no matter how you try to spin it.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 06:44 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Wow.

Sad that this thread turned into a bitchfest. Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hobbitgirl's post
27-09-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 06:14 AM)Free Wrote:  In conclusion to this issue, the history of the Big Bang confirms that the evidence was observed and then interpreted to be evidence to support the Big Bang theory. Those observations and interpretations are still in use today.

Therefore, my whole point here is that you all "believe" in the Big Bang theory based upon anecdotal evidence and the interpretation of that evidence.

And those are the facts in this matter, no matter how you try to spin it.

Rolleyes Sure, whatever kid. You're the "expert" after all.

"Winning"

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: