Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Why can you not grasp the concept that just because we do not have a fully understood or agreed upon solution to the problem, IT DOES NOT MEAN EXTERNAL FORCES DID IT.
As mentioned earlier, all the other examples are EQUALLY AS LIKELY to be responsible because there is EQUAL AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE to support it, NONE.
The only reason you think it's aliens or God or something outside of humans is because you have been conditioned to think that. You don't think it's monsters or invisible interdemensional beings, why? Because you haven't lived in a society that's been pushing that idea on you your whole life. Why do you think of aliens as smaller beings with frail bodies and big heads and eyes? Because you've been conditioned to think that by society in the exact same way.
3 scientists, even if they were 100% credible with zero marks against their record doesn't mean shit in the scheme of things. AND AGAIN you're using a formal logical fallacy, (PLEASE READ THE GODDAMN LIST OF LOGICAL FALLACIES SO YOU STOP USING THEM WITHOUT REALIZING THEM, here, this will help (if you fucking read it); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logical_fallacies ) argument from authority. Even scientists can be wrong, surprise surprise! The argument ALONE should stand by itself, not who presented it. All they've been able to do is the exact same thing you have, point out there's something that hasn't been completely answered yet, then simply saying "well, I'm pretty sure no humans on earth could do that, so it has to be aliens" - and that part, right there is where they fuck up. Because any real scientist would say "well, I'm pretty sure no humans on earth could do that, so... lets keep digging and see if we can find more... ". There is nothing linking "I don't know what this could be..." to "...aliens", no line from A - C. They're completely missing part 'B' in that scenario.
So again, why is this so difficult for you to understand? You keep bringing up the exact same arguments again and again even after being pointed out why they are flawed. Do you simply not care that they're flawed and are happy to continue on believing a flawed argument? Do you disagree that the arguments are flawed? What?
As mentioned earlier, all the other examples are EQUALLY AS LIKELY to be responsible because there is EQUAL AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE to support it, NONE.
The only reason you think it's aliens or God or something outside of humans is because you have been conditioned to think that. You don't think it's monsters or invisible interdemensional beings, why? Because you haven't lived in a society that's been pushing that idea on you your whole life. Why do you think of aliens as smaller beings with frail bodies and big heads and eyes? Because you've been conditioned to think that by society in the exact same way.
3 scientists, even if they were 100% credible with zero marks against their record doesn't mean shit in the scheme of things. AND AGAIN you're using a formal logical fallacy, (PLEASE READ THE GODDAMN LIST OF LOGICAL FALLACIES SO YOU STOP USING THEM WITHOUT REALIZING THEM, here, this will help (if you fucking read it); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logical_fallacies ) argument from authority. Even scientists can be wrong, surprise surprise! The argument ALONE should stand by itself, not who presented it. All they've been able to do is the exact same thing you have, point out there's something that hasn't been completely answered yet, then simply saying "well, I'm pretty sure no humans on earth could do that, so it has to be aliens" - and that part, right there is where they fuck up. Because any real scientist would say "well, I'm pretty sure no humans on earth could do that, so... lets keep digging and see if we can find more... ". There is nothing linking "I don't know what this could be..." to "...aliens", no line from A - C. They're completely missing part 'B' in that scenario.
So again, why is this so difficult for you to understand? You keep bringing up the exact same arguments again and again even after being pointed out why they are flawed. Do you simply not care that they're flawed and are happy to continue on believing a flawed argument? Do you disagree that the arguments are flawed? What?
