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

14779Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]

Expand Messages
  • uwrk
    May 3 4:02 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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.
      > 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.

      The burden of proof is on those who say it is real Martian life. Of
      course there is evidence it is not e.g. evidence of contamination by
      Earthly microoganisms cited by one researcher.
      > ----------------------
      > > > 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.

      The notion apears to have been supersceded in recent scientific
      discussions. For the abve reasons it apparently is considered wrong.

      And I doubt that this supposed bulk
      > proved it wasn't credible, they merely liked to believe without
      evidence.

      Again the burden of proof was on believers like Hoyle.
      > ------------
      >
      > > 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.

      No, based on what empirical data is available.
      > ---------
      > > 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.

      It may not be totally sterile but it is certainly not the abode of
      advanced indigenous life-far too inhospitable.

      > And you use again that magic word 'assume' to show you are only
      guessing.

      No, some assumptions are very well grounde in emprical data.
      > 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,

      good!
      you have had your say.
      >
      > Bye, Roger.
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "uwrk" <uwrk@y...>
      > 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