alien life possibility is pathetic
- Thread starter makaya325
- Start date
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Mmmmhh, the fine smell of hypocrisy .....
Makaya, tell us, please: Not considering both sides with regard to life in the universe elsewhere than only on earth is the right thing according to you, but not considering that Bigfoot my exist is not scientific, according to you?
Mind you, we have hard evidence for live in this universe. That is, the earth. However, we have absolutely no evidence for Bigfoot. Only faked evidence so far.
So you really want to tell us that considering something for which hard evidence exists in at least one case is bad, but considering something for which no evidence at all exists is good?
Oh man, that smell of hypocrisy in my nose ....
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Oh, and makaya, regarding to you bold statement that we know 100% of oceanic life.
Please read this recent article and then admit that you were completely wrong.
Please read this recent article and then admit that you were completely wrong.
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
No problem, Robert Oz. Glad that could be cleared up. 
But as to Makaya 325's "revelation" I call Shenanigans.
If I get him right, his point is that if I say "Big Foot doesn't exist but intelligent life in the universe could" (read: Not UFO's - just intelligent life.. somewhere) I'm being a hypocrite because I haven't looked at both sides.
First off, I think that he found an "out" and took it.
Second, if that was really his point then it's a pretty (and forgive me for putting it this way) stupid way of making it. Because we HAVE looked at both sides. Here's why:
"Big Foot" has been claimed to be real by people for years. Yet there's no hard evidence. Absolutely none. Sure we haven't explored this whole world with a fine tooth comb, but claims of "Big Foot" sightings haven't always been in the most remote of places. The "evidence" that the Big Foot people have gathered holds about the same weight as does the "ghost exist" people have gathered. Again, no hard evidence ever found in all this time of exploring and trying to find evidence in a finite space that we can explore.
Now the universe is big. Period. Very big. It is astronomically bigger than Earth. Also, we have no possible way to test for life. Not yet. No way to even know how to gather evidence. We can conjecture, but until we run into a strange radio wave or something there is no other way to prove intelligent life out there somewhere. On top of that, when we look into the sky we are looking into the past. Something may be out there millions of miles away, but we might not know about it for quite a while from now.
This is NOT a case of looking us not looking at "both sides of story". This is a case of we already have and the most logical conclusion is this:
Big Foot: No hard evidence, the places where it has been sighted can be explored, there are ways to test for such a creature without actually seeing one, and there are absolutely no traces whatsoever of a culture of "Big Feet" anywhere. And this is while people have been trying to prove it exists in a space where it can be explored and tested.
Conclusion - looking very bad for Big Foot's existence.
Intelligent Life Somewhere in the Universe: No hard evidence, but that's because the places where it could exist is too far for us to even try to explore. However, the universe is immense and we don't know if our form of life is the only way life can evolve. We have a test of one. With the size of just the universe we see (there's a lot of places we can't see), there's a lot of possibilities. There are hypothesis that say there could be a lot, a little or we're the only ones.
Conclusion - we don't know. But there's a lot of possibilities out there.
The bottom line is this: If you think something is true, you must prove it to be true. That's how science works. You cannot prove something is not true. So far, Big Foot has not ever been proven as true, and the case for him is not good. Nothing has stood up to the tests. As for proving that there's intelligent life in the universe, we just begun to test for it. We just started seeing other planets, and even then we really don't know what's on them. The math looks like it could happen, so the hypothesis stands. And there's a lot of exploration that needs to be done.
We have looked at both sides. The case for Big Foot looks bleak. The case for intelligent life in the universe hasn't even gotten by square one yet.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
But as to Makaya 325's "revelation" I call Shenanigans.
If I get him right, his point is that if I say "Big Foot doesn't exist but intelligent life in the universe could" (read: Not UFO's - just intelligent life.. somewhere) I'm being a hypocrite because I haven't looked at both sides.
First off, I think that he found an "out" and took it.
Second, if that was really his point then it's a pretty (and forgive me for putting it this way) stupid way of making it. Because we HAVE looked at both sides. Here's why:
"Big Foot" has been claimed to be real by people for years. Yet there's no hard evidence. Absolutely none. Sure we haven't explored this whole world with a fine tooth comb, but claims of "Big Foot" sightings haven't always been in the most remote of places. The "evidence" that the Big Foot people have gathered holds about the same weight as does the "ghost exist" people have gathered. Again, no hard evidence ever found in all this time of exploring and trying to find evidence in a finite space that we can explore.
Now the universe is big. Period. Very big. It is astronomically bigger than Earth. Also, we have no possible way to test for life. Not yet. No way to even know how to gather evidence. We can conjecture, but until we run into a strange radio wave or something there is no other way to prove intelligent life out there somewhere. On top of that, when we look into the sky we are looking into the past. Something may be out there millions of miles away, but we might not know about it for quite a while from now.
This is NOT a case of looking us not looking at "both sides of story". This is a case of we already have and the most logical conclusion is this:
Big Foot: No hard evidence, the places where it has been sighted can be explored, there are ways to test for such a creature without actually seeing one, and there are absolutely no traces whatsoever of a culture of "Big Feet" anywhere. And this is while people have been trying to prove it exists in a space where it can be explored and tested.
Conclusion - looking very bad for Big Foot's existence.
Intelligent Life Somewhere in the Universe: No hard evidence, but that's because the places where it could exist is too far for us to even try to explore. However, the universe is immense and we don't know if our form of life is the only way life can evolve. We have a test of one. With the size of just the universe we see (there's a lot of places we can't see), there's a lot of possibilities. There are hypothesis that say there could be a lot, a little or we're the only ones.
Conclusion - we don't know. But there's a lot of possibilities out there.
The bottom line is this: If you think something is true, you must prove it to be true. That's how science works. You cannot prove something is not true. So far, Big Foot has not ever been proven as true, and the case for him is not good. Nothing has stood up to the tests. As for proving that there's intelligent life in the universe, we just begun to test for it. We just started seeing other planets, and even then we really don't know what's on them. The math looks like it could happen, so the hypothesis stands. And there's a lot of exploration that needs to be done.
We have looked at both sides. The case for Big Foot looks bleak. The case for intelligent life in the universe hasn't even gotten by square one yet.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 27,766
Amen.
Makaya, you think dishonesty will make a case for Bigfoot?
I guess you're not alone there.
Maybe the thread title should have been named...I am going to make many
Blanket statements(that can mean anything and everything) to provoke many well thought out responses.
I guess if someone is presented a way out... Take it
Then add yet another burst of hot air on the way out.
Blanket statements(that can mean anything and everything) to provoke many well thought out responses.
I guess if someone is presented a way out... Take it
Then add yet another burst of hot air on the way out.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS. Buuuuuuullll shnickels. Retcon. Total retcon á la Jim Callahan. Let's review, shall we?
JFrankA brings up Bigfoot:
Lonewulf says "Whuzzat?":
Bell says "spahcy meatabollah!":
Makaya says "yeah, so?":
And then fullflavormenthol hands Makaya a great big lollipop:
Which Makaya jumps on like a hyperactive hypoglycemic:
That's a total retcon. Ffm just showed him the door and he bolted. If he really had a gotcha he would have pulled it when JFA brought up Bigfoot. Better yet he would have done it when I brought up Bigfoot and his argument here several pages ago. People, trust me on this. I've been spoon-feeding Makaya, running circles around him, and trying to help him keep up since he first got here. He's bored, yes, but - and I don't mean this as an insult - he's just not that clever. Not at all. He has neither the patience nor the forethought for such a maneuver. How poorly executed if it were a maneuver shows that he was not being any kind of sneaky. It's just boredom. You don't get to over 600 posts in less than a month with nothing more than spam-troll chat brat blurbfart posts and pull a stunt like that.
If you think he actually did what Ffm suggested he did, then you haven't read enough Makaya. Trust me on this or look for yourselves, he saw an out and took it.
Retcon. Nothing but.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Since I am rather familiar with Makaya's method of posting by now I will show you a simple way that Makaya simply grabbed the out ffm gave him.
Makaya, if this thread was actually meant as an analogy for Bigfoot debates please explain in detail the following items:
- Which posts do you think were the best examples of the so-called analogy and why. Do not skip explaining why. If you do so it will be a give away that you have no clue what you're talking about.
- Please explain why you did not take at least two earlier opportunities given first by myself and then by JFrankA to reveal a gotcha. If you were clever enough to intend the thread for that purpose, would you not recognize those moments as being the exact ones to reveal a gotcha? Were you not clever enough to realize that if you waited for someone to randomly suggest it, which may have not even occurred, that you would look like you were retconning?
- Please explain in detail the time you decided to design the gotcha. What were your inspirations and what were your intentions in implementing it?
- In the OT section now in AAH of the thread about making a subforum for Bigfoot threads in which I raised the analogy of aliens and Bigfoot evidence you failed to use any argument from this so-called analogy or offer any meaningful rebuttal to my points. If you did design this thread as an analogy, then why in a separate venue did you fail to employ any arguments from the analogy when directly challenged on the subject?
Makaya, you have consistently shown an inability to articulate your ideas or substantiate your arguments in any meaningful way. If you meant this thread as fullflavormenthol suggested, then you will have no problem providing what I have asked for. If you were just taking an out provided with a blurb retcon, then you will not be able to do this and will provide another similar post.
The challenge is issued. Let's see what you got.
Last edited:
Since most people out there laugh at the idea of bigfoot, i laugh at the idea of god, ufo's, ghosts, esp, psychics, religion, etc. I dont believe in any of that bs. Imo, I feel that bigfoot stands alone in its own category
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
I say for everyone to put Makaya325 on ignore, and continue discussing the possibility of alien life with far more deserving people.
The way I see it, Makaya lied in one of two ways. Either he lied when he started this thread, and intended for it to be a discussion on Bigfoot, or he lied when he said he lied when he started this thread (lying about a lie to create a worse lie, go figure).
I have no time to spend with dishonest people. I recommend no one else waste their time as well.
The way I see it, Makaya lied in one of two ways. Either he lied when he started this thread, and intended for it to be a discussion on Bigfoot, or he lied when he said he lied when he started this thread (lying about a lie to create a worse lie, go figure).
I have no time to spend with dishonest people. I recommend no one else waste their time as well.
Last edited:
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
LOL! Two sentence blurb-fart nothing post. Makaya, remember kankei nai? Thanks for verifying my post and proving you lied. I have you so dialed. Man, that was easy! Enjoy your roast.
Alien life and bigfoot are both good analogies. What dont you agree with?
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
Read my last post. I tell you why it's a horrible analogy.
I still call Shenanigans on you. Someone gave you an "out" and you took it.
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
For starters a good analogy requires that something be analagous. How about explaining?
Last edited:
Both have no proof, are laughed at by the mainstream, not testable.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
You got it wrong, again.
Let me explain a bit. You made the statement that life somewhere else in this universe is impossible. To make a good BF analogy, one would have to say "There are no other Bigfoot's except in place x." But that would require to have evidence of BF at place x, which we don't have. Even more, it would require BF's to be in a zoo or similar, so everyone, everytime can go and look that they exist, as we can do with life on earth. So, 0 for BF, 1 for life.
Another analogy, but the other way round would be to say that no life exists in the universe, to make it comparable to the statement that no BF exists on earth. But then, we know that life exists in the universe, because of the earth. So, again, 0 for BF and 1 for life.
No matter how you try to twist it, it simply doesn't compare well. If anything, BF looses and life wins.
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 27,766
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Unless you consider yourself mainstream, no one laughs about the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. And it is testable also, by simply going to other planets and doing tests. Yes, there is no direct proof for it, but statistics makes it very likely.
You really get things utterly wrong. Or you deliberately choose to be ignorant. You decide.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Both have no proof, but the possibility of alien life is not laughed at by the mainstream. Bigfoot is laughed at not because the possibility is lacking but because the so-called evidence is of such poor quality and so top-heavy with obvious errors, wishful thinking and hoaxes. In this respect, as I say, I would consider bigfoot more akin to UFO lore, rather than the scientific investigation of extraterrestrial life. Bigfoots are analogous to little green men, not the possible life forms of distant galaxies.
It's true that as long as no bigfoot can be proven to exist, bigfoot myths cannot be proven false. But a single instance of a bigfoot live, dead, fossilized or even documented photographically by disinterested observers with passable quality and provenance would change the opinions of skeptics in the blink of an eye. There's a big difference here, since there is nothing in the presumed nature and habitat of the bigfoot that makes it inherently impossible to detect and verify with current knowledge and technology, and since the belief in bigfoot is based on presumed sightiings and tracks, not on scientific speculation. People believe in bigfoot not because they presume that such a thing ought to exist, given the nature of the world. They believe because they believe the accounts of it. This is entirely different from the speculation about life on distant galaxies.
In short, your analogy, if that is truly what was intended, is misbegotten.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Do you know that only 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe has been explored?