Maybe, I have no way of proving it. So ... you win.
Mars statue movie "Titled: More Rocks!"
- Thread starter extrasense
- Start date
Maybe, I have no way of proving it. So ... you win.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It is not a competition. It is not a question of winning or losing. Science is about determination of the facts and the reasons for those facts by careful, logical, rational observation, analysis and testing. On that basis the natural character of the 'Face on Mars', es's laughable statue, and geometric patterns in Cydonia, become powerfully evident.
Wishing for the exotic does not make it true.
Wishing for the exotic does not make it true.
extrasense
Registered Senior Member
Could you prove, that chances of all those oddities occuring at random, are more than 1 in 1000?
Unless and until somebody can, should not we keep mind open to the possibility that they were created intentionally?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Which specific oddities? But regardles, yes. One can readily demonstrate the odds are close to 100% that they will exist.
extrasense
Registered Senior Member
How is that calculated?
Mathematically? I can't.
Although biologists tell us small insignificant events led, over vast periods of time, to elementary self-replicating organisms.
The stranger thing is this though: the forces which blindly created the 'face on Mars' are the same ones which blindly worked together to create life.
The face on Mars is just as real as your face or mine, or anyone's that one meets in one's life. It's an illusion created by material organized by empty, unwilled energies.
The trick comes in not being deluded into thinking it's anything more.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It isn't calculated. It is demonstrated by experiment. This afternoon, just after posting that statement I went for a walk of 200m along the banks of a river estuary. There were approximately fifteen logs which had been washed down the river. One of these was exactly like the heads and forelimbs of an ichthyosaur,right down to the details of the eye socket. That's one hit out of just fifteen random logs. I - or anyone else so inclined - can go out and do the same things with logs, clouds, scorch patterns on moorland, rock faces, tree bark. Anything at all. You will get hits after examining only a small number.
If you have failed to notice this before I suggest it is a failure of your imagination. You seem to believe that suspecting there is evidence of advanced civilisation on Mars is imaginative. I rather think it demonstrates a failure of imagination.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I think you misunderstood. You had earlier said this:
As I have demonstrated in my prior post the statisitcial likelihood of formations that mimic 'other things' is a certainty. The odds of life forming spontaneously are simply not known. Therefore to compare an unknown odss (abiogenesis) with a certainty (patterns appearing in random nature) and even to claim it is more likely is just foolish.
Should we also keep our minds open to the possibility that it's actually a nest built by the (so far undiscovered) interstellar-migrating Lesser-spotted Woo-woo Bird?
Since we have no evidence to suggest that there ever was anyone on Mars to create things intentionally why should it be considered?
Of course, it's possible, but not worth consideration on the available data.
You demonstrated no such thing.
Prove it.
Life never formed spontaneously. You obviously have never read a book on evolution.
Your talking about the same thing but are too blind to see it.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Well of course, if you are not willing to accept my word that I was able to identify an apparent animal form in one of fifteen randomly selected logs then what can I say. This is a simple, practical experiment that can be duplicated by any sighted person, even if they lack scientific training. The vast majority of individuals who undertook such an experiment would, I predict, have much the same findings. This would match, not surprisingly, a huge volume of work by cognitive psychologists. And no, I am not going to go through the literature to find you examples of this. Go do your own book research. The data and the findings are there for anyone who is not blind. You have an attitude problem that I have no intention of pandering to.
Several points emerge here. In no particular order:
1) I suspect I have read considerably more books on evolution than you have and that is without considering extensive undergraduate work in palaeontology. (Besides, while books are quite good for getting a broad picture of almost current conventional thinking they should be supplemented with a generous helping of recent research papers. What have you read in this line recently that caught your attention?)
2) Why would you read a book on evolution to learn about abiogenesis? While the two are related they are different disciplines. The overlap is small.
3) To say life did not form spontaneously can mean two things. Only one of these is scientific. i.e. Life arises as a consequence of natural laws and as such is a predictable and inevitable outcome in the correct environment. Did you mean the other one?
Ad hominem alert - attention moderators - insult follows
I think your name was an apt choice.....keeping it in the singular like that.
Anyone who thinks the forces which created life are different from those which create any natural phenomena is not a scientist.
Your post is pompous irrelevant drivel.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I take it that means you cannot
a) Answer any of the questions I have posed.
b) Are unable to answer simple logic
c) Respond aggresively when defeated
I'll give you another chance. Just answer this one simple question. "Why would you read a book on evolution to learn about abiogenesis?"
Why would you think abiogenesis processes constitute life?
My advice is to be more careful with your adjectives in future.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
At no time have I suggested that abiogenesis processes constitute life. The process of abiogenesis leads to life. I apologise for this subtle distinction that will not be readily apparent to a non-native English speaker such as yourself.
Do you like to parade your ignorance? Do you understand historical context? Do you recognise the relevance of initial conditions? Treat these as rhetorical questions, or I can save you the bother. Your answers are Yes. No. No.
Pasteur demonstrated that common forms of complex life could not arise spontaneously in a sterile environment. Abiogenesis does not posit the creation of common forms of complex life in a sterile environment. Pasteur's experiments do not falsify the concept of abiogenesis.
Now I don't know you from Adam. Apparently you are a creationist. Worse than that you are a rather proletarian creationist, rehashing tired old arguments without a hint of novelty. Worse still you have adopted that particular rhetorical style that pretends a superior grasp of everything, when the grasp is the last clutch at a straw. So, let me ask, just what do you feel you achieve by spouting cut and paste arguments you don't understand, while responding to posts you cannot comprehend, with an intellectual capacity that wants for nothing other than an intellect?
Instead of apologizing for your abject failure to say anything of relevance or even to understand what you are attempting to say let alone using the correct words to say it, why don't you do yourself a favor and go and read upon probability theory?
Alternatively, take your cabbage brain to the pseudoscience forum and stay there.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Your debating technique is interesting, if a little transparent: Avoid all contact with reality. Address none of the points raised in other posts. Answer no question asked. Throw out comments intended to be patronising.
I look forward to receiving my first infraction for forum stalking. Thank you in adavance for the role you will play in that.
I look forward to receiving my first infraction for forum stalking. Thank you in adavance for the role you will play in that.
This debate was only ever about probability.
I barely had to do any work, you hung your own ass out to dry on this one.
Don't thank that which will devour you.
For what I am about to receive I am truly grateful.
Honestly guys, arguing with Ophiolite here about evolution is like arguing with Einstein about special relativity.
The only reason I remain optimistic about the possibility of life on Mars from the past and even U.S/Russians currently, is I think that any country that is a nuclear power, absolutely lies and hides evidence from general science, general public. That programs like NASA and ESA are white budget filters to smokescreen the colossal black budgets out there and technology created/discovered from it. Impossible to prove by scientific standards.
The only reason I remain optimistic about the possibility of life on Mars from the past and even U.S/Russians currently, is I think that any country that is a nuclear power, absolutely lies and hides evidence from general science, general public. That programs like NASA and ESA are white budget filters to smokescreen the colossal black budgets out there and technology created/discovered from it. Impossible to prove by scientific standards.
So the method of determining an ancient civilisation must have built an enormous statue of something on Mars, is based on what evidence?
On no particular observation other than a picture of some rocks?
There are interesting rock formations everywhere; the OT cities of Sodom and Gomorrah must have existed for those who believe that geological formations in the desert don't just look like 'petrified' buildings, they are petrified buildings - what else could they be since they look so much like buildings?
(They also look like volcanic plugs that have weathered in a particular way over tens of millions of years, but since the earth is only 6000 years old, then God is obviously testing our faith.)
P.S nearly forgot - many indigenous peoples assign personalities to rock formations (if they resemble the shape of a head or a body, or some animal), so here in NZ, we have "Lion Rock" out at a beach which does look a lot like a crouching lion (lions aren't indigenous, this geological personalisation is strictly a European one); there's a rock formation on the summit of a range of hills (the Kaimanawas, just east of my uncle's dairy farm) that looks like an old lady sitting up there really still (motionless actually), and that's its indigenous name.
Up close, it's a rock formation.
On no particular observation other than a picture of some rocks?
There are interesting rock formations everywhere; the OT cities of Sodom and Gomorrah must have existed for those who believe that geological formations in the desert don't just look like 'petrified' buildings, they are petrified buildings - what else could they be since they look so much like buildings?
(They also look like volcanic plugs that have weathered in a particular way over tens of millions of years, but since the earth is only 6000 years old, then God is obviously testing our faith.)
P.S nearly forgot - many indigenous peoples assign personalities to rock formations (if they resemble the shape of a head or a body, or some animal), so here in NZ, we have "Lion Rock" out at a beach which does look a lot like a crouching lion (lions aren't indigenous, this geological personalisation is strictly a European one); there's a rock formation on the summit of a range of hills (the Kaimanawas, just east of my uncle's dairy farm) that looks like an old lady sitting up there really still (motionless actually), and that's its indigenous name.
Up close, it's a rock formation.
Last edited: