:-k
Why does God need a starship..?? 😕

DrafterX wrote:

This is like arguing over Star Trek vs Star Trek: Next Generation.

HockeyDad wrote:

Was this how you spent your youth HD?

victor809 wrote:

Nope.....how 'bout you "scientist"?!

HockeyDad wrote:

As this is the internet, I'm obligated to say I spent my youth having sex with tons of hot rugby playing dudes.I guess things really haven't changed much.....cept now I bang the boys in Georgetown rather than up in Canada EH.

victor809 wrote:

I can't help myself but fixate on Victor's sexuality. Every post I've ever directed towards him has to do with whether he'll have sex with men, because I can't get it out of my mind. I've tried calling him "Vickie" in the hopes that this will make me seem more masculine, but I'm afraid the others may see through this. Damnit, if only I weren't plagued with this deep sexual confusion, but I want to have sex with men so badly!


Ron

Whistlebritches wrote:

As this is the internet, I'm obligated to say I spent my youth having sex with tons of hot women. You probably didn't know them, they lived in Canada.

victor809 wrote:

There, I fixed it for you.
Not like two people can't play this game.

victor809 wrote:

An interesting proposition, and one I find to be completely incorrect.... but interesting.

As for the "ETs" visiting earth. That's as flimsy and fabricated as any religious belief. There's no verifiable proof, nothing that holds up to scrutiny.

As for there being some level of "life" somewhere in the universe, that's unproveable (until we travel to a place where it exists). However, if you believe in evolution, and you believe in statistics and probability theory, then it is reasonable to state that the odds are strong there is some form of life elsewhere, with the odds reducing as you increase the complexity of said life. This is in NO WAY a proof though, just probability theory.

You seem to think that we are equally likely to encounter some ghost/demon/spirit as we are to encounter some form of non-earth based life though. Am I correct in that re-statement?

I'm going to say you're likely correct (if by "we" you mean you and i) simply because within our short lives neither of us will encounter the statistically likely extra-terrestrial life (since that level of space travel is not happening any time soon) and the other category doesn't likely exist.

However, if you're using the "we" as humanity... then you're probably wrong. One category has a probability associated with its existence, something which given sufficient time will ultimately occur. The "supernatural" category has no probability associated with its existence, and no evidence of its existence. Time is not on its side.

victor809 wrote:

This is like arguing over Star Trek vs Star Trek: Next Generation.

HockeyDad wrote:

I'd say there's a distinctly higher possibility of the existence of demonic possession than there is of any post on these forums actually influencing someone to change their mind reqarding religious beliefs or politics.

pdxstogieman wrote:

And it is indeed a "scientific" approach to use mathematical probability.

tailgater wrote:

Our planet is billions of years old. Although mankind is a new inhabitant, our earth evolved first into dinosaurs, and then into humans. Since the universe is infinite, it's likely that another planet went directly to go. ie, their superior life didn't wait for previous incarnations to form and die. So they have a head start and are making crop circles in Rickamavens flower pot.

So it's likely that we'll see them before we see an imagined spirit, if you subscribe to your "scientific" thought process.

But I'm saying that you and I and everyone reading this have the SAME chance of seeing ET as they do seeing the spirit of Lizzie Borden (or the demon of your choice).

Math. It even trumps arrogant scientists.
And it's not just for breakfast any more.

That's incorrect. Mathematical probability might suggest a direction to investigate, but the scientific method does not use mathematical probability to prove something.


I'm following you here. If we are only looking at two categories ("demons", which don't exist have a zero chance of ever being seen, while "ET" which may or may not exist (the probability of some life existing is almost guaranteed, that they got a jump start on us is an unknown and actually a finite chance, as no new life with a jump start on us can evolve) has a non zero probability of occurring.


And you lost me. Zero vs non zero (even infinitely small non zero) are two different chances.

victor809 wrote:

That's incorrect. Mathematical probability might suggest a direction to investigate, but the scientific method does not use mathematical probability to prove something.

victor809 wrote: