UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-09-2015, 03:42 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 03:31 PM)morondog Wrote:  Cute. If you were gonna retreat to a position this vapidly unfalsifiable, why'd you even mention the word evidence?

Because the evidence can be interpreted to support the argument, especially when said evidence directly relates to the argument.

Some of you here keep insisting that there is no supporting evidence. The reality is, there is plenty, but you refuse to acknowledge it as supporting evidence. You make assertions against the supporting evidence, but do not substantiate those assertions with any counter-evidence or reasonable rationale.

Anybody can say "No, that is not evidence," but those types of claims are pointless, and assertive with no grounds to qualify them with any truth.

Now, you can look at this argument one way or the other, or ... you can look at it from both sides.

You people are only seeing it from one side, because you are so focused on me personally that you cannot see what is really there.

I see both sides, and can anticipate any counter-arguments you make because I can see it from both sides.

This is not my first trip to the rodeo with this topic, and it won't be my last. But the arguments I have seen against mine here ... are horrible. The reason they are horrible is that you won't stay focused on the subject.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 03:56 PM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2015 04:12 PM by Chas.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 06:14 AM)Free Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 10:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  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."

Nope. The hypothesis is the attempt to explain the observations. That is the way science works.

Quote:"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.

I know the history. You do not understand the difference between objective evidence and anecdotes. Facepalm

Quote:
Quote: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?

No, you implied that a singularity is the explanation; it is not the only hypothesized explanation.

Quote:
Quote: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.

The observations are objective, testable, and repeatable.

The Big Bang is a hypothesis that came about due to observations that were objective, testable, and repeatable. That is not 'anecdotal' - you do not appear to understand that word.
Hubble observed the red shift before there was a Big Bang theory. The prevailing model was a steady-state universe.

Further data were gathered in the light of that theory and none of it refutes it.
There were and are competing theories that are not as well supported or are contradicted by the observations.

That is the way science works.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
27-09-2015, 04:15 PM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2015 04:25 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 03:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 06:14 AM)Free Wrote:  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.


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?


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.

The observations are objective, testable, and repeatable.

The Big Bang is a hypothesis that came about due to observations that were objective, testable, and repeatable. That is not 'anecdotal' - you do not appear to understand that word.
Hubble observed the red shift before there was a Big Bang theory. The prevailing model was a steady-state universe.

Further data were gathered in the light of that theory and none of it refutes it.
There were and are competing theories that are not as well supported or are contradicted by the observations.

That is the way science works.

Without the anecdotal evidence to begin with, there would be no Big Bang theory at all, or any theory, or any discovery.

It all begins with what we observe, which then generates enough belief to investigate it further.

Has anyone actually observed metric space expansion? No, but we all agree it exists without ever being capable of observing it. It just makes sense despite it not being known as an axiomatic truth.

But we cannot prove it, therefore we are in a state of belief about it because we believe in the equations.

Can we actually prove that galaxies are moving away from each other? We see how they appear that way from earth, but we have no idea how they would appear if we were able to escape the gravitational time dilation or gravitational compression that may be compressing space in our vicinity due to the effects of our planets and the sun. If we could escape gravitational influences, would the galaxies still seem like they are drifting apart? And would the currently agreed upon distances to other stars actually be far far less than what we observe from earth?

We do not know. All we can do is believe via the best information available.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 03:04 PM)Free Wrote:  Derp derp derp Ala Derpity herpaderp.
Are you saying it's impossible that he could be lying?

So in your mentally deranged state you think it's fine to assert space wizards have traveled here from another starsystem to hang out above an airport for a couple of minutes for...some reason I'm sure... before leaving the planet, a trip that was observed by exactly zero amateur astronomers, NASA, or any photographer and left behind exactly zero testable evidence and didn't show up on any equipment specifically designed to track aircraft (of which you have provided zero demonstrable evidence for aliens and no good reason other then that it's your presupposition).... but the possibility that 1 guy COULD be lying, a possibility which is very real BECAUSE he has not met his burden of proof is too much for you?

So aliens are a possibility because they MIGHT exist but a guy lying is just crossing the fucking line with you eh?

Your a bad punchline to a worse joke.

Quote:No actually dipshit I did not. Learn to fucking read. Also fuck you, I'm still waiting for you to prove their credibility.

[quote]Let's make a scene here
Oh go swallow your own microdick sally, I said that WITHOUT the burden of proof being met it's not possible to know with any kind of accuracy if their claims are true or not. They could absolutely be true, they could have misremembered, they could have been coerced (intentionally or unintentionally), lead by the jurno, out right lying, or fucking werewolves for all we know. I never said they ARE mistaken I said it's possible they are and the justification for that is that they have not met their burden of proof. I'M not responsible for YOUR inability to understand how the burden of proof works.
I don't have to provide any evidence whatsoever to doubt the accuracy of their claims while their claims are UNPROVEN which hey they fucking are.

I think it's hilarious that the guy "just trying to prove a possibility" is getting all but hurt over someone saying it's possible they were mistaken. Is it impossible they were not mistaken?

Your hypocrisy is growing tedious and I'm losing the will to deal with it over and over and over and over and over.


Quote:Off-topic; red herring.

Oh fuck off you little weasel lol

Accusing me of making up unsubstantiated bullshit and then me pointing out your own unsubstantiated bullshit is ENTIRELY on point you slimy little peasant.

So much hypocrisy.Laugh out load

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
27-09-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 03:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Who am I to refute your skepticism?

Yes yes, we all know you reject skepticism of any kind, even publicly mocking those who apply it consistently, and that's the goddamn problem.

Occam's Razor
Hitchens' Razor
The Burden of Proof
The Null Hypothesis

All things you violently and continually reject as things that exist in reality.

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, 04:48 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 04:15 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 03:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  The observations are objective, testable, and repeatable.

The Big Bang is a hypothesis that came about due to observations that were objective, testable, and repeatable. That is not 'anecdotal' - you do not appear to understand that word.
Hubble observed the red shift before there was a Big Bang theory. The prevailing model was a steady-state universe.

Further data were gathered in the light of that theory and none of it refutes it.
There were and are competing theories that are not as well supported or are contradicted by the observations.

That is the way science works.

Without the anecdotal evidence to begin with, there would be no Big Bang theory at all, or any theory, or any discovery.

It all begins with what we observe, which then generates enough belief to investigate it further.

It does not generate belief - it generates questions.

Quote:Has anyone actually observed metric space expansion? No, but we all agree it exists without ever being capable of observing it. It just makes sense despite it not being known as an axiomatic truth.

We observe the red shift, an observable effect of the expansion. One cannot observe 'metric space expansion'.

Quote:But we cannot prove it, therefore we are in a state of belief about it because we believe in the equations.

No, we believe observable evidence. The maths are a model.

Quote:Can we actually prove that galaxies are moving away from each other? We see how they appear that way from earth, but we have no idea how they would appear if we were able to escape the gravitational time dilation or gravitational compression that may be compressing space in our vicinity due to the effects of our planets and the sun.

Neither of those is strong enough, by orders of magnitude, to have the effect of changing the observed changes in wavelength, and they are not even applicable to Hubble's Law.

Quote:If we could escape gravitational influences, would the galaxies still seem like they are drifting apart? And would the currently agreed upon distances to other stars actually be far far less than what we observe from earth?

We do not know. All we can do is believe via the best information available.

Yes, we do know. Gravity is the weakest force and would have no appreciable effect on those observations.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 05:01 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 01:37 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Wow really Free.

I'm sorry I'll just take my tiny little female brain back into the kitchen and make sandwiches.

If you think that's bad I'd draw your attention to earlier in the thread, if you missed, it, where he accused you of being manipulated and more or less duped by morondog and that's why you came into the thread the first time to warn him against continuing his noose nonsense.

He's one of the best examples of Dunning-Kruger we have had in some time now.

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, 05:02 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 03:19 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 02:26 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Dude, fucking seriously? I've pointed out close to a dozen or more already and I haven't even pointed out every one I saw just enough to make my point.

Seriously?

It boggles the mind.

Facepalm

It really does, if he would just learn what words ACTUALLY mean he would get somewhere near a fact.

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
27-09-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 05:01 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 01:37 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Wow really Free.

I'm sorry I'll just take my tiny little female brain back into the kitchen and make sandwiches.

If you think that's bad I'd draw your attention to earlier in the thread, if you missed, it, where he accused you of being manipulated and more or less duped by morondog and that's why you came into the thread the first time to warn him against continuing his noose nonsense.

He's one of the best examples of Dunning-Kruger we have had in some time now.

It's funny many people make the assumption that because I don't post in a thread I haven't actually read it.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
27-09-2015, 05:37 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 11:38 AM)Free Wrote:  Like who the fuck are you to tell anybody whether or not evidence cannot be something used to increase belief in something?

That isn't what I said. You really need to learn to read.

Of course evidence can increase belief in something, but not everything that increases belief is evidence. The Bible, for example, has made quite a lot of people believe in Jesus. The Bible isn't evidence of Jesus' existence.

Evidence can increase belief, but that isn't part of the criteria for being evidence precisely because belief is not necessarily rational. Anything can increase belief in a certain thing being true.

What decides whether or not something is evidence is whether or not it logically supports the conclusion you wish to draw. It has nothing to do with belief.

This is not complicated.

(27-09-2015 11:38 AM)Free Wrote:  You seem to be hopelessly stuck on one single definition of the word "anecdotal,"

By which you mean the actual definition of "anecdotal", yes.

(27-09-2015 01:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Are you understanding this conversation properly, or are you buying into the false assumption that I am saying anything of the sort that aliens are, in fact, visiting earth?

There's a hell of a problem with people on this forum in understanding what this argument is actually all about.

We all understand this conversation perfectly, Free. Except, perhaps, for yourself.

You are arguing that you have evidence - not necessarily proof, but evidence - of alien visitation, except when someone points out that you don't, at which point you retreat to "it's only evidence of the possibility", which is, again, a meaningless nonsense phrase that doesn't actually change anything.

You don't have evidence of the "possibility" of alien visitation any more than you do of the possibility of wizards.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: