Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
Hey, if it makes you feel better calling me a dickhead, fill your boots. I attack holes in arguments, and you leave lots of holes. My assumptions on what you know are specific to your comments and what you bring to support those comments.
"Proper" scientists follow method, the data, and continue to question what they know. That includes precluding bad science, like geocentrism and flat earth theory, and following the data. I don't know a single credible "scientist" that ascribes to geocentrism or flat earth theory, because the data against both theories is so heavy neither are considered a "possibility". You have to discount the noise in the signal and focus on where the data leads you.
Is it possible we are alone in the universe? Yes, it is. Is it likely? No. Is it likely that other life forms have not developed the technology to travel the cosmos? Most definitely. That is based on our context of how we understand the universe. Is it possible that we don't understand much of the universe around us? Very much so. We make new discoveries each and every day, so to suggest we have an understanding of everything around us doesn't make sense. In the cosmological perspective, I would put our species in the toddler phase of maturity. I really think we are just starting to gain some level of awareness of our place in the universe.
|
Ah, ok, so you agree with me. Remember, this all started when I said
Quote:
|
"I think most scientists think we are the only planet with life, or the universe is teaming with it. Since we have no evidence of the later, we can't discount the former."
|
All I've been saying is you can't discount it with what we know. And now you've agreed with me.