First of all, learn to properly format a Usenet post. Your
attributation
marks are messed up.
On Jan 3, 2:32Â am, "crying tooth"
nospam.net> wrote:> "Andre Lieven"
wrote in message
>
> news:8bfe851d-f679-4f83-a90b-49c5f4d2c2dd@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 2, 10:17 pm, "crying tooth" nospam.net> wrote:
>>> "Immortalist"
yahoo.com> wrote in message>
>
>>> I agree basically but I wonder what would constitute evidence that
>>> could determine the issue?
>
>> There was a report of an asteroid that showed fossils and traces of life
>> from a source other than Earth, but you never really know what to believe,
>> was this a hoax?
>
> Duh, yes. No one's ever landed on an asteroid, and if one landed here,
> well, its dinosaur extinction time again, but with us playing the
> dino's role. So, this one is flat out BAD fiction.
>
> Asteroid may be the wrong word,
No, asteroid IS the wrong word. No doubt about it.
> it was a small lump of rock. Â It was
> documented on several quite reputed news sites.
YOUR claim, YOUR burden of proof.
>> There are documented stories of ex government workers that
>> state categorically that aliens do exist. Again, a hoax? Mentally ill?
>
> Yes.
> Again, these are documented on reputed news sites along with photos of so
> called aliens.
Wrong ! These are BADLY made up stories, full of holes, and
verified by NO ONE with scientific training to make such a
determination.
The checkout stand rags are NOT providers of actual and truthful news.
>> Some state categorically that they have seen or spoken to the Christian
>> God, Jesus, Thor or whoever - again a hoax? Mentally ill?
>
> Yes.
> Would be more inclined to agree that these are mentally ill or delusional.
> They can never back up stories with anything other than their imagination.
The same for alien abductees, 9/11 conspiracy wingnuts, and so on.
" Go peddle crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here ".
Melvin ( Jack Nicholson ), " As Good As It Gets ".
>> As there is really no answer right now, it is best to have an open mind.
>
> No, its *always* best to have a skeptical mind. One should always be
> aware of what is already scientifically established, and one should then
> examine any
> new claims with one eye to how well they do, or do not fit in with
> what there is already a long chain of peer reviewed evidence for.
>
>> The evidence that would determine the issue would simply be one that all
>> agree upon. As long as there is dissent, then there is no final answer.
>
> Wrong. Mindless and factless dissent changes the facts, not one whit.
>
> What some consider are facts, others question.
And, if they have NO rational basis for the questioning, thats not
inquiry, thats stubborn denial. That means *nothing* to the facts.
>Â Just because a majority
> opinion says so and a book to go with it does not make it necessarily true.
Just because a deluded and stubborn minority says no, doesn't mean
that their view is not idiotic garbage.
Science delivers knowledge and understanding. No other method
succeeds in doing that.
Andre
