- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Just curious as to who believes in aliens/UFOs coverup
Posted on 7/14/17 at 12:33 am to CCTider
Posted on 7/14/17 at 12:33 am to CCTider
pretty sure theres probably life out there somewhere. Doubt its advanced as us, or even advanced enough to contact us if it would even have a reason to.
If they are that significantly extra advanced, they likely would consider us pets like dogs to start lines/ races from, ants or something similar and ignore us, harness us, improve us, or destroy us, Or so advanced that we cant even perceive them if they could perceive us.
quote:
I can't speak for a cover-up. But if contact discreetly occurred, I would expect our country and many others to cover it up.
I do believe in extra terrestrial life exists. The universe is enormous. And we still know very little about our own Galaxy. As they said in the movie Contact. "it sure seems like an awful waste of space."
If they are that significantly extra advanced, they likely would consider us pets like dogs to start lines/ races from, ants or something similar and ignore us, harness us, improve us, or destroy us, Or so advanced that we cant even perceive them if they could perceive us.
0
Posted on 7/14/17 at 12:35 am to rebeloke
rebeloke welcome here at this time. making some sense.
Posted on 7/14/17 at 12:44 am to rebeloke
quote:
I think you need a lesson in rhetoric and Aristotelian logic. You have slammed a dude for not understanding what evidence is but it is you who needs a lesson in semantics. You confuse evidence with proof.
how?
I never claimed proof, all I ever claimed was evidence
I am confused why anyone would assert that I have claimed that I have shown proof of anything
quote:
Evidence is but an observation. Proof is making a case based on evidence and logic.
and I agree with this statement
all I have claimed is that there is evidence, and there absolutely is - I am frustrated that someone who I think is normally reasonable doesn't seem to grasp this difference
nowhere have I claimed that there is proof, seriously - what have I said that demonstrates that I am claiming I proved anything?
was it where I agreed it could have been an asteroid?
was it where I said I know that my theory is unconventional & viewed as crazy?
quote:
Also by making personally insulting statements it only makes you look insecure.
this is true and I was an a-hole
so - apologies to you for shitting on your thread with an unnecessary and poorly thought out insulting statements and apologies to AMS
thanks for setting me straight on that
Posted on 7/14/17 at 12:47 am to AMS
so, I apologize for being rude, I should not have allowed your childish analogy to provoke me into making a personal attack
Posted on 7/14/17 at 12:52 am to dcbl
are you so stupid that you can't answer the a one or the other question when asked by a moron
seriously go plug in ancient lizard people and nukes powered by neat rocks in your claims, they get a similar mythical flying nuke machines which they inevitably used to nuke themselves out.
Keep what you consider as evidence being greenglass or radioactivity going on somewhere
do you consider this as evidence that there were ancient lizards that got wiped out by nukes and has since been able to return to their previous unadvanced lizard people.....or would that be speculation, baw?
seriously go plug in ancient lizard people and nukes powered by neat rocks in your claims, they get a similar mythical flying nuke machines which they inevitably used to nuke themselves out.
Keep what you consider as evidence being greenglass or radioactivity going on somewhere
do you consider this as evidence that there were ancient lizards that got wiped out by nukes and has since been able to return to their previous unadvanced lizard people.....or would that be speculation, baw?
Posted on 7/14/17 at 12:58 am to AMS
I presented evidence of potential nuclear activity in antiquity, as did a few other posters
you said it was not evidence; demonstrating that you do not understand what evidence means
then you presented a ridiculous & childish question
my personal attack was a poor choice, I have apologized
you said it was not evidence; demonstrating that you do not understand what evidence means
then you presented a ridiculous & childish question
my personal attack was a poor choice, I have apologized
Posted on 7/14/17 at 1:17 am to rebeloke
Posted on 7/14/17 at 1:20 am to dcbl
quote:
I think you need a lesson in rhetoric and Aristotelian logic. You have slammed a dude for not understanding what evidence is but it is you who needs a lesson in semantics. You confuse evidence with proof. Evidence is but an observation. Proof is making a case based on evidence and logic. Also by making personally insulting statements it only makes you look insecure.
I consider observations a basis for evidence, but observance =/= evidence.
It must be strings of related observations because to be evidence it has to asses validity of your claim. you make enough observations in several lines of evidence and logically patterns form and you can prove something occurred.
You are stuck at random unrelated observations and speculations of other people.
its a simple analogy to determine if you would consider the same things evidence or speculation based on if your main character was changed to lizard people? why would changing it to ancient lizard people who destroyed themselves leaving behind the "evidence" you use to support your speculation that ancient humans did it?
Posted on 7/14/17 at 1:35 am to dcbl
quote:
I should not have allowed your childish analogy to provoke me
I love loaded apologies.Posted on 7/14/17 at 4:29 am to dcbl
quote:
dcbl
Your standards for evidence and proof seem to be much different when it comes to evolution and the big bang than when it comes to god making man and ancient nuclear explosions.
Posted on 7/14/17 at 7:55 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I can't be 100% certain I know sea serpents exists because I saw with my own eyes a sea serpent that was only 20 yards away from me?
Because those experts have tried to inform you that there are reasonable explanations for what you 'saw'. As I'm sure you've been told, what you 'saw' was an oarfish.
You're not special. You didn't discover something that nobody else knows exist. You are not fighting a crusade for truth. You just misinterpreted something you barely saw. Get over it.
Posted on 7/14/17 at 8:42 am to AMS
For the purposes of this discussion, it would help to clarify what constitutes evidence. This is not a trail, so evidentiary law doesn't apply. In the truest since evidence is the material or visible sign of something.
Posted on 7/14/17 at 9:03 am to rebeloke
Well for the purposes of this discussion I suppose we will still disagree here. I am don't think it matters if we use evidentiary law, I didn't study law. I do understand science so I am referring to scientific or logical evidence, not some collinsdictionary.com definition of evidence as provided by whoever.
I agreed his topics of "evidence" were evidence in the fact that those things " radiation in india, green glass in a desert, etc.," existed, but is still just sheer speculation in regards to the validity or even connection with his conclusion. So he did not provide evidence for his conclusions, he speculated, and provided unrelated observations as evidence.
It just is illogical to say look at this definite evidence for my conclusion which may not be valid and its validity is not relevant. When you do not argue you have a valid conclusion or even that the conclusion's accuracy is relevant, that is speculation not evidence.
I agreed his topics of "evidence" were evidence in the fact that those things " radiation in india, green glass in a desert, etc.," existed, but is still just sheer speculation in regards to the validity or even connection with his conclusion. So he did not provide evidence for his conclusions, he speculated, and provided unrelated observations as evidence.
It just is illogical to say look at this definite evidence for my conclusion which may not be valid and its validity is not relevant. When you do not argue you have a valid conclusion or even that the conclusion's accuracy is relevant, that is speculation not evidence.
This post was edited on 7/14/17 at 9:12 am
Posted on 7/14/17 at 9:05 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
given the infinite nature of space
Is space infinite? I don't think there's consensus on this issue.
Posted on 7/14/17 at 9:27 am to AMS
quote:
I agreed his topics of "evidence" were evidence in the fact that those things " radiation in india, green glass in a desert, etc.," existed, but is still just sheer speculation in regards to the validity or even connection with his conclusion. So he did not provide evidence for his conclusions, he speculated, and provided unrelated observations as evidence.
It just is illogical to say look at this definite evidence for my conclusion which may not be valid and its validity is not relevant. When you do not argue you have a valid conclusion or even that the conclusion's accuracy is relevant, that is speculation not evidence.
I have always agreed that my conclusions are speculative
My bone of contention is that you are attempting to re-define what "evidence" is
Speculation based on evidence is fairly common; your assertion that since my conclusions are speculation; that means that the facts I presented are not evidence
It is a really silly argument and I have made myself look foolish by getting frustrated - so congrats
Posted on 7/14/17 at 10:08 am to AMS
AMS your use of the word evidence is too broad. You say he did not provide evidence for his conclusion but I think you mean argumentation. He provided evidence, which is material or visible signs but he did not make the case for why that it is in support of his conclusion. Furthermore you need to differentiate proof from evidence. Evidence is neutral and subject to interpretation and must be supported with other evidence that builds a total argument. So he gives evidence but not enough supporting evidence. His problem is not evidentiary but logical fallacies.
Posted on 7/14/17 at 10:33 am to AMS
quote:
It just is illogical to say look at this definite evidence for my conclusion which may not be valid and its validity is not relevant. When you do not argue you have a valid conclusion or even that the conclusion's accuracy is relevant, that is speculation not evidence.
Some evidence may not be absolute proof that a speculative conclusion is correct but it is still evidence that "tends to prove" a speculative conclusion is correct.
Posted on 7/14/17 at 10:55 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Because those experts have tried to inform you that there are reasonable explanations for what you 'saw'. As I'm sure you've been told, what you 'saw' was an oarfish.
Wrong.
In spite of all the anecdotal evidence, some "experts" who don't even believe in the possibility that sea serpents might exist are attempting to discredit my and my brother's close definitive sighting of a sea serpent by invoking Occam's Razor and claiming what we saw was probably an oarfish even though what we described seeing didn't look anything like an oarfish.
What bozos.
quote:
You're not special. You didn't discover something that nobody else knows exist. You are not fighting a crusade for truth.
My brother and I are not claiming to be special and have discovered something that nobody else knows exist.
There are many people who have reported having definitive sightings of these animals along the coast of California, Washington, Oregon, Canada and Alaska.
quote:
You just misinterpreted something you barely saw. Get over it.
That's the problem with you skeptics.
You wish my brother and I barely saw what we claim was a sea serpent so you could just dismiss our sighting as simply a misidentified object or known marine animal.
Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
Posted on 7/14/17 at 11:09 am to Roger Klarvin
Yup, that's me in the red jacket and my brother being interviewed at the location where we had our first close definitive sighting of a sea serpent in SF Bay.
This post was edited on 7/14/17 at 11:15 am
Posted on 7/14/17 at 11:12 am to rebeloke
"In the truest since evidence is the material or visible sign of something". I think your definition of evidence is much more broad, but please bear with me.
I will refer back to his analogy of the gun in the car and shooting of the wife.
just the fact that there is a gun in my car is only evidence that there is a gun in my car. Similarly he gave evidence that radiation or green glass or whatever exists. I agree that it is evidence that green glass or radiation exists, but disagree that it is material or a visible sign that ancient humankind used atom bombs to wipe themselves out.
His speculation that I shot his wife is based off of the unrelated fact that there is a gun in my car. Could my son have taken the gun from my car and used it, what if im halfway across the world, what if its just a toy gun, could your wife have shot herself? just because a gun is in my car does not mean it is a sign of something "that I shot his wife". It does not meet your definition of evidence relating to a material/sign of the claim that I shot his wife.
I don't think proof needs to be defined here, because neither of us are arguing proof or even validity of his conclusion which is the main reason why it does not meet your standard for evidence "In the truest since evidence is the material or visible sign of something".
I notice you did not define evidence as "may or may not be material or visible sign of something". Which is good because I would define that as speculation.
He is saying it is possible that the evidence supports his conclusion, he is providing speculation that there is evidence for his conclusion, and not evidence.
His problem is both evidentiary and logical fallacies.
Providing evidence is an affirmative word, meaning it is a material or visible sign of the claim. Not that it may or may not be a possible sign of something, that is just speculation.
I never said he provides no evidence, just that none of the evidence is what he is claiming it is evidence of. Its just speculation for his conclusion, not evidence for it.
I will refer back to his analogy of the gun in the car and shooting of the wife.
just the fact that there is a gun in my car is only evidence that there is a gun in my car. Similarly he gave evidence that radiation or green glass or whatever exists. I agree that it is evidence that green glass or radiation exists, but disagree that it is material or a visible sign that ancient humankind used atom bombs to wipe themselves out.
His speculation that I shot his wife is based off of the unrelated fact that there is a gun in my car. Could my son have taken the gun from my car and used it, what if im halfway across the world, what if its just a toy gun, could your wife have shot herself? just because a gun is in my car does not mean it is a sign of something "that I shot his wife". It does not meet your definition of evidence relating to a material/sign of the claim that I shot his wife.
I don't think proof needs to be defined here, because neither of us are arguing proof or even validity of his conclusion which is the main reason why it does not meet your standard for evidence "In the truest since evidence is the material or visible sign of something".
I notice you did not define evidence as "may or may not be material or visible sign of something". Which is good because I would define that as speculation.
He is saying it is possible that the evidence supports his conclusion, he is providing speculation that there is evidence for his conclusion, and not evidence.
His problem is both evidentiary and logical fallacies.
Providing evidence is an affirmative word, meaning it is a material or visible sign of the claim. Not that it may or may not be a possible sign of something, that is just speculation.
I never said he provides no evidence, just that none of the evidence is what he is claiming it is evidence of. Its just speculation for his conclusion, not evidence for it.
Page 12 of 58
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News