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

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

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    ... life, ... Roger Not by everyone. uwrk Still, it can t be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing evidence, given the possibility of contamination
    Message 1 of 17 , May 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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
      >
    • uwrk
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 17 , May 3, 2003
      • 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
        > >
      • Roger Anderton
        You bring up a new point: uwrk Again the burden of proof was on believers like Hoyle. What nonsense you speak. Where is It written ? The Burden of Proof
        Message 3 of 17 , May 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          You bring up a new point:


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


          What nonsense you speak. Where is "It" written ?

          The Burden of Proof is on you, I do not have to prove anything.


          You appear to Believe that some things are alive and other things are not
          alive, prove it.

          My Position is "DON 'T KNOW" - as I have told you, and you appear to ignore
          at your convenience what I am saying, and instead waffle off at a tangent.
          It is YOU that BELIEVE something.

          Rather than face your BURDEN, you waffle on about the opposite to what you
          believe in.


          The Burden of Proof is on you, I do not have to prove anything.

          -Roger



          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "uwrk" <uwrk@...>
          To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 12:02 PM
          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.
          > > 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
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.