Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14768Re: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    May 2, 2003
      > Roger> And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
      life,
      > uwrk> This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
      Roger> Not by everyone.
      uwrk> Still, it can't be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing
      evidence, given the possibility of contamination etc.
      Never said it was. I was pointing out that you had no evidence.
      ----------------------
      > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
      > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
      > Roger> But still a possibility.
      > uwrk>I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
      cold,
      > UV and lack of sustanance.
      Roger> Hoyle + co do not have your doubt.
      uwrk>The vast bulk of scientists now do AFAIK. Hoyle was many years ago,
      and his notion isn't considered credible.
      Being old, does not make it wrong. And I doubt that this supposed bulk
      proved it wasn't credible, they merely liked to believe without evidence.
      ------------

      > uwrk>True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems
      > Yes
      > uwrk> but it is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other
      planets in
      > our
      > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
      >
      Roger> Case not proved.
      uwrk>A0 stars have main sequence lifespans of a mere 500 million years-
      a ninth of what is needed for life to evolve to intelligence, based
      on the example of a world where conditions are optimal.

      Mere guesswork.
      ---------
      > uwrk> My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
      Roger> Fashion that changes, based on trying to reach conclusions from
      insufficient
      > information.
      uwrk>Insufficient?
      yes

      uwrk> There is enough information about some worlds to
      assume, a priori, that they're lifeless. Venus is an example.

      Not enough for Mars, for example.
      And you use again that magic word 'assume' to show you are only guessing.
      Assume/ believe/ 'think you proved something'/ 'do whatever you like'.
      What do I care about whatever you feel happy believing.
      I have no more to say, please now shut up, you have had your say.

      Bye, Roger.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "uwrk" <uwrk@...>
      To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 11:43 AM
      Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]


      > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...>
      > wrote:
      > > Roger> And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
      > life,
      > > uwrk> This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
      > >
      > > Not by everyone.
      >
      > Still, it can't be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing
      > evidence, given the possibility of contamination etc.
      > >
      > > ----------
      > > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
      > > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
      > > Roger> But still a possibility.
      > > uwrk>I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
      > cold,
      > > UV and lack of sustanance.
      > > Hoyle + co do not have your doubt.
      >
      > The vast bulk of scientists now do AFAIK. Hoyle was many years ago,
      > and his notion isn't considered credible.
      > > ------------
      > > > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
      > > > space?
      > > Roger> Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.
      > > uwrk>Others have and obviously weren't impressed.
      > >
      > > If some are impressed, and some are not impressed. So what. What is
      > your
      > > point?
      > Nowadays nobody in the scientific community is AFAIK.
      > > ----------
      > > uwrk>True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems
      > > Yes
      > > uwrk> but it is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other
      > planets in
      > > our
      > > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
      > >
      > > Case not proved.
      >
      > A0 stars have main sequence lifespans of a mere 500 million years-
      > a ninth of what is needed for life to evolve to intelligence, based
      > on the example of a world where conditions are optimal.
      > > ------------
      > > uwrk> My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
      > >
      > > Fashion that changes, based on trying to reach conclusions from
      > insufficient
      > > information.
      >
      > Insufficient? There is enough information about some worlds to
      > assume, a priori, that they're lifeless. Venus is an example.
      >
      >
      > > --------
      > > Roger> long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were saying
      > > >that man would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines,
      > they
      > > based
      > > >this reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to
      > > >perform the task,
      > >
      > > uwrk> birds fly despite being heavier than air.
      > >
      > > The Supposed Experts that thought man would never fly, must have
      > overlooked
      > > that fact somehow. They must have been selective in what facts they
      > would
      > > consider, and decided to ignore the birds and deduce from faulty
      > premisses
      > > that man could never fly. It does not inspire confidence if that
      > type of
      >
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic