Well, there's a reason I say "spiritual". Because often these objects do things that are physically impossible: travel at high speeds and turn instantaneous corners. Often there are legitimate sightings with "energy bursts" where trees/brush is flattened. So, for lack of a better term, I say "spiritual" because I mean it is not a physical space ship coming from another planet. Otherwise, by now, we would have some kind of physical evidence that some farmer in Uzbekhistan would have picked up...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Evolution - A Weak Argument for the Anti-Supernatural?
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
Well, there's a reason I say "spiritual". Because often these objects do things that are physically impossible: travel at high speeds and turn instantaneous corners. Often there are legitimate sightings with "energy bursts" where trees/brush is flattened. So, for lack of a better term, I say "spiritual" because I mean it is not a physical space ship coming from another planet. Otherwise, by now, we would have some kind of physical evidence that some farmer in Uzbekhistan would have picked up...
Quote from Thunderdog:
As for yours numbers game, playing with stats, don't kid yourself.
This is simply not true. Again, this is why they are searching for multiple universes so desperately.
Here's the real situation:
1. This universe came out perfectly tuned for life.
2. Quantum-based materialist solutions have not panned out as feasible.
3. This leaves materialist scientists with only one hope at this time: the idea that there are a vast number of universe and ours just happens to be the one with parameters/constants/coefficients tuned for life.
But #3 would not even be necessary if #1 were not true. Nobody would even be worried about #3 otherwise.
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
First of all, how many labs are there on planet earth? A few hundred? So that's probably a hundredth of a hundredth of a hundredth of the surface area of the earth.
But, more importantly, how many people are sitting around in these labs? A few hundred probably. So what are the odds that they are going to see something? Probably a hundredth of a hundredth of a hundredth. (And on the remote chance that a lab technician did see something, I would guess you would find a reason to dismiss it anyway.)
For someone who claims to "love science," this post is shockingly ignorant.
Number of universities by country:
1 India 8,407
2 United States 5,758
3 Argentina 1,705
4 Spain 1,415
5 Mexico 1,341
6 Bangladesh 1,268
7 Indonesia 1,236
8 Japan 1,223
9 France 1,062
10 China 1,054
I don't know what your definition of "lab" is, but if it is the same as mine, I would say there are probably at least dozens of labs in each university. That means there are probably millions of labs all around the world. This is not counting industrial labs and national labs. How many people are sitting around these labs? As one example, Los Alamos National Labs has 20,000 employees. Granted not all of them are scientists but still, "A few hundred?" You've got to be kidding!
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Can you stop saying things that are plain wrong? Hint: If you don't know something, don't comment on it.
Oh, if only you would take your own advice. Shoeshine boys logic was impeccable and the only people who disagree are the same people who say that global warming caused by humans is an "undeniable fact" agreed upon by "all scientists".
Um, I think your explanation is incorrect, but I'll hold my tongue until I've had an opportunity to check with a couple of well-respected high-energy/theoretical physicists. Stay tuned...Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
This is simply not true. Again, this is why they are searching for multiple universes so desperately.
Here's the real situation:
1. This universe came out perfectly tuned for life.
2. Quantum-based materialist solutions have not panned out as feasible.
3. This leaves materialist scientists with only one hope at this time: the idea that there are a vast number of universe and ours just happens to be the one with parameters/constants/coefficients tuned for life.
But #3 would not even be necessary if #1 were not true. Nobody would even be worried about #3 otherwise.
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
For someone who claims to "love science," this post is shockingly ignorant.
Number of universities by country:
1 India 8,407
2 United States 5,758
3 Argentina 1,705
4 Spain 1,415
5 Mexico 1,341
6 Bangladesh 1,268
7 Indonesia 1,236
8 Japan 1,223
9 France 1,062
10 China 1,054
I don't know what your definition of "lab" is, but if it is the same as mine, I would say there are probably at least dozens of labs in each university. That means there are probably millions of labs all around the world. This is not counting industrial labs and national labs. How many people are sitting around these labs? As one example, Los Alamos National Labs has 20,000 employees. Granted not all of them are scientists but still, "A few hundred?" You've got to be kidding!
that (your statement) is just fucked up
if you have ever been to a university you will know that university labs are anything but research labs
for fucks sake, for fucks sake, those of you who have not been to university, try to understand, or at least research to see what universities are about, before you talk about them, they are hardly about innovation and intelligence, they are about memorizing and repeating, students are nothing but monkeys and parrots that repeat what their professors have learned to and teach to repeat
for those of you who have been to school, stop acting like you are the shit, and that you are some fucking smart bitch just for going to school, no one automatically becomes smart by memorizes a few technical phrases
Other nonsensical statements made by ShoeshineBoy aside, this one below is completely wrong and tells what kind of belief he has (ie, anti-science rather than "love science"):
It's obvious that your definition of "impeccable logic" contains neither.
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
2. Quantum-based materialist solutions have not panned out as feasible.
Quote from archipus:
Oh, if only you would take your own advice. Shoeshine boys logic was impeccable and the only people who disagree are the same people who say that global warming caused by humans is an "undeniable fact" agreed upon by "all scientists".
It's obvious that your definition of "impeccable logic" contains neither.