Leave a Legacy

[kerbiloid]

15 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

To be clear, I am 100% certain that all "ancient alien" and related theories are utter bunk.

This is a belief. This is not a scientific view. Science never gives 100%.

16 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

But the reason I know 'm sure

 

[YNM]

37 minutes ago, 1101 said:

For starters, while it could be dismissed, there would still be the fact that someone had a really good guess on the effects of a large eruption such as that.  And no one in 400AD or so could see worldwide events such as that, or do the cause effect analysis of volcanic winter.

In the intervening years until now, more thousands of years will have existed. (also, i thought we'd be doing BC stuff. 400 AD would have Pompeii to look at.)

There's also a question of language. Try putting the idea down with 1000 words used most often (english) and see how long does it takes you. Then imagine getting a language that'd transcend thousands of years.

This is why I thought numerals are easiest.

32 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

To be clear, I am 100% certain that all "ancient alien" and related theories are utter bunk. But the reason I know they are utter bunk is because I can tell you what sort of proof I'd need to see in order to be convinced. 

Perhaps because they're true, even on fundamental scale.

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by YNM

[sevenperforce]

55 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

To be clear, I am 100% certain that all "ancient alien" and related theories are utter bunk. But the reason I know they are utter bunk is because I can tell you what sort of proof I'd need to see in order to be convinced. 

This is a belief. This is not a scientific view. Science never gives 100%.

But see, therein lies the point.

I could not say "I'm 100% certain there were never any ancient aliens" in a vacuum. Science cannot prove a negative. But I can say "I know what proof I'd need to conclude there were ancient aliens, and I'm 100% sure nothing has met that standard of proof."

This gives us the opportunity to inspect the "what level of proof is necessary" question rather than nitpicking semantics.

[kerbiloid]

4 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I could not say "I'm 100% certain there were never any ancient aliens" in a vacuum. Science cannot prove a negative. But I can say "I know what proof I'd need to conclude there were ancient aliens,

and I'm 100% sure nothing has met that standard of proof."

...and I'm 100% sure I can't be in any degree confident considering any of them as  (... about that standard of proof)  _{(Or how to say that in English)}

"Nothing has met" is like anyone have a schoolbook with answers.

Spoiler

51 minutes ago, YNM said:

.

 

 

Now I know where to place KSC in RSS/RO.
The hat is instead of orange suit.