Drakes Equation - killing ufo theorists

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Nov 3, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Sup Reggie, I'm wondering why a person who "thinks critically" like you, is bringing up an ad hominem?

    Let's stick to this video
    test
  2. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i didn't say all i do is think critically, coup. i'm also capable of mockery.
    test
  3. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I find it interesting here that you mock me for bringing up glaring holes in the logic of this video, but at the same time you are taking on everyone else with some sort of authoritative know how. Weird. At any rate, I only gave my reaction.

    Mock all you want, it does not change the truth.
    test
  4. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    besides... you had no problem putting your own spin on all of those 'humanist buzzwords.' why can't i put my spin on some of yours?
    test
  5. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    you didn't bring up any glaring holes... you made a series of baseless claims about what science can/can't do and laced it with a conspiratorial undertone.
    test
  6. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    sure you can, but you will have to find where I said "real science = contradiction of ancient scrolls"

    I don't know how you concluded that. My understanding of science and what it can and cannot prove has nothing to do with scriptures.
    test
  7. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Which claims are baseless ?
    test
  8. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    right after you find where the video said "humans must die to save mother."
    test
  9. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    "no evidence stars form"
    "we can't look into space like they say we can"
    "assumes scientists are finding exo-planets"
    "assumes they have the ability to answer impossible questions"
    test
  10. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I was translating what the buzz words mean and bringing to light the humanist ideology.

    The phrases used in the video had nothing to do with science and was humanist rethoric all day long.
    test
  11. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Right, there is no evidence to support any of this.
    test
  12. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    we've been down the star formation road before, and you shrugged off the evidence.

    you'll have to define how far scientists say they can look and how far you believe they can look, to make the second claim meaningful.

    scientists can detect exo-planets by the gravitational tug on the stars they orbit.

    nowhere did the video give the impression that anyone has the ability to answer this "impossible" question.. you even mocked them for saying there's no right answer yet in your first post.
    test
  13. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    that's funny, since you give the impression that they were arguing humans are hopeless and bad by highlighting the possibility that technological societies may have a short life span, yet the video closes on the possibility that there are sustainable civilizations out there which would mean its not at all inevitable that our own civilization needs to end in abrupt destruction.
    test
  14. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Considering that 'scientists', whom are founded by significant outside institutions, are laying claim to know, within a margin of error, the age of the universe should give you an indication (in a general sense) of how far we claim we can see into the depths of space. That is quite the distance back in "time" to measure with human ingenuity.

    I know for sure we can only see a limited distance, and it is not even deep enough to make conclusions about origins of well...."everything". Because the whole evolution theory hangs on this concept.

    We can assume to find anything...a free floating body in space does not offer up proof of planets. They very well might be. The truth is, it depends on what criteria you are using to define a planet or some other object in space. It is not an exact science because what we think we are observing can be concluded in many ways. The point is moot. Our observation in space is not as robust as one may be taught as suggested by the institutions teaching us.

    I remember in the video the narrator saying "no yet..." to the question as implying we will surely have an answer in the future...almost like science is evolving. There were other subtleties I noticed that gave that impression.
    test
  15. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I was not saying they were arguing humans are hopeless and bad....I was making note of these buzz words used in the video that are also prevalent concepts and ideologies used in the humanism world view. They have plans for the world...that is not a secret. Ask Ted Turner.
    test
  16. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i think that you're imposing a limit on science that need not be there.. scientists "can't" look back in time based on the expansion of the universe or the cosmic radiation background left behind just like scientists "can't" determine if a star has a planet orbiting it based on an observed wobbling from its gravitational tug. so basically... unless something can be directly observed to happen (i.e., unless we go back in time and watch the big bang or go to another solar system and see the planet directly) then it's not 'real science?'

    i think the current way science is done is more useful.. you might think the technology we have isn't anything special but the computer you're typing on would have seemed like science fiction 100 years ago.



    that's not a necessary interpretation, though. not yet doesn't imply that we will inevitably have the answer, it implies that the possibility is still open.
    test
  17. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    yes but why would they use buzz words which carry that connotation (according to you) if that's not what they were arguing...
    test
  18. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    @ Reggie

    I never said anything on how they determine whatever it is they want to publish*. You are saying all that. This would be great to discuss these methods, because close study reveals some the fallacy of certain observations made. Edit* I mean conclusions of observations


    Real science investigates what can be observed, measured and demonstrated. Also see below

    Current science has come to encompass other disciplines into it's practice. Philosophy, the metaphysical, religion and the gnostic are what most the conclusions fall into. I say this with only evolution of organisms in mind, which is a major theme is scientific study today: the big bang, cosmic, stellar, planetary, chemical and organic evolution.

    The truth is that there is no evidence to remotely conclude with all honesty that these processes are reality. With that said you look must look deeper into why these outcomes are coming out against the known laws and limits of research methods and technologies...you will be startled.


    It's an accurate interpretation, that the "buzz words" were apart of a larger theme that is shared and promoted within certain circles or corporate communities. At the same time, all this rhetoric used in the video was not at all necessary in a video exploring scientific questions. Which begs the question, who produced this video ?
    test
  19. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    to play devils advocate, just because some people figured out how to make them, it doesnt prove that its what makes all of them. Thats the argument.
    test
  20. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    well lets see, you aren't denying that the observations i listed have been documented, are you? you're denying that they can make any inferences based on these observations.

    you can make reasonable inferences based on observation. without this ability science is extremely limited.

    there's nothing remotely metaphysical about evolution... i think that you wish to limit science in the way that you do because certain parts of it conflict with your own metaphysics.

    the question in the video is related to how many advanced ET civilizations might be out there... it is by its very nature a speculative question and the speculation over how long of a shelf life these civilizations might have is quite relevant.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)