GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   more proof we are alone in the universe: scientists discover replica solar system 11 billion yrs old (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1160747)

dyna mo 02-09-2015 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20388168)
Dyna Mo thinks that because he hasn't been abducted and given a 50ft anal probe, that aliens must not exist..
This thread is for happy people, please stick to your debbie downer political bullshit thread(s) and don't sully mine up with your attempts at insult.

be happy sometimes. give it a whirl.

crockett 02-09-2015 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20388176)
This thread is for happy people, please stick to your debbie downer political bullshit thread(s) and don't sully mine up with your attempts at insult.

be happy sometimes. give it a whirl.
You always sully up my topics with your debbie downers, so I'm hear to see why you think out of the entire universe which is bigger than pretty much anyone can comprehend.. You somehow think there is no other intelligent life out there.

Oh and by the way, is it no intelligent life or just straight up no other life? Why is it you seem so sure of that fact? Is it because you haven't been given a alien butt probe or is it because of Jesus and stuff?

dyna mo 02-09-2015 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20388215)
You always sully up my topics with your debbie downers, so I'm hear to see why you think out of the entire universe which is bigger than pretty much anyone can comprehend.. You somehow think there is no other intelligent life out there.

Oh and by the way, is it no intelligent life or just straight up no other life? Why is it you seem so sure of that fact? Is it because you haven't been given a alien butt probe or is it because of Jesus and stuff?
this topic is for people interested in it. it's not a gotcha opportunity for you.

SuckOnThis 02-09-2015 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20387940)
it's certainly not proof we are not alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20387940)
more proof we are alone in the universe
Do you not understand the definition of the word 'proof'?

MiamiBoyz 02-09-2015 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoot twice (Post 20387097)
What I know is this :

The planet is a mess! We've got pollution, toxins, racism, spouse abuse,
cruelty to animals, crime, war, people starving to death in Africa and
people eating themselves to death in the USA... And the list goes on for pages
Indeed the list goes on and on...did you see the Grammys - Oh shit!

The existence of Kanye West proves there is no intelligent life on this planet.

dyna mo 02-09-2015 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20388324)
Do you not understand the definition of the word 'proof'?
Do you not understand what a thought-provoking thread looks like?

dyna mo 02-09-2015 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20388324)
Do you not understand the definition of the word 'proof'?
and I very much understand the definition of the word.



proof
pro͞of/Submit
noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation



now you go right ahead and let me know how you think I misused the term.

SuckOnThis 02-09-2015 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20388338)
Do you not understand what a thought-provoking thread looks like?
The only thing thought provoking is why someone over the age of 8 doesn't understand the basic concept of proof.

dyna mo 02-09-2015 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20388346)
The only thing thought provoking is why someone over the age of 8 doesn't understand the basic concept of proof.
anyone who understands the concept of science understands that it is fundamentally trial & error, mostly error. which means keeping an open mind is important.

So, I am open. Fill me in on how I misused the term.

Thanks in advance!

dyna mo 02-09-2015 05:55 PM
Should be extremely simple for you to explain, since it's a word an 8 year old understands.

Looking forward!

SuckOnThis 02-09-2015 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20388353)
anyone who understands the concept of science understands that it is fundamentally trial & error, mostly error. which means keeping an open mind is important.

So, I am open. Fill me in on how I misused the term.

Thanks in advance!
You seriously need someone to explain this to you or are you just bored?

Ok I'll play.

Here is an example of your logic with proof........

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Sept_2008.jpg

Proof that bears don't exist!

dyna mo 02-09-2015 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20388358)
You seriously need someone to explain this to you or are you just bored?

Ok I'll play.

Here is an example of your logic with proof........

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Sept_2008.jpg

Proof that bears don't exist!
:1orglaugh

that example actually proves I used the term right. You may have a problem with the logic, that's why you mistakenly used that example, and I couldn't give 1 single shit about that, but [re]read that definition and realize how wrong you are.


funny thing is people like you will flip your very same accusation when it comes to Evolution. Evolution is fact because why? It certainly has not been proven.

But what you are really revealing is your complete lack of understanding science at even the most basic level.


proof
pro͞of/Submit
noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

dyna mo 02-09-2015 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20388358)
Ok I'll play.[/B]
what's really sad is that this thread is chock full of interesting things to chime in on, instead you want to come at me over your not understanding what proof is.

OK.

But let's be clear, I'm playing with you, not the other way around. :1orglaugh:warning

dyna mo 02-09-2015 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20388346)
The only thing thought provoking is why someone over the age of 8 doesn't understand the basic concept of proof.
would you be torqued up if I used the term "evidence" instead of proof?

Because it is a synonym. Let me know if you also do not know what synonym means.

here's a blurb for you

"Proof" is something that the opponents of science are always clamouring for, yet is not actually something that science suggests it will give - specifically in the common sense definition of "proof" that suggests that a claim has been proven 100%.

With some theories its very difficult to not think of them as proven (Newton's laws of motion, for instance) which have always and will always describe objects within the limits of those theories. Science as a method, however, deals not in proof but in evidence, and perhaps disproof when the evidence contradicts a hypothesis.

crockett 02-09-2015 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20388358)
You seriously need someone to explain this to you or are you just bored?

Ok I'll play.

Here is an example of your logic with proof........

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Sept_2008.jpg

Proof that bears don't exist!
Dyna Mo just PM'ed me and said he can't believe that you were able to prove bears don't exist. He no longer knows what to call the fury things. He tried to call them dogs, but I told him they were aliens. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

dyna mo 02-09-2015 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20388378)
Dyna Mo just PM'ed me and said he can't believe that you were able to prove bears don't exist. He no longer knows what to call the fury things. He tried to call them dogs, but I told him they were aliens. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh
I can see how you could conclude that. But I will quickly explain to both of you why the example is invalid and makes no sense.

We know bears exist.



:1orglaugh

you 2 keep working together though, you might come up with something eventually. :thumbsup

SuckOnThis 02-09-2015 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20388385)
I can see how you could conclude that. But I will quickly explain to both of you why the example is invalid and makes no sense.

We know bears exist.



:1orglaugh
Aliens know they exist, therefore your thread is invalid and makes no sense.

SuckOnThis 02-09-2015 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20388378)
Dyna Mo just PM'ed me and said he can't believe that you were able to prove bears don't exist. He no longer knows what to call the fury things. He tried to call them dogs, but I told him they were aliens. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh
:1orglaugh

dyna mo 02-09-2015 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20388405)
Aliens know they exist, therefore your thread is invalid and makes no sense.
I see. You got in over your head. game over.

:)

dyna mo 02-09-2015 06:53 PM
You're prolly also confused re: what proof means in a legal setting, you know, with reasonable doubt and all. but I'll save that for another time, I'll give you a heads-up so you don't drown yourself so fast next time.

Bladewire 02-09-2015 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20388353)
anyone who understands the concept of science understands that it is fundamentally trial & error, mostly error.
Just something to add here. The fundamentals, or basics, of science are observation, replication and prediction, then you are taken to the applied sciences ( engineering outcomes ) where you use basic science data, the fundamentals, to create interventions that alter events or outcomes.

The Universe is 10 billion light years in diameter. Taking the Fermi Paradox into account, even though there statistically is abundant intelligent life out there, the probability of encountering it is astronomically low. Either you have faith in science, or religion, and both clearly indicate alien life exists.

SuckOnThis 02-09-2015 06:59 PM
More proof sharks don't exist


http://images.nationalgeographic.com...27_600x450.jpg

dyna mo 02-09-2015 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirtit (Post 20388419)
Just something add here. The fundamentals, or basics, of science are observation, replication and prediction, then you are taken to the applied sciences ( engineering outcomes ) where you use basic science data, the fundamentals, to create interventions that alter events or outcomes.

The Universe is 10 billions light years in diameter. Taking the Fermi Paradox into account, even though there statistically is abundant intelligent life out there, the probability of encountering it is astronomically low. Either you have faith in science, or religion, and both clearly indicate alien life exists.
Science is inductive, not deductive.

Quote:
There are different schools of thought in philosophy of science. The most popular position is empiricism,[26] which holds that knowledge is created by a process involving observation and that scientific theories are the result of generalizations from such observations.[27] Empiricism generally encompasses inductivism, a position that tries to explain the way general theories can be justified by the finite number of observations humans can make and the hence finite amount of empirical evidence available to confirm scientific theories. This is necessary because the number of predictions those theories make is infinite, which means that they cannot be known from the finite amount of evidence using deductive logic only. Many versions of empiricism exist, with the predominant ones being bayesianism[28] and the hypothetico-deductive method.[29]:p236

Empiricism has stood in contrast to rationalism, the position originally associated with Descartes, which holds that knowledge is created by the human intellect, not by observation.:p20 Critical rationalism is a contrasting 20th-century approach to science, first defined by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper.

Popper rejected the way that empiricism describes the connection between theory and observation. He claimed that theories are not generated by observation, but that observation is made in the light of theories and that the only way a theory can be affected by observation is when it comes in conflict with it.

Popper further claimed that there is actually only one universal method, not specific to science: the negative method of criticism, trial and error.

I.E., science is very much trial and error.


no, very little is clear about the Universe. making assumptions and trying to pass them off as "clearly" obvious is dangerous in discovery.

So what are you stating here? That I am being religious instead of scientific because I can embrace the other side of the probability problem in the OP?

Let's be clear on something.

What difference does it make to come down on the side of we probably are alone instead of probably are not?

I mean really. WHat difference does it make? Let's say we are not alone and that's discovered. How does embracing the probability from the other side change anything?

IN fact, I think being open to all possibilities allows for more opportunity to learning and discovering, not being less open and assuming probabilities are clear.

crockett 02-09-2015 07:15 PM
In an alternative Star Wars universe.. The millennium falcon crashed landed on earth and Chewbacca survived to became Bigfoot. Indiana Jones later found both the Falcon & Chewbacca.

This is proof that aliens exist.. Because Harrison Ford is real, therefore bigfoot and Chewbacca must also be real. I also just had some ice cream and I'm pretty sure 12clicks will agree that ice cream leads to scientific breakthroughs..

I think my proof that aliens exist is just as convincing as Dyna Mo's proof they don't..

edit...

Chewbacca is not a bear..

dyna mo 02-09-2015 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20388423)
going with your logic, little green aliens exist, because, you know, here's a picture of some.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...a_1024x768.jpg

dyna mo 02-09-2015 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20388435)
In an alternative Star Wars universe.. The millennium falcon crashed landed on earth and Chewbacca survived to became Bigfoot. Indiana Jones later found both the Falcon & Chewbacca.

This is proof that aliens exist.. Because Harrison Ford is real, therefore bigfoot and Chewbacca must also be real. I also just had some ice cream and I'm pretty sure 12clicks will agree that ice cream leads to scientific breakthroughs..

I think my proof that aliens exist is just as convincing as Dyna Mo's proof they don't..

edit...

Chewbacca is not a bear..
umm, harrison ford is a republican.

logic fail. :warning

crockett 02-09-2015 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20388442)
umm, harrison ford is a republican.

logic fail. :warning
I never said he was smart, I just said he exists..

Bladewire 02-09-2015 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20388432)
Quote:
There are different schools of thought in philosophy of science. The most popular position is empiricism,[26] which holds that knowledge is created by a process involving observation and that scientific theories are the result of generalizations from such observations.[27] Empiricism generally encompasses inductivism, a position that tries to explain the way general theories can be justified by the finite number of observations humans can make and the hence finite amount of empirical evidence available to confirm scientific theories. This is necessary because the number of predictions those theories make is infinite, which means that they cannot be known from the finite amount of evidence using deductive logic only. Many versions of empiricism exist, with the predominant ones being bayesianism[28] and the hypothetico-deductive method.[29]:p236

Empiricism has stood in contrast to rationalism, the position originally associated with Descartes, which holds that knowledge is created by the human intellect, not by observation.:p20 Critical rationalism is a contrasting 20th-century approach to science, first defined by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper.

Popper rejected the way that empiricism describes the connection between theory and observation. He claimed that theories are not generated by observation, but that observation is made in the light of theories and that the only way a theory can be affected by observation is when it comes in conflict with it.

Popper further claimed that there is actually only one universal method, not specific to science: the negative method of criticism, trial and error.

Science is inductive, not deductive.




I.E., science is very much trial and error.


no, very little is clear about the Universe. making assumptions and trying to pass them off as "clearly" obvious is dangerous in discovery.

So what are you stating here? That I am being religious instead of scientific because I can embrace the other side of the probability problem in the OP?

Let's be clear on something.

What difference does it make to come down on the side of we probably are alone instead of probably are not?

I mean really. WHat difference does it make? Let's say we are not alone and that's discovered. How does embracing the probability from the other side change anything?

IN fact, I think being open to all possibilities allows for more opportunity to learning and discovering, not being less open and assuming probabilities are clear.
First you say science is inductive not deductive. You're high.

"Inductive reasoning is used to try to discover a new piece of information; deductive reasoning is used to try to prove it."

Then you asked 6 questions that are all over the place. If I took the time to genuinely answer all of them, you'd disagree and ask 6 more. I got you. You know I'm smarter then that. You just don't want me in this conversation because you know I'm right, and that's fine. I don't have the time anyway I'm shooting out of town in the morning, 4 shoots total tomorrow. Have fun in la la land :winkwink:

dyna mo 02-09-2015 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirtit (Post 20388456)
First you say science is inductive not deductive. You're high.

"Inductive reasoning is used to try to discover a new piece of information; deductive reasoning is used to try to prove it."

Then you asked 6 questions that are all over the place. If I took the time to genuinely answer all of them, you'd disagree and ask 6 more. I got you. I don't have the time though I'm shooting out of town in the morning, 4 shoots total tomorrow. Have fun in la la land :winkwink:
:1orglaugh
just like my OP(where we don't know the answer), there is little agreement on what role deduction plays in science. I happen to agree with many that induction is primary.



you got me? on what. I never asked you 6 questions.

dyna mo 02-09-2015 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20388444)
I never said he was smart, I just said he exists..
I can see how that conveniently makes sense to you.

dyna mo 02-09-2015 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirtit (Post 20388456)
I got you. You know I'm smarter then that. You just don't want me in this conversation because you know I'm right, and that's fine. ]
I gotta say, this is really weird shit to me. You got me? this is a gotcha thread because I happen to choose the other side of an unproveable mystery? really? You do realize there is absolutely zero consequence for you if I think we are alone right? really. there isn't.

and no, you are not right. That's not the same as stating you are wrong (like what you are feeling the need to do). That's why the search (and science) continues. If you were right then there would be evidence of it, not a complete lack of evidence. and that is fine.




enjoy your shoots.

p.s. it's "smarter than that", not "smarter then that".

dyna mo 02-09-2015 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20388423)
more proof jackalopes exist.

http://oddlylovely.com/wp-content/up.../Jackalope.jpg

REDhorse 02-09-2015 10:48 PM
as much as i want to believe what i read on this article, i still cant convince myself to believe that we are indeed alone in this universe. its way tooo vast to conclude that there are no earth-like planets which can support human beings.

Phoenix 02-10-2015 02:23 AM
Didn't they just recently find microbes on mars. So we already have neighbours

shoot twice 02-13-2015 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Glen (Post 20387932)
seriously? shut down all extra planetary research because we have an over-hyped insignificant 'patch' of garbage? Your humble opinion will thankfully always be ignored..thank god.. keep reading headlines though.
Well then I guess you better reserve your 1st class passenger space shuttle ticket in advance for when they find that "New Home world" for humanity after that over-hyped garbage envelopes the entire world.

Oh and don't forget to pack your collection set of Breaking Bad for the voyage. Because might be a while before Youtube becomes available on The Interstellar Internet

JFK 02-13-2015 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diomed (Post 20386685)
Don't believe everything you read children.

Question everything, and keep an open mind.

Nobody has a clue yet.
:thumbsup:thumbsup


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:43 AM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc