Do you believe in UFOs?

[Ouroboros]

TJR666,

 

You fall into several rhetorical fallacies with your arguments, for instance epistemic fallacy, appeal to ignorance, accident (destroying the exception) and you put up red herrings and straw man arguments too.

 

I want to discuss one of them with you.

 

I'm going to give you an Positive Form of Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and I want to answer some questions.

Do you believe in UFOs, or are you a believer in Non-UFOs?

 

Is non-belief still considered a belief in this situation?

 

If you don't believe in UFOs, can I request your argument and proof to your belief in Non-UFOs?

 

 

Hans: Before I reply, please define what it is exactly you mean by "UFO" so we are talking about the same thing.

 

Thanks.

 

TJR666

 

 

Fair enough.

 

My intention is to use the word UFO not only to represent the generic definition of its acronym, "Unidentified Flying Objects", but also to refer to the more popular pseudo-scientific meaning, "flying saucers with green (or gray) aliens inside". Please give me your rebuttal based on the popular context of understanding the word UFO referring to aliens from other planets.

 

 

From TJR666 to Hans Solo on your questions about UFO’s:

 

What do I understand as a UFO (“Unidentified Flying Object”): Firstly, they are classified as “unidentified”; if they were “identified”, then they would no longer be a UFO. Next, they are classified as “flying”; they appear to be atmospheric, between the Earth and space, though since they are unidentified, there is nothing to preclude the possibility that a UFO could be observed outside the atmosphere or on the ground (not “flying”). Next, they are classified as an “object”; they appear to have substance; they appear to be something.

 

Do UFO’s exist? Yes, it is reasonable to believe so. There are just simply too many reports of UFO’s from too many people from many cultures all over the world to say otherwise. Sightings date back many centuries, though there appears to have been an explosion of sightings in the last 50 years or so. Most sighting of alleged UFO’s can be explained (aircraft, stars, comets, hoaxes, etc); a small percentage of sightings cannot be explained.

 

Have I witnessed anything I would call a UFO? No.

 

Re-quoting your argument:

Proposition 1: No one has proved that UFO’s don’t exist.

Proposition 2: All propositions that have not been disproved are true.

Conclusion: It is reasonable to conclude that UFO’s do exist.

 

I believe that it should be the other way around:

Proposition 1: All propositions that have not been disproved are true.

Proposition 2: No one has proved that UFO’s don’t exist.

Conclusion: It is reasonable to conclude that UFO’s do exist.

 

On proposition 1: “All propositions that have not been disproved are true”.

This is your basic premise. I will agree that all propositions that have not been disproved are true, but I will add only until a proof comes along that proves a proposition not to be true. Based on this premise:

 

On proposition 2: “No one has proved that UFO’s don’t exist”.

In saying this, you appear to be taking the affirmative proposition (ie, “That UFO’s do exist”) as opposed to the negative proposition (ie, “That UFO’s don’t exist”).

 

Can it be proved that UFO’s do not in fact exist? How would we prove something doesn’t exist? To do so would mean that a person would need to have complete knowledge of all time and space, and any and all other dimensions to know for sure that UFO’s do not exist. It is ultimately impossible then to prove something doesn’t exist. Thus, based on this observation:

 

Your conclusion: Therefore, “It is reasonable to conclude that UFO’s exist”.

Since ultimately it is impossible to prove that UFO’s don’t exist, and since there remains reasonable and reliable evidence of unexplained sightings, then it is reasonable to conclude that UFO’s, whatever they are, exist.

 

So, to answer your first question: “Do I believe in UFO’s, or am I a believer in non-UFO’s?” As I said, it is reasonable to conclude that UFO’s, whatever they are, do in fact exist.

 

Your second question “Is non-belief still considered a belief in this situation?” and your third question “If I don’t believe in UFO’s, could I supply my argument and proof to my belief in Non-UFO’s?” are thus basically answered also. Whilst ever the phenomenon of UFO’s remains unidentified, then we can never know for sure what they are, and for people to believe that they are space ships with little green men in them is surely pure speculation.

 

TJR666

[Saviourmachine]

Belief

I don't believe in UFO's. If I would state "I believe in UFO's" it would be in dubitative mood, or even hypothetical mood. The proposition I consider as counterfactual but otherwise possible.

 

Truth

I disagree with this: "All propositions that have not been disproved are true."

 

Because I think this would need a redefinition of 'truth'. And truth is very difficult to define. It's therefore maybe time to use another concept. Namely: knowability. When you're right about something, perhaps there will come a time that it can be demonstrated that you're right. It's in essence knowable. When you're not right about something, there will never be demonstrated that you're right about it. It's of course impossible to really know a thing where you're not right about. It's in essence unknowable.

 

If you have not demonstrated that you're right about something, than there is definite possibility that you are not right about the very thing! In other words, it's impossible to classify things in knowable and unknowable beforehand. It's only possible for an entity that is omniscient. The unknowable is strong related to hypothetical entities, to metaphysics and it's very interesting to try to apply the scientific method on it. It's Oscam's razor that lead to the idea of complex numbers isn't it? With an imaginary part.

 

Solipsism

It's also strange to declare reality unknowable. Understanding reality should not require knowledge about what is real. Bye bye solipsists! It's an assumption to state such a relationship. O, this is off-topic, too?

 

___

Off-topic: I found an interesting paradox about the negative side of omniscience in game theory on WikiPedia:

Omniscience is also studied in game theory, where it is not necessarily an advantageous quality if one's omniscience is a published fact. For example, in the game of chicken: two people each drive a car towards the other. The first to swerve to avoid a collision loses. In such a game, the optimal outcome is to have your opponent swerve. The worst outcome is when nobody swerves. But if A knows that B is in fact omniscient, then A will simply decide to never swerve since A knows B will know A's logical decision and B will be forced to swerve to avoid a collision - this is assuming each player is logical and follows optimal strategy.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I believe that flying objects that could not be identifed have been seen.

 

In that sense I believe in UFOs.

 

I think it's possible that some of these UFOs are from other planets, but I have seen no proof of this, so I withhold judgement on that aspect of UFOs.

[Eudaimonist]

I believe that flying objects that could not be identifed have been seen.

 

In that sense I believe in UFOs.

 

I think it's possible that some of these UFOs are from other planets, but I have seen no proof of this, so I withhold judgement on that aspect of UFOs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ditto, though I would say that I "withhold belief" rather than "withhold judgment". I've made the judgment that the evidence just isn't enough to firmly establish the claim that UFOs are actually from other planets. I am willing to revise this judgment if more evidence comes in.

[white_raven23]

I have to side with my little friend Calvin on this one.

 

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin & Hobbes

 

 

Now as for being observed by E.T.s, sure that's possible, and I'm willing to buy that perhaps we've caught the occasional accidental glimpse of a watcher or two (not the same thing as "contact").

 

But as for actual contact......I'm pretty doubtful about that.

[Skankboy]

I guess I believe in the possibility that unexplained UFO's might be alien in origin. But I personally doubt it based on insufficient evidence to show it as true. So I guess I'm the opposite in that I don't believe something true until it's been proven (to a satisfactory degree) and not the other way around.

[Ouroboros]

From TJR666 to Hans Solo on your questions about UFO’s:

 

What do I understand as a UFO (“Unidentified Flying Object”): Firstly, they are classified as “unidentified”; if they were “identified”, then they would no longer be a UFO. Next, they are classified as “flying”; they appear to be atmospheric, between the Earth and space, though since they are unidentified, there is nothing to preclude the possibility that a UFO could be observed outside the atmosphere or on the ground (not “flying”). Next, they are classified as an “object”; they appear to have substance; they appear to be something.

True. I'm sorry that I wasn't more specific in my first question, because I actually intended it to be Alien UFOs.

 

Most UFOs that have been seen, of ordinary nature, have been explained by natural phenomena, and are not considered “unidentified” anymore. So what’s left are the ones that can’t be explain, and is usually (by ardent followers) to be of extraterrestrial nature.

 

Do UFO’s exist? Yes, it is reasonable to believe so. There are just simply too many reports of UFO’s from too many people from many cultures all over the world to say otherwise. Sightings date back many centuries, though there appears to have been an explosion of sightings in the last 50 years or so. Most sighting of alleged UFO’s can be explained (aircraft, stars, comets, hoaxes, etc); a small percentage of sightings cannot be explained.

Ok.

 

Have I witnessed anything I would call a UFO? No.

 

Re-quoting your argument:

Proposition 1: No one has proved that UFO’s don’t exist.

Proposition 2: All propositions that have not been disproved are true.

Conclusion: It is reasonable to conclude that UFO’s do exist.

 

I believe that it should be the other way around:

Proposition 1: All propositions that have not been disproved are true.

Proposition 2: No one has proved that UFO’s don’t exist.

Conclusion: It is reasonable to conclude that UFO’s do exist.

In logic the order of propositions doesn’t change the argument or its meaning.

A+B=C equates to B+A=C.

 

On proposition 1: “All propositions that have not been disproved are true”.

This is your basic premise. I will agree that all propositions that have not been disproved are true, but I will add only until a proof comes along that proves a proposition not to be true.

That’s wrong. That’s what is called the “Appeal to ignorance” fallacy.

 

The mere fact that a proposition hasn’t been proven, just by itself, is no reason to think it false. Likewise, the mere fact that a proposition hasn’t been disproved, just by itself, is no reason to think it true.

 

It would mean that it is true that the Loch Ness monster must exist, and extraterrestrial aliens, Santa Claus and his elves, cold fusion and N-rays too.

 

Based on this premise:

 

On proposition 2: “No one has proved that UFO’s don’t exist”.

In saying this, you appear to be taking the affirmative proposition (ie, “That UFO’s do exist”) as opposed to the negative proposition (ie, “That UFO’s don’t exist”).

That’s because the construct of the argument was made in what is called the “positive form”, to be compared to the negative form:

 

P1) No one has proved that UFOs exists.

P2) All unproven propositions are false

C) It is reasonable to conclude that UFOs do not exist

And this is just as wrong, since the second proposition claims something that is unreasonable.

 

My point is that you have argued evolution vs. creationism based on a fallacy, and specifically the “positive form” of it. What I wanted to say is that not-knowing is not that same as knowing something. By not knowing if there is a God or not, doesn’t immediately approve the argument that God have to exist, and the same for evolution and creationism. Creationism is not immediately proven by the fact it has not been un-proven, and the same for evolution. You dismiss evolution based on holes, but approve creationism based on the holes in evolution.

 

This is your argument:

P1) Creationism has not been proven

P2) All unproven propositions are true

C1) It is reasonable to conclude that Creationism is true

 

Can it be proved that UFO’s do not in fact exist? How would we prove something doesn’t exist? To do so would mean that a person would need to have complete knowledge of all time and space, and any and all other dimensions to know for sure that UFO’s do not exist. It is ultimately impossible then to prove something doesn’t exist. Thus, based on this observation:

 

Your conclusion: Therefore, “It is reasonable to conclude that UFO’s exist”.

Since ultimately it is impossible to prove that UFO’s don’t exist, and since there remains reasonable and reliable evidence of unexplained sightings, then it is reasonable to conclude that UFO’s, whatever they are, exist.

The point is that it is not so. Just because we can’t prove it either way, doesn’t make them exist or not. We can have opinions, but since we can’t prove, it’s completely arbitrary if you want to believe in them or not, but the logical argument won’t support such a claim.

 

So, to answer your first question: “Do I believe in UFO’s, or am I a believer in non-UFO’s?” As I said, it is reasonable to conclude that UFO’s, whatever they are, do in fact exist.

 

Your second question “Is non-belief still considered a belief in this situation?” and your third question “If I don’t believe in UFO’s, could I supply my argument and proof to my belief in Non-UFO’s?” are thus basically answered also. Whilst ever the phenomenon of UFO’s remains unidentified, then we can never know for sure what they are, and for people to believe that they are space ships with little green men in them is surely pure speculation.

Since I meant to refer to UFOs as the kind with aliens in them (my mistake not to make it clear from the beginning), it is speculation like you say. And the same goes for Creationism and the existence of God. This is pure speculation and not logically conclusive.

 

You accept UFOs but not space aliens, but they fall into the same logical (or illogical) argument. Since space aliens have not been disproved, they conclusively from your standpoint above must exist just as well. And if you decide not to believe in them, then it’s a complete arbitrary and emotional decision that you make.

 

TJR666

 

My argument here is that you want God, Creationism and Intelligent Design to be true, based on this fallacy, while you refuse to accept Evolution, Abiogenesis or Big Bing based on contradicting your own fallacy.

 

You say Abiogenesis can’t be true, since there are no proofs, while Intelligent Design is true since it also doesn’t have any proofs.

 

When it comes to Evolution and Big Bang there are, though not complete, evidence that points to that direction. So Evolution and Big Bang is not unsupported claims, but have a least truckloads of data to make you convinced that is not pure speculations in the dark, and have been found reasonable and of high probability to be true, beyond just a logical arguments.

 

So where’s your logic?

[Ouroboros]

Belief

I don't believe in UFO's. If I would state "I believe in UFO's" it would be in dubitative mood, or even hypothetical mood. The proposition I consider as counterfactual but otherwise possible.

Like you say, it's based on belief and not factual evidence, nor is it a logical correct assumption to argue the existence of aliens/UFOs based on our un-knowledge of them.

 

Truth

I disagree with this: "All propositions that have not been disproved are true."

I do to, and that’s what I wanted to show, and that's why it's considered a rhetorical fallacy.

 

To make an absolute statement that something is true or false just because of lack of knowledge is considered a plea to people’s ignorance, instead of their knowledge.

 

That's why we can't conclude the existence of God, nor can we conclude the Non-existence of God. It can only be argued from our opinions and conceptions. (And this is the foundation for agnosticism.)

 

(snip)

Solipsism

It's also strange to declare reality unknowable. Understanding reality should not require knowledge about what is real. Bye bye solipsists! It's an assumption to state such a relationship. O, this is off-topic, too?

Maybe not... This thread could become a discussion of logic and epistemology.

 

My intent was to show the illogical assumption based on ignorance in statements that were made in the Knowledge thread.

[Ouroboros]

I can see that the thread is spinning off in a direction to discuss UFOs in general, which wasn't my intent of the topic. But hey, it's okay anyway. You actually are proving my point.

 

ET UFOs might exist or they might not. If there's proof for them, good then they exist, if there's proof they don't exist (which is a mundane and close to impossible treat), then they don't exist. But we can't conclude their existence based on the lack of evidence, but we have opinions and "believe" one way or the other. But neither side can claim the absolute truth about it.

[Skankboy]

But we can't conclude their existence based on the lack of evidence, but we have opinions and "believe" one way or the other. But neither side can claim the absolute truth about it.

 

Precisely. Evolution doesn't claim absolute knowlege, that the creationist argument. With all of the evidence I've had the opportunity to review, evolution is the most likely explaination and so I go w/that.

[EdwardAbbey]

I don't necessarily believe in their existence but I think they are more believable than imaginary gods and ghosts and some imaginary fairytale afterlife.

[Guest Joseph]

Do UFO's exist?

 

Yes.

 

"Unidentified Flying Objects."

 

Do little green/gray sentient life from another world fly around our planet in some form of vehicle?

 

I do not believe so.

There is no demonstrated evidence of it and what some label as "demonstrated" is nothing more than falsified and/or generated by idiots/fanatics.

 

Due to the immense distances of space even to our closest relative star it would take an exceptional amount of time for a vehicle to reach our planet. And even once here if they were to have traveled near the speed of light it would be a one-way-trip for them (their world would have aged to the point to be non-relative to their existence type more or less). It would be almost like Columbus pulling into port here were they to return to their home world (if it even survived the immense time they were gone which could be thousands of years to their home world due to time dilation).

 

While I understand that a prime directive might exist for very advanced civilizations, it see little point in such civilizations allowing us (less evolved/advanced) have evidence of their existence. I also think that it is much more likely that we would find radio-waves demonstrating the existence of another world more-so than a type of visitation and for this reason I support projects philosophically like the SETI project.

 

A search for extraterrestrial life is perhaps to question our own existence and to wonder if we are "alone" in all that is. Mathematically given very large percentages against the development of life on another world, we still find that the result comes that there is more than us in the cosmos because of the number of stars out there...the chance of another world having sentient life is very great. But the chance that another world has:

 

-sentient life

-life capable of developing technology (body type allowing advancement, opposable thumbs and other phisiological properies required).

-sentient life with technology existing in a type of political environment to allow advancement and exploration (remember our "dark ages?")

-sentient life capable of building vehicles that can travel through space and which might find our world in the vastness of it.

 

The most unlikely of all of these is the last one: that they would find us in the vastness of space. It is an exceptionally (incredibly beyond our imagination) large universe with an exceptionally large area to search.

 

Carl Sagan discusses such things in his book The Cosmic Conection and come to the conclusion that no sentient lifeforms of another world have visited us but does not rule out that they may (and probably do) exist. Sagan states, "My own view is that there are no cases that are simultaneously very reliable (reported independently by a large number of witneses) and very exotic (not explicable in terms of reasonably postulated phenomena-as a strange moving light could be a searchlight from a weather airplane or a military aerial refueling operations)."

 

He continues, "But to a person with an even mildly skeptical mind, the evidence is unconvincing. Because the significance of such a discovery would be so enormous, we must employ the most crtical reasoning and the most skeptical attitudes in approaching such data[data which speaks of the visitation of/from other worlds]." He concludes that, "The data do not pass such tests."

 

And I agree.

[Mike D]

As others have stated, I believe that some flying objects have not been identified, therefore UFO's exist. As for whether there is other intelligent life in the universe I believe the possibility exists, although possibilities are no substitute for evidence. That about sums it up for me....

[Ouroboros]

I soooo totally screwed up this topic. My intention was to discuss the validity of the logical (or illogical) argument itself, not necessarely UFOs per se. Bummer!

 

But hey, it's fun any-hoo.

 

So to get to the UFO thing. Y'all know about the Raelians, right?

 

-o-

-o-

 

Here is one of their sites, I think they like the Intelligent Design teachings too, but of course Abiogenesis is "Alien-genesis" instead.

http://www.rael.org/

[Mike D]

Oops, I just scanned through some of the other posts and threw my 2 cents in before reading really closely. My bad

[Isak The Newt]

Eh!?!?!?! Course UFO's exist, with an infinite universe comes an an infinite (or a finite answer, but very large one) of planets, and the likely hood of another planet have advanced evolved species that have managed to fly here are.. actually i dont know the odds on that one LOL . think what you will. But you will belieeeeve!!!!

 

 

another thought as occured to me as i was just about to press add reply... what if your "God" is an alien and we are experimental "Cyborgs" but not of mechanics, but bio-mechanics instead? O.o hmmmmm

[Ouroboros]

Oops, I just scanned through some of the other posts and threw my 2 cents in before reading really closely.  My bad

That's ok. My bad too , since I didn't name the topic right. So I'll let the discussion be open for the UFO discussio too.

[Ouroboros]

Eh!?!?!?! Course UFO's exist, with an infinite universe comes an an infinite (or a finite answer, but very large one) of planets, and the likely hood of another planet have advanced evolved species that have managed to fly here are.. actually i dont know the odds on that one LOL . think what you will. But you will belieeeeve!!!!

There are calculated estimates done for how many planets could have life. But I don't remember which book I had the formula in...

 

another thought as occured to me as i was just about to press add reply... what if your "God" is an alien and we are experimental "Cyborgs" but not of mechanics, but bio-mechanics instead? O.o hmmmmm

That's what the Raelians believe.

 

That DNA is a biological nanobot.

[Isak The Newt]

oh... thats what raelians believe... hehe, when u mentioned that above i had no clue what u meant!!! O.o heh... my poor typing is prob hurting ur eyes, ima try typing better now i guess out of randomness i want to type BETTER! Woot! Formal writing rocks! Yay! Puncuation, capitalization, everythings. Muahahah!!

 

edit:- Hahahaha "Everythings"

[TJR666]

When it comes to Evolution and Big Bang there are, though not complete, evidence that points to that direction. So Evolution and Big Bang is not unsupported claims, but have a least truckloads of data to make you convinced that is not pure speculations in the dark, and have been found reasonable and of high probability to be true, beyond just a logical arguments.

 

So where’s your logic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I follow (mostly) what you say here.

 

However, and there always seems to be a "however", what do you do when a particular key area of "evolution" (say the Big Bang, abiogenesis or biological evolution) finds itself in the position where there is also reasonable amounts of evidence showing that it is highly improbable that it is true?

 

What I am saying is this: Would you agree that both sides of the argument have access to exactly the same data, the same evidence?

 

Would you agree then that most people interpret and argue about this data according to their personal premises; their hidden beliefs?

 

Would you say then that people can (and often do) resist discarding their beliefs on a subject despite overwhelming evidence?

 

Our interpretation of the data, the evidence, all comes down to our personal beliefs, our free will; and I am no different.

 

It is my intention not to follow this thread Hans. You know where I am.

 

TJR666

[Kay]

What I am saying is this: Would you agree that both sides of the argument have access to exactly the same data, the same evidence?

 

This appears to be the determinative step. The plethora of 'facts' that were raised in opposition to evolution/abiogenesis in the 'Knowledge' thread have been soundly refuted. If this point cannot be satisfied, it is futile to explore the following questions.

 

Would you agree then that most people interpret and argue about this data according to their personal premises; their hidden beliefs?

 

You speak for yourself. It's insulting for others who have strived to be objective and impartial.

 

Would you say then that people can (and often do) resist discarding their beliefs on a subject despite overwhelming evidence?

 

Quote to my inerrant-bible ex-coworker: "so...you'll continue to believe what you believe despite evidence to the contrary."

 

Which is all fine. Just make sure you don't try to cloak your belief as 'fact'.

 

Our interpretation of the data, the evidence, all comes down to our personal beliefs, our free will; and I am no different.

 

Poor strawman.

[Eponymic]

I believe in waffles.

 

Preferrably waffles with strawberries & whipped cream.

[Ouroboros]

I follow (mostly) what you say here.

I apologize if I wasn’t clear enough. I’m trying my best. English is not my native language.

 

However, and there always seems to be a "however", what do you do when a particular key area of "evolution" (say the Big Bang, abiogenesis or biological evolution) finds itself in the position where there is also reasonable amounts of evidence showing that it is highly improbable that it is true? 

First of all, which has been discussed in the other thread, Evolution does NOT include abiogenesis or big bang. If you include that in Evolution then we should include all other existing scientific theories too, and then we have to conclude that medicine is wrong and non functional, cars won’t work, computers don’t work and we have no food in the stores. Everything you see and use today is based on scientific research, and if you claim evolution has to encompass more than it does, then we should let it encompass all.

 

There are still a lot of unanswered questions about Big Bang, and there scientist have become a bit “religious” that BB must be true. Some data can’t be incorporated in BB so some scientists actually are questioning it. And this is what makes science great, when data contradicts the theory; they start questioning and then modify the theory or discard it. You can’t say that about religion or creationism.

 

Abiogenesis is very abstract and hypothetical. But there are alternative explanations that don’t include “God”.

 

Evolution has an extreme amount of evidence and data to support it. Its theories are used on a daily basis in medical laboratories and research. To say evolution is false is like saying the car doesn’t have an engine. I’m sorry, but evolution is not an unfounded little religious idea from some conspiring scientists. If you think it is, it only shows how little you know about it.

 

What I am saying is this: Would you agree that both sides of the argument have access to exactly the same data, the same evidence?

We should have access to the same data, as far as I know.

 

Would you agree then that most people interpret and argue about this data according to their personal premises; their hidden beliefs?

“Hidden beliefs” sounds devious. I don’t think anyone is hiding their beliefs. I think you know where I stand, and I know where you stand and the same for scientists, so there’s no hiding going on.

 

Would you say then that people can (and often do) resist discarding their beliefs on a subject despite overwhelming evidence?

Yes and no. I do take in new data on a daily basis. And I do change my opinion on things now and then. I read and then I make a judgment if the data and interpretation sounds reasonable, without judging who’s saying it. I even read your arguments, and I’m not judging you incompetent in any way.

 

But the way you present this here, make me feel that You have a lot of mistrust in people and probably you think there is a conspiracy behind evolution, and somehow we’re in cahoots with each other to bring the Christian Church down. And that’s not the case. There’s no conspiracy.

 

I agree that even scientist can fall for following their beliefs rather then the evidence. I’m currently reading an interesting book about that subject.

 

Our interpretation of the data, the evidence, all comes down to our personal beliefs, our free will; and I am no different.

Agree. Your personal belief can stand in the way for retrieving and comprehending new data. Unless your belief is to keep an open mind, and not let your beliefs be in the way. I try to always keep that in mind and test myself that I’m not following my desire to be right instead of an open look at things from a new perspective.

 

It is my intention not to follow this thread Hans. You know where I am.

TJR666

Why? I’m disappointed. I wanted to discuss how reasonable it is to establish faith systems and beliefs on false logic. Darn it!

[white_raven23]

It is my intention not to follow this thread Hans. You know where I am.

 

TJR666

 

 

Is there a commandement I missed somewhere? "Thou Shalt Not Exist Beyond One Thread" ?

 

If the Mods decide to close the Knowledge topic......does this guy think he has to leave the forum or something?

 

Come on TJR!! The discussion in the other thread is tired and old. Can you talk about something else?

 

If creationism vs evolution theory is all you can talk about you must be a very boring date.

[Ouroboros]

And unfortunately he doesn't seem to have enough knowledge about Evolution either. So it might not be the best area to discuss for him.

 

I kind of like the guy, even if he's stubborn, at least he responds and keep it up.

 

Too many have come and gone without responding to the critique that was raised.