So just because there is one of something that automatically means that there are more somewhere else and that it's unreasonable to believe otherwise?

 

 

 

Although we assume that life, as well as liquid water, is not unique to Earth, we are not making an assertion that cannot be disproved.

 

 

 

On the other hand, claiming an unknown and unseen feature of Earth makes it unique in bearing life and/or water is an assertion that cannot be disproved.

 

 

 

This is what I mean about the two-way streets. It's like your beliefs are selected at random because the arguments supporting them can easily go both ways. You are asking us for proof that there are no aliens out there - how do you expect us to prove a non-existence? Isn't it much easier to prove the existence?

Oh my god people, this is a bunch of [cabbage]. Does only America attract 'aliens'?

So just because there is one of something that automatically means that there are more somewhere else and that it's unreasonable to believe otherwise?

 

The probability of Earth being the only life-bearing planet in the universe is so astronomically small that it would indeed be very unreasonable to believe in such a claim. Unless, of course, there is a particular feature of Earth that makes it unique in bearing life. This is the core of the "alien" argument.

 

 

 

It's like your beliefs are selected at random because the arguments supporting them can easily go both ways. You are asking us for proof that there are no aliens out there - how do you expect us to prove a non-existence? Isn't it much easier to prove the existence?

 

I am not asking for you to prove the non-existence of aliens, I am asking for you to prove that the Earth is unique in bearing life. The (non-)existence of aliens will logically follow.

 

 

 

The notion that Earth and/or its inhabitants originated in a fashion unlike any other planet in the universe -- allowing it and only it to bear life -- is a positive assertion, and it is on this side that the burden of proof rests.

 

 

 

Perhaps I am being close minded, though. Perhaps the burden of proof lies on neither side, since it can be interpreted that neither claim (about whether or not the Earth is unique) is any more or less of an assertion than the other. Maybe this is what you are getting at with the whole "two-way lane" thing.

So just because there is one of something that automatically means that there are more somewhere else and that it's unreasonable to believe otherwise?

 

The probability of Earth being the only life-bearing planet in the universe is so astronomically small that it would indeed be very unreasonable to believe in such a claim. Unless, of course, there is a particular feature of Earth that makes it unique in bearing life. This is the core of the "alien" argument.

 

 

 

It's like your beliefs are selected at random because the arguments supporting them can easily go both ways. You are asking us for proof that there are no aliens out there - how do you expect us to prove a non-existence? Isn't it much easier to prove the existence?

 

I am not asking for you to prove the non-existence of aliens, I am asking for you to prove that the Earth is unique in bearing life. The (non-)existence of aliens will logically follow.

 

 

 

The notion that Earth and/or its inhabitants originated in a fashion unlike any other planet in the universe -- allowing it and only it to bear life -- is a positive assertion, and it is on this side that the burden of proof rests.

 

 

 

Perhaps I am being close minded, though. Perhaps the burden of proof lies on neither side, since it can be interpreted that neither claim (about whether or not the Earth is unique) is any more or less of an assertion than the other. Maybe this is what you are getting at with the whole "two-way lane" thing.

 

 

 

 

 

Can you prove it isn't? (The bolded section)

 

 

 

And it comes down too: we both have evidence to support our claims - and niether of us will accept it. You most likely won't accept that my reason is the Bible. And yours is probablility. Which is a fatal flaw (no offence) but, just because something is probable, doesn't mean it WILL happen. Now, in most cases it will, but in some it won't, which is why it's called probable, not inevitable. But as you can see, in my opinion the Bible is an excellent source, because of my religion, and your "religion" in a sense, is math\science. But 'technically' niether of us can solve it with hard empiracle (sp?) evidence.

 

 

 

Good discussion though. o.O

Just because it's written in the Bible doesn't mean it is right either, even if you choose to believe in it. There is no conclusive evidence in the Bible to suggest aliens do not exist, just an interpretation that God made the Earth the only place capable of sustaining life.

 

 

 

The Bible has no proof. Scientists don't have proof. Therefore there is a vacuum of knowledge, and neither side can make a positive assertion. Hence, "Aliens do/don't exist" is a stupid statement to make.

 

 

 

What scientists do know however is the basic necessities of life, and they are coming closer and closer to finding these necessities on other planets. Hence, it is probable there is life out there, no matter how primitive, but we have no evidence to confirm that.

They could exist, but not as in the movies. That is just too unrealistic.

Oh my god people, this is a bunch of [cabbage]. Does only America attract 'aliens'?

 

Err, no. There are sightings all around the world. America's are the ones people make a big deal out of.

Can you prove it isn't [unique]?

 

No more than I can prove to you that the Flying Pink Unicorn and Bigfoot doesn't exist. Usually, though, the burden of proof lies on the party making the assertion.

 

 

 

And yours is probablility. Which is a fatal flaw (no offence) but, just because something is probable, doesn't mean it WILL happen. Now, in most cases it will, but in some it won't, which is why it's called probable, not inevitable.

 

Say you're gambling $100, and probability tells you that you have a 1 x 10 ^-100 percent chance of winning the next round. In such a scenario, it would be extremely unreasonable to believe that you WILL win, based on the odds. That amounts to a:

 

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of winning.

 

 

 

There is a chance that you will win, but, given the odds, it certainly isn't a bet worth gambling on. Although losing may not be completely inevitable, betting on such low odds would go against all sense of reason and logic.

 

 

 

But as you can see, in my opinion the Bible is an excellent source, because of my religion, and your "religion" in a sense, is math\science. But 'technically' niether of us can solve it with hard empiracle (sp?) evidence.

 

 

 

Good discussion though. o.O

 

The Bible is a poor source of information concerning the origin of Earth and its inhabitants. Literal interpretations of the Bible explain the fictional history of Earth just as Lord of the Rings explains the fictional history of Middle Earth. But this isn't a discussion about fantasy...

 

 

 

And science is not a religion.

 

 

 

Hence, "Aliens do/don't exist" is a stupid statement to make.

 

No different from the claim that "God does/doesn't exist," or that "The Flying Spaghetti Monster does/doesn't exist." Of course, a mere lack of proof does not mean we should be calling such statements stupid. Is it stupid to suggest that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist? :lol:

Can you prove it isn't [unique]?

 

No more than I can prove to you that the Flying Pink Unicorn and Bigfoot doesn't exist. Usually, though, the burden of proof lies on the party making the assertion.

 

 

 

And yours is probablility. Which is a fatal flaw (no offence) but, just because something is probable, doesn't mean it WILL happen. Now, in most cases it will, but in some it won't, which is why it's called probable, not inevitable.

 

Say you're gambling $100, and probability tells you that you have a 1 x 10 ^-100 percent chance of winning the next round. In such a scenario, it would be extremely unreasonable to believe that you WILL win, based on the odds. That amounts to a:

 

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of winning.

 

 

 

There is a chance that you will win, but, given the odds, it certainly isn't a bet worth gambling on. Although losing may not be completely inevitable, betting on such low odds would go against all sense of reason and logic.

 

 

 

But as you can see, in my opinion the Bible is an excellent source, because of my religion, and your "religion" in a sense, is math\science. But 'technically' niether of us can solve it with hard empiracle (sp?) evidence.

 

 

 

Good discussion though. o.O

 

The Bible is a poor source of information concerning the origin of Earth and its inhabitants. Literal interpretations of the Bible explain the fictional history of Earth just as Lord of the Rings explains the fictional history of Middle Earth. But this isn't a discussion about fantasy...

 

 

 

And science is not a religion.

 

 

 

Hence, "Aliens do/don't exist" is a stupid statement to make.

 

No different from the claim that "God does/doesn't exist," or that "The Flying Spaghetti Monster does/doesn't exist." Of course, a mere lack of proof does not mean we should be calling such statements stupid. Is it stupid to suggest that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist? :lol:

 

 

 

It is an opinion if the bible is fictional or not. And also, I stated it the Bible wads *my* opinion. And science is a religion to some, if you really think about it. There's a term for it, but I forgot what it was. But what I meant was, your source I guess you culd say, that Aliens might exist is science, my source is the bible. I was just trying to show sources, and tbh, if it's not proven then it's usually an opinion in some cases. And I still don't understand, how is it not the burden of proof or whatever to be on both parties? Can you show proof God doesn't exist? Of course you can't, no one can, either because if you're a Christian, (or for any religion really) you believe that your God DOES exist. But if you don't believe in that religion, then you can't prove it doesn't, using your science, because science can't tell if God exists or not, only lay out theories. I don't know if thats confusing or not, I'm just trying to say, proof of burden is a two way street, no matter what. If you're in Math class, and you say that 2(2) - 4 is 0, you have to show proof, show your work. But if you were to say it isn't, you'd also have to show how it wasn't. Does that make sense? People say I make really crappy analogies. :(

It is an opinion if the bible is fictional or not.

 

The belief in, say, Young Earth Creationism, is also an "opinion." Of course, that does not necessarily mean it has any basis in reality!

 

 

 

Likewise, a literal interpretation of the Bible -- in such a manner that Genesis is seen as a credible "source" to explain the true origin of life on Earth -- has no basis in reality.

 

 

 

And science is a religion to some, if you really think about it. There's a term for it, but I forgot what it was.

 

Um... 'Not-A-Religion'?

 

 

 

religion - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=religion

 

1. (n) a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny

 

2. (n) an institution to express belief in a divine power

 

 

 

And I still don't understand, how is it not the burden of proof or whatever to be on both parties? Can you show proof God doesn't exist?

 

The burden of proof tends to rest on the party making the assertion (such as "God exists" or "Bigfoot exists"). It is a logical fallacy to "switch" the burden of proof, as you did above.

 

 

 

If you're in Math class, and you say that 2(2) - 4 is 0, you have to show proof, show your work. But if you were to say it isn't, you'd also have to show how it wasn't. Does that make sense?

 

Mathematics is an abstract system based on fixed rules. As per these rules, 1 + 1 is equal to 2. Thus, if somebody claims that 1 + 1 is equal to 0, not only would they be incorrect, but a rather large burden of proof would rest on their side to prove their claim. The proof supporting 1 + 1 = 2 already exists in the equation (as it follows the rules set by mathematics).

 

 

 

The existence of god, unlike math, is not based on a system of fixed rules. It's based on the claim that "something" exists which we have not empirically observed.

 

 

 

Are you familiar with the analogy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Now a cliché, I'll admit, but it drives the point home. Basically, the claim is that the Earth was created by a 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' with the touch of His Noodly Appendage. Asburd, no? The burden of proof, in this case, rightly lies on the party making such an assertion (those claiming that the FSM exists). Switching the burden of proof with "Show me proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist!" would be a logical fallacy. Simply doubting the FSM's existence does not mean the burden of proof rests on us to disprove the claim!

 

 

 

(Of course, it is impossible to use empirical evidence to disprove a non-observed entity.)

 

 

 

Here is more info on the Burden of Proof Fallacy:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... proof.html

The probability of Earth being the only life-bearing planet in the universe is so astronomically small that it would indeed be very unreasonable to believe in such a claim. Unless, of course, there is a particular feature of Earth that makes it unique in bearing life. This is the core of the "alien" argument.

 

 

 

Does it really just boil down to the mathematical probability when determining if there is life out there? Sorry but to me I think it should be a bit deeper than that. In my opinion it's like trying to explain our emotions, feelings, and consciousnesses with linear math or logic. Sure, it can help you grasp a better understanding of how things work but there are still always going to be mysteries about. Kind of reminds me how "the meaning of life is 42". :lol:

 

 

 

Anyways, onto my main point: Just because we have observed something (our existence) doesn't necessarily mean there has to be more of it elsewhere.

 

 

 

I am not asking for you to prove the non-existence of aliens, I am asking for you to prove that the Earth is unique in bearing life. The (non-)existence of aliens will logically follow.

 

 

 

Which is impossible to prove and I think we both know it.

 

 

 

Perhaps I am being close minded, though. Perhaps the burden of proof lies on neither side, since it can be interpreted that neither claim (about whether or not the Earth is unique) is any more or less of an assertion than the other. Maybe this is what you are getting at with the whole "two-way lane" thing.

 

 

 

Yes. :)

 

Does it really just boil down to the mathematical probability when determining if there is life out there? Sorry but to me I think it should be a bit deeper than that. In my opinion it's like trying to explain our emotions, feelings, and consciousnesses with linear math or logic.

 

 

 

You'd be surprised at how many phenomena/existance of certain conditions in our world can be explained by pure mathematical probability. The endless list includes weather, politics, sports results, earthquakes, floods, birth rate of humans/animals, etc.

 

 

 

If you have enough past and present data, you can calculate the possibility of anything almost precisely, and in the 21st century with computer models, it's even easier.

 

 

 

By probability theory, it seems pretty illogical the rate of intelligent life in the universe is at a 1:~, where 1 represents our planet as compared to an infinity of stars and stellar systems. It just hasn't been proven yet, but it's extremely likely there's other thinking creatures in the universe besides us.

I think Zierro's talking about the things that make us inexplicably human. The things that make us different from everything else. Consciousness, soul, whatever you want to call it - I don't think it can be explained mathematically.

[hide=]

It is an opinion if the bible is fictional or not.

 

The belief in, say, Young Earth Creationism, is also an "opinion." Of course, that does not necessarily mean it has any basis in reality!

 

 

 

Likewise, a literal interpretation of the Bible -- in such a manner that Genesis is seen as a credible "source" to explain the true origin of life on Earth -- has no basis in reality.

 

 

 

And science is a religion to some, if you really think about it. There's a term for it, but I forgot what it was.

 

Um... 'Not-A-Religion'?

 

 

 

religion - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=religion

 

1. (n) a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny

 

2. (n) an institution to express belief in a divine power

 

 

 

And I still don't understand, how is it not the burden of proof or whatever to be on both parties? Can you show proof God doesn't exist?

 

The burden of proof tends to rest on the party making the assertion (such as "God exists" or "Bigfoot exists"). It is a logical fallacy to "switch" the burden of proof, as you did above.

 

 

 

If you're in Math class, and you say that 2(2) - 4 is 0, you have to show proof, show your work. But if you were to say it isn't, you'd also have to show how it wasn't. Does that make sense?

 

Mathematics is an abstract system based on fixed rules. As per these rules, 1 + 1 is equal to 2. Thus, if somebody claims that 1 + 1 is equal to 0, not only would they be incorrect, but a rather large burden of proof would rest on their side to prove their claim. The proof supporting 1 + 1 = 2 already exists in the equation (as it follows the rules set by mathematics).

 

 

 

The existence of god, unlike math, is not based on a system of fixed rules. It's based on the claim that "something" exists which we have not empirically observed.

 

 

 

Are you familiar with the analogy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Now a cliché, I'll admit, but it drives the point home. Basically, the claim is that the Earth was created by a 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' with the touch of His Noodly Appendage. Asburd, no? The burden of proof, in this case, rightly lies on the party making such an assertion (those claiming that the FSM exists). Switching the burden of proof with "Show me proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist!" would be a logical fallacy. Simply doubting the FSM's existence does not mean the burden of proof rests on us to disprove the claim!

 

 

 

(Of course, it is impossible to use empirical evidence to disprove a non-observed entity.)

 

 

 

Here is more info on the Burden of Proof Fallacy:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... proof.html

[/hide]

 

 

 

Ok, show me the logic. You keep on saying 'logic dictates' but not giving any exact examples. Logic is ore then whatever you want it to be. Apparently, every thing you think is logical, and everything everyone else thins that differs is illogical, does that make any sense to you? And yes, Science is a religion to some. No not as in a 'supernatural' being, but as in they look or it to answer all their life questions, such as a religous persojn would look to their god. And there IS empiracle evidence to support God. ;) Now, it is on YOU to show me that there isn't. You're trying to disprove, so the burden of proof is on you. (There really is evidence.) Also, how is "origin of spiecies" then any different from the Bible? As in you're saying the Bible is a theory, well, so is Evolution, no matter what way you spin it.

 

 

 

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

 

2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

 

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

 

4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

 

5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

 

 

 

Those are the definitions of logic, fyi.

Ok, show me the logic. You keep on saying 'logic dictates' but not giving any exact examples. Logic is ore then whatever you want it to be. Apparently, every thing you think is logical, and everything everyone else thins that differs is illogical, does that make any sense to you?

 

I guess you aren't familiar with formal logic? :lol:

 

 

 

I'm using the term colloquially, though. The belief that Earth "just happens" to be the only planet bearing life goes beyond any sense of reason and logic.

 

 

 

For more on estimated probabilities:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

 

 

 

And yes, Science is a religion to some. No not as in a 'supernatural' being, but as in they look or it to answer all their life questions, such as a religous persojn would look to their god.

 

Some people may follow science religiously, but that does not make all of science a religion! :lol:

 

 

 

And there IS empiracle evidence to support God.

 

Please bring this evidence forth. You must show us the proof, rather than simply claim that you have it. ;)

 

 

 

Now, it is on YOU to show me that there isn't. You're trying to disprove, so the burden of proof is on you.

 

Until your claim is effectively proven, the burden of proof remains on your side. This is how the burden of proof works. The burden of proof is a well defined and well accepted logical* fallacy. EDIT: Oops! Typo..

 

 

 

It should also be noted that empirical evidence is not used to prove the non-existence of something. Empirical evidence is based on observation, and thus it would be impossible to observe something which does not exist!

 

 

 

Also, how is "origin of spiecies" then any different from the Bible? As in you're saying the Bible is a theory, well, so is Evolution, no matter what way you spin it.

 

Abiogenesis does not mean evolution. Abiogenetic models are well-defined and well-constructed scientific theories, most of which are supported by empirical evidence. The loose collection of beliefs presented by certain Bible-followers, on the other hand, are not scientific theories, nor are they supported by testable and credible scientific evidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

[hide=]venomai wrote:

 

Saruman44 wrote:

 

Ok, show me the logic. You keep on saying 'logic dictates' but not giving any exact examples. Logic is ore then whatever you want it to be. Apparently, every thing you think is logical, and everything everyone else thins that differs is illogical, does that make any sense to you?

 

 

 

I guess you aren't familiar with formal logic?

 

 

 

I'm using the term colloquially, though. The belief that Earth "just happens" to be the only planet bearing life goes beyond any sense of reason and logic.

 

 

 

For more on estimated probabilities:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

 

 

 

 

 

Saruman44 wrote:

 

And yes, Science is a religion to some. No not as in a 'supernatural' being, but as in they look or it to answer all their life questions, such as a religous persojn would look to their god.

 

 

 

Some people may follow science religiously, but that does not make all of science a religion!

 

 

 

 

 

Saruman44 wrote:

 

And there IS empiracle evidence to support God.

 

 

 

Please bring this evidence forth. You must show us the proof, rather than simply claim that you have it.

 

 

 

 

 

Saruman44 wrote:

 

Now, it is on YOU to show me that there isn't. You're trying to disprove, so the burden of proof is on you.

 

 

 

Until your claim is effectively proven, the burden of proof remains on your side. This is how the burden of proof works. The burden of proof is a well defined and well accepted fallacy.

 

 

 

It should also be noted that empirical evidence is not used to prove the non-existence of something. Empirical evidence is based on observation, and thus it would be impossible to observe something which does not exist!

 

 

 

 

 

Saruman44 wrote:

 

Also, how is "origin of spiecies" then any different from the Bible? As in you're saying the Bible is a theory, well, so is Evolution, no matter what way you spin it.

 

 

 

Abiogenesis does not mean evolution. Abiogenetic models are well-defined and well-constructed scientific theories, most of which are supported by empirical evidence. The loose collection of beliefs presented by certain Bible-followers, on the other hand, are not scientific theories, nor are they supported by testable and credible scientific evidence.[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

On the flip side:

 

 

 

I was just trying to see if someone on this forum knew what they were saying.

 

 

 

Also, you're obsvly not getting the point about science beign a religion, which is fine, I'll just move on.

 

 

 

And what do you mean by burden of proof is a well accepted fallacy? isn't that a contradiction? I mean, I guess not, but if it's a fallacy, then it's not true.

 

 

 

Scientists have found proof of certain miracles -

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Bible passage]10 The LORD threw them into confusion before Israel, who defeated them in a great victory at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the LORD hurled large hailstones down on them from the sky, and more of them died from the hailstones than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.

 

 

 

12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:

 

"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,

 

O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

 

 

 

13 So the sun stood still,

 

and the moon stopped,

 

till the nation avenged itself on [a] its enemies,

 

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

 

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

 

 

 

15 Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Proof]Joshua was concerned because he was surrounded by the enemy! And if darkness fell, they would overpower them. So Joshua asked the Lord to make the sun stand still! The sun stood still and the moon stayed and lasted not to go down about a whole day!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The astronauts and scientists said, There is the missing day! They checked the computers going back into the time it was written and found it was close but not close enough. The elapsed time that was missing back in Joshuas day was 23 hours and 20 minutesnot a whole day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They read the Bible. Isaiah spoke to the Lord, and the Lord brought the shadow ten degrees BACKWARD! Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes![/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

That's the main gist of it. If you just type into google "proof of sun standing still," you get a lot of websites. Which all say the same thing, a space program was calculating orbits to see stuff about their sateillites - but a day was MISSING in space. Nio one knew why, this guy oointed to the Bible, and in a verse, and it made perfect sense. Is that not evidence enough?

 

 

 

And fyi, a theory is a theory. A scientific theory is no different.

Well Tommorow is the Last day they will be here. Shure going to miss them :cry:

 

Also the bible says alot of thuings you know but (no Flaming) some of them is pure nonsense. I really do wish to see this proof of thi Missing Day. If you have a Link I would appreciated.

Just google "Proof of sun standingstill" and they're all the same story.

Just google "Proof of sun standingstill" and they're all the same story.

 

First result is snopes telling me it's false.

Just google "Proof of sun standingstill" and they're all the same story.

 

First result is snopes telling me it's false.

 

 

 

If the "Christianity is false" statements in the various threads around here were half as good as that article, we'd have awesome discussions. I loved the very last line, which is a lesson a lot of people could stand to learn around here.

And what do you mean by burden of proof is a well accepted fallacy? isn't that a contradiction? I mean, I guess not, but if it's a fallacy, then it's not true.

 

Science is not the same as religion.

 

 

 

The Burden of Proof fallacy is fairly easy to understand. If I make statement X, you say prove it with evidence X, I can't then tell you to make evidence Y against the initial statement. Why? Because if my assertion is "correct" (without having provided evidence X), there's no evidence for you to produce, so you just have two arguments, neither of which have evidence.

 

 

 

Just reverse the roles, and that's you and venomai. You may as well both be shouting "I'm right, you're wrong" at each other, and see who can say it the most times.

 

 

 

A scientific theory and a religious belief are different. A theory is only made after a sizeable amount of empirical evidence has been collected which places a strong argument to suggest the theory's accuracy. Anything else is a prediction, and is (rightly) disregarded by just about anyone who has actually studied the scientific method.

Well, we're halfway through October 17th. I guess this thread is void.

Well, we're halfway through October 17th. I guess this thread is void.

 

 

 

yes, there were actually less ufo sightings these three days :ohnoes:

 

 

 

the sightings have been covered up [/conspiracy theory]

 

 

 

:D

Hard to know if aliens ever did exist, chances are that there is other life, my estimate is 87%. Chances they've ever visited earth, my guess .0234%.

 

 

 

Thats my obviously inaccurate guess ;)