Your arguments against this?

Quote from: robertotrevor on January 02, 2013, 10:34:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 02, 2013, 10:19:19 PM

Well, the lifeless rocks might think differently if they were capable of an opinion, but any rational living thing would surely agree that life's complexity makes it unique enough in the universe to consider it special, even in an objective sense.

Now you are talking about uniqueness besides complexity, see?

No, I'm not.

It is true that you were talking about uniqueness because you used the word unique, and you also talk about complexity. So I could only assume your problem is with the word "besides".

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 03, 2013, 12:01:37 AM

I understand that you are trying to make the argument that Being special is subjective, I just fail to see what it has to do with the earth being special.  Since we are the creatures that came up with the concept of "special", its pretty clear that we are in fact special.

This is the kind of cheap philosophy or word game that makes a site like this one possible. Contemplate two scenarios: the one in which you attribute the word "special" to life, or to Earth, or to the color of your mother's hair. And the one in which each of these things is called "common".

The two scenarios are exactly the same. You will not have a different set of knowledge to understand them, you will not have different laws to explain physics or biology or even psychology. In short, you have nothing new, except maybe something to talk with friends.

Something about these scenarios is bothering me.  The first being that my mom's hair color is not special.  In fact, many many people on earth have it.

In the second scenario, Life, which I have not been talking about generally, i have been talking about intelligent life, gets labeled as common.  Seeing as how most scientists in RET don't think this is biologically likely, I would say that it appears that you have something new if you believe this to be the case.

Lets just be frank.   In RET, the evolution of intelligent life is a rare and special even for the earth.  Even if there are many other intelligent beings out there, the ratio of them to the number of planets total would be minuscule, thereby making it special.

And I am pretty sure that the world of RET scientists would agree with me, even if they don't do so currently.  If you honestly believe that the discovery of a new planet would carry as much wieght as the discover of a new type of life form, intelligent or not (and if intelligent then bygolly) then you are just buying into this subjective mumbojumbo too much. 

Of course being special is subjective to what humans think is special, but should we try to make it subjective to what rocks or planets think?  By our definition of special, Intelligent life is just that.  This makes the earth just as special, as it is the home of intelligent life.

Quote from: markjo on January 02, 2013, 08:58:28 PM

Quote from: Tausami on January 02, 2013, 07:24:57 PM

Markjo, the point of that argument is that the Earth is special in RET as well.

Some would contend that it is the height of egotism to believe that Earth is so special that it is the only place in the universe that supports life.  The more that we explore the universe, more we begin to realize that maybe the Earth isn't so special after all.

People always argue this egotistical point of view in all of the astro classes I take.  I never got it.  When you look up at the sky, it seems pretty clear that the sun, and not us, is moving.  We can't feel the movement of the earth even in RET.  Suddenly its egotistical to believe your senses?

Agreed, at first glance, geocentrism does seem to make more sense than heliocentrism.  However, the egotism kicks in when you start to believe that your senses alone are sufficient to determine the true nature of the universe.

Quote from: robertotrevor on January 02, 2013, 05:54:17 PM

Quote from: Beorn on January 02, 2013, 04:15:23 PM

Quote from: lmb32 on January 02, 2013, 03:28:01 PM

10- Why the earth is special? There's no proof that it's different from other planets. Fail

Oh cool, there really must be live on Mars then! Quickly, tell NASA!

All the planets are different, and there is life on earth, why is that special? we could also say all the planets are special, i mean, is there other planet like mars?

I'm glad that you reiterated my point. I can sometimes be too subtle for the slower people on this site.

That's the point, all planets are different BUT they share characteristics, one of those is the shape, all planets tends round due to gravity, so, astronomers said "If all planets and stars are round, then earth should be round to", then we got some experiments to prove that, and today we have videos and images, but some of you think they are fake. Why? why the need to go against scientific proof? It's not that I have been spoon feed as you say "RE's Believe everything science tell them", That's not true, we believe it because it have been proved, the scientific method was invented for that porpoise, to prove things with solid evidence before affirming them.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 02, 2013, 11:22:19 PM

Quote from: robertotrevor on January 02, 2013, 10:34:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 02, 2013, 10:19:19 PM

Well, the lifeless rocks might think differently if they were capable of an opinion, but any rational living thing would surely agree that life's complexity makes it unique enough in the universe to consider it special, even in an objective sense.

Now you are talking about uniqueness besides complexity, see?

No, I'm not.

It is true that you were talking about uniqueness because you used the word unique, and you also talk about complexity. So I could only assume your problem is with the word "besides".

If you carefully read the part you bolded above you may be able to discern where you are mistaken about what I'm talking about.  This is getting a bit tedious.

Agreed, at first glance, geocentrism does seem to make more sense than heliocentrism.  However, the egotism kicks in when you start to believe that your senses alone are sufficient to determine the true nature of the universe.

If one's senses are insufficient to determine the true nature of the universe, to what purpose is the study of it at all?

Quote from: robertotrevor on January 03, 2013, 08:52:45 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 02, 2013, 11:22:19 PM

Quote from: robertotrevor on January 02, 2013, 10:34:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 02, 2013, 10:19:19 PM

Well, the lifeless rocks might think differently if they were capable of an opinion, but any rational living thing would surely agree that life's complexity makes it unique enough in the universe to consider it special, even in an objective sense.

Now you are talking about uniqueness besides complexity, see?

No, I'm not.

It is true that you were talking about uniqueness because you used the word unique, and you also talk about complexity. So I could only assume your problem is with the word "besides".

If you carefully read the part you bolded above you may be able to discern where you are mistaken about what I'm talking about.  This is getting a bit tedious.

Life complexity makes it unique enough to be considered special, you are talking about how complexity makes life unique. I agree Its tedious, maybe the next time you will explain yourself when correcting someone to avoid this.
Also, I don't see how the phrase you quoted invalidates the rest of my comment by being incorrect, you still gave life the property of being unique.

Quote from: Beorn on January 03, 2013, 01:16:27 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on January 02, 2013, 05:54:17 PM

Quote from: Beorn on January 02, 2013, 04:15:23 PM

Quote from: lmb32 on January 02, 2013, 03:28:01 PM

10- Why the earth is special? There's no proof that it's different from other planets. Fail

Oh cool, there really must be live on Mars then! Quickly, tell NASA!

All the planets are different, and there is life on earth, why is that special? we could also say all the planets are special, i mean, is there other planet like mars?

I'm glad that you reiterated my point. I can sometimes be too subtle for the slower people on this site.

That's the point, all planets are different

Thank you for repeating my point a third time.

Quote from: lmb32 on January 03, 2013, 05:42:22 PM

Quote from: Beorn on January 03, 2013, 01:16:27 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on January 02, 2013, 05:54:17 PM

Quote from: Beorn on January 02, 2013, 04:15:23 PM

Quote from: lmb32 on January 02, 2013, 03:28:01 PM

10- Why the earth is special? There's no proof that it's different from other planets. Fail

Oh cool, there really must be live on Mars then! Quickly, tell NASA!

All the planets are different, and there is life on earth, why is that special? we could also say all the planets are special, i mean, is there other planet like mars?

I'm glad that you reiterated my point. I can sometimes be too subtle for the slower people on this site.

That's the point, all planets are different

Thank you for repeating my point a third time.

I think he might have used capital letters in the "but" because it was an important part of his point.

All of the objections in your videos are easily answered.

Of course they are. After all, FET is a religious dogma. Religious dogma are always backed by infalsifiable comebacks selected conveniently over years of arguing and figuring out where the gaping logical holes are in their beliefs whenever someone points them out. So anything you could ever do to prove them wrong is instantly dismissed and put in the category of the appropriate comeback. They also do notoriously little independent research to support their theories while claiming large-scale conspiracies against them, playing the victim role and acting like they are persecuted despite producing nil when it comes to actual peer-reviewed data.

Science is not a conspiracy. It is a body of some of the most honest, open, and curious truth-seekers there are.

Quote from: Pongo on December 28, 2012, 09:47:44 AM

All of the objections in your videos are easily answered.

Science is not a conspiracy. It is a body of some of the most honest, open, and curious truth-seekers there are.

No one said science is a conspiracy.

Quote from: RealScientist on January 03, 2013, 06:51:44 AM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 03, 2013, 12:01:37 AM

I understand that you are trying to make the argument that Being special is subjective, I just fail to see what it has to do with the earth being special.  Since we are the creatures that came up with the concept of "special", its pretty clear that we are in fact special.

This is the kind of cheap philosophy or word game that makes a site like this one possible. Contemplate two scenarios: the one in which you attribute the word "special" to life, or to Earth, or to the color of your mother's hair. And the one in which each of these things is called "common".

The two scenarios are exactly the same. You will not have a different set of knowledge to understand them, you will not have different laws to explain physics or biology or even psychology. In short, you have nothing new, except maybe something to talk with friends.

Something about these scenarios is bothering me.  The first being that my mom's hair color is not special.  In fact, many many people on earth have it.

In the second scenario, Life, which I have not been talking about generally, i have been talking about intelligent life, gets labeled as common.  Seeing as how most scientists in RET don't think this is biologically likely, I would say that it appears that you have something new if you believe this to be the case.

Lets just be frank.   In RET, the evolution of intelligent life is a rare and special even for the earth.  Even if there are many other intelligent beings out there, the ratio of them to the number of planets total would be minuscule, thereby making it special.

And I am pretty sure that the world of RET scientists would agree with me, even if they don't do so currently.  If you honestly believe that the discovery of a new planet would carry as much wieght as the discover of a new type of life form, intelligent or not (and if intelligent then bygolly) then you are just buying into this subjective mumbojumbo too much. 

Of course being special is subjective to what humans think is special, but should we try to make it subjective to what rocks or planets think?  By our definition of special, Intelligent life is just that.  This makes the earth just as special, as it is the home of intelligent life.

See? A whole four more paragraphs of empty words. Considering something as "special" is just an empty sentimental feeling that changes nothing.

Besides, you are now adding another empty argument: intelligent life in contrast with some kind of other life. Are you saying that "intelligent" means "human"? Or are you prepared to accept that all life, with the possible exception of virus and prions (which, by the way, are not considered as alive by many scientists) is at least somewhat intelligent?

Since you do not have a clear definition of intelligence, declaring something as intelligent is just as inane as declaring it special. Whatever you consider special, others consider common. Whatever you consider intelligent, others consider non-intelligent. And science does not advance with either.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 03, 2013, 10:19:29 AM

Quote from: RealScientist on January 03, 2013, 06:51:44 AM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 03, 2013, 12:01:37 AM

I understand that you are trying to make the argument that Being special is subjective, I just fail to see what it has to do with the earth being special.  Since we are the creatures that came up with the concept of "special", its pretty clear that we are in fact special.

This is the kind of cheap philosophy or word game that makes a site like this one possible. Contemplate two scenarios: the one in which you attribute the word "special" to life, or to Earth, or to the color of your mother's hair. And the one in which each of these things is called "common".

The two scenarios are exactly the same. You will not have a different set of knowledge to understand them, you will not have different laws to explain physics or biology or even psychology. In short, you have nothing new, except maybe something to talk with friends.

Something about these scenarios is bothering me.  The first being that my mom's hair color is not special.  In fact, many many people on earth have it.

In the second scenario, Life, which I have not been talking about generally, i have been talking about intelligent life, gets labeled as common.  Seeing as how most scientists in RET don't think this is biologically likely, I would say that it appears that you have something new if you believe this to be the case.

Lets just be frank.   In RET, the evolution of intelligent life is a rare and special even for the earth.  Even if there are many other intelligent beings out there, the ratio of them to the number of planets total would be minuscule, thereby making it special.

And I am pretty sure that the world of RET scientists would agree with me, even if they don't do so currently.  If you honestly believe that the discovery of a new planet would carry as much wieght as the discover of a new type of life form, intelligent or not (and if intelligent then bygolly) then you are just buying into this subjective mumbojumbo too much. 

Of course being special is subjective to what humans think is special, but should we try to make it subjective to what rocks or planets think?  By our definition of special, Intelligent life is just that.  This makes the earth just as special, as it is the home of intelligent life.

See? A whole four more paragraphs of empty words. Considering something as "special" is just an empty sentimental feeling that changes nothing.

Besides, you are now adding another empty argument: intelligent life in contrast with some kind of other life. Are you saying that "intelligent" means "human"? Or are you prepared to accept that all life, with the possible exception of virus and prions (which, by the way, are not considered as alive by many scientists) is at least somewhat intelligent?

Since you do not have a clear definition of intelligence, declaring something as intelligent is just as inane as declaring it special. Whatever you consider special, others consider common. Whatever you consider intelligent, others consider non-intelligent. And science does not advance with either.

Not to mention this whole discussion of special is being tainted by the FE fallaciously applying logic. They say, earth is special, there's life on it! Therefore, its allowed to be special in shape! Ah ha!

Quote from: RealScientist on January 04, 2013, 07:53:51 AM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 03, 2013, 10:19:29 AM

Quote from: RealScientist on January 03, 2013, 06:51:44 AM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 03, 2013, 12:01:37 AM

I understand that you are trying to make the argument that Being special is subjective, I just fail to see what it has to do with the earth being special.  Since we are the creatures that came up with the concept of "special", its pretty clear that we are in fact special.

This is the kind of cheap philosophy or word game that makes a site like this one possible. Contemplate two scenarios: the one in which you attribute the word "special" to life, or to Earth, or to the color of your mother's hair. And the one in which each of these things is called "common".

The two scenarios are exactly the same. You will not have a different set of knowledge to understand them, you will not have different laws to explain physics or biology or even psychology. In short, you have nothing new, except maybe something to talk with friends.

Something about these scenarios is bothering me.  The first being that my mom's hair color is not special.  In fact, many many people on earth have it.

In the second scenario, Life, which I have not been talking about generally, i have been talking about intelligent life, gets labeled as common.  Seeing as how most scientists in RET don't think this is biologically likely, I would say that it appears that you have something new if you believe this to be the case.

Lets just be frank.   In RET, the evolution of intelligent life is a rare and special even for the earth.  Even if there are many other intelligent beings out there, the ratio of them to the number of planets total would be minuscule, thereby making it special.

And I am pretty sure that the world of RET scientists would agree with me, even if they don't do so currently.  If you honestly believe that the discovery of a new planet would carry as much wieght as the discover of a new type of life form, intelligent or not (and if intelligent then bygolly) then you are just buying into this subjective mumbojumbo too much. 

Of course being special is subjective to what humans think is special, but should we try to make it subjective to what rocks or planets think?  By our definition of special, Intelligent life is just that.  This makes the earth just as special, as it is the home of intelligent life.

See? A whole four more paragraphs of empty words. Considering something as "special" is just an empty sentimental feeling that changes nothing.

Besides, you are now adding another empty argument: intelligent life in contrast with some kind of other life. Are you saying that "intelligent" means "human"? Or are you prepared to accept that all life, with the possible exception of virus and prions (which, by the way, are not considered as alive by many scientists) is at least somewhat intelligent?

Since you do not have a clear definition of intelligence, declaring something as intelligent is just as inane as declaring it special. Whatever you consider special, others consider common. Whatever you consider intelligent, others consider non-intelligent. And science does not advance with either.

Not to mention this whole discussion of special is being tainted by the FE fallaciously applying logic. They say, earth is special, there's life on it! Therefore, its allowed to be special in shape! Ah ha!

That's not how it goes. REers say earth is not special. We show why the earth is special. For extra information go to www.rif.org and reread this thread.

Again, you completely miss the point.

The earth is debatably special in the sense that its currently the only place we have found life. But it IS NOT special compared to other observable celestial bodies in any other way.

What you are arguing is that because your hair color is hot pink, and special because of the color (which is debatable), you are a special human being that was formed by a different process as other humans, and not susceptible to the laws of other humans. The latter may very well be true, but it does not follow from the specialness of your hair color.

What you are arguing is that because your hair color is hot pink, and special because of the color (which is debatable), you are a special human being that was formed by a different process as other humans, and not susceptible to the laws of other humans. The latter may very well be true, but it does not follow from the specialness of your hair color.

What you are arguing is that because we have hair we must be exactly the same as an elephant, because they also have hair.

Quote from: FlatulencE Theory on January 04, 2013, 10:21:43 AM

What you are arguing is that because your hair color is hot pink, and special because of the color (which is debatable), you are a special human being that was formed by a different process as other humans, and not susceptible to the laws of other humans. The latter may very well be true, but it does not follow from the specialness of your hair color.

What you are arguing is that because we have hair we must be exactly the same as an elephant, because they also have hair.

Hardly. What we are arguing is: Every observable human has hair. I have am a human, so I must have hair.

Every observable planet is a sphere. Earth is a planet. It follows that earth is a sphere, in the absence of other evidence. However, we have mounds of evidence that support earth being an oblate spheroid.

That's not how it goes. REers say earth is not special. We show why the earth is special.

Not all "RE'ers" say Earth is not special. And not all "RE'ers" say Earth is special. It is just an inane discussion. Whatever you want to say when you talk about Earth being special is totally useless.

If intelligent life is a measure of the "special" quality of Earth, we have no evidence whatsoever that there are no extraterrestrials a million times more intelligent than us. We could be as "common" as ants, or even amoebas when compared with some extraterrestrials. Or we could be the kings of the universe. We just don't have evidence of either.

And on the other hand, since you have no evidence whatsoever towards FE "theories", you cannot use it to demonstrate that we are "special".

Whatever your approach, neither the word "special" nor the word "intelligent" take us any closer to any truth.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 03, 2013, 10:19:29 AM

Quote from: RealScientist on January 03, 2013, 06:51:44 AM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 03, 2013, 12:01:37 AM

I understand that you are trying to make the argument that Being special is subjective, I just fail to see what it has to do with the earth being special.  Since we are the creatures that came up with the concept of "special", its pretty clear that we are in fact special.

This is the kind of cheap philosophy or word game that makes a site like this one possible. Contemplate two scenarios: the one in which you attribute the word "special" to life, or to Earth, or to the color of your mother's hair. And the one in which each of these things is called "common".

The two scenarios are exactly the same. You will not have a different set of knowledge to understand them, you will not have different laws to explain physics or biology or even psychology. In short, you have nothing new, except maybe something to talk with friends.

Something about these scenarios is bothering me.  The first being that my mom's hair color is not special.  In fact, many many people on earth have it.

In the second scenario, Life, which I have not been talking about generally, i have been talking about intelligent life, gets labeled as common.  Seeing as how most scientists in RET don't think this is biologically likely, I would say that it appears that you have something new if you believe this to be the case.

Lets just be frank.   In RET, the evolution of intelligent life is a rare and special even for the earth.  Even if there are many other intelligent beings out there, the ratio of them to the number of planets total would be minuscule, thereby making it special.

And I am pretty sure that the world of RET scientists would agree with me, even if they don't do so currently.  If you honestly believe that the discovery of a new planet would carry as much wieght as the discover of a new type of life form, intelligent or not (and if intelligent then bygolly) then you are just buying into this subjective mumbojumbo too much. 

Of course being special is subjective to what humans think is special, but should we try to make it subjective to what rocks or planets think?  By our definition of special, Intelligent life is just that.  This makes the earth just as special, as it is the home of intelligent life.

See? A whole four more paragraphs of empty words. Considering something as "special" is just an empty sentimental feeling that changes nothing.

Besides, you are now adding another empty argument: intelligent life in contrast with some kind of other life. Are you saying that "intelligent" means "human"? Or are you prepared to accept that all life, with the possible exception of virus and prions (which, by the way, are not considered as alive by many scientists) is at least somewhat intelligent?

Since you do not have a clear definition of intelligence, declaring something as intelligent is just as inane as declaring it special. Whatever you consider special, others consider common. Whatever you consider intelligent, others consider non-intelligent. And science does not advance with either.

Do scientists normally make this many assumptions?  So I have a number of problems again with your incredibly dumb post.  My only argument has and will be for this thread a response to someone claiming that the earth was not special.  If you look at the definition of special, the earth is clearly special.

1.)  I never said being special changed anything, All I said is that the earth is in fact special.  I also said that there were other factors that differentiated it from the other planets in RET.

2.)"intelligent life in contrast with some kind of other life" - this is not an argument, and I certainly did not say this.

3.)Since you do not have a clear definition of intelligence - Not providing and not having are two very different things.  Stop making assumptions.

@Beorn: Let me simplify my logic: "All humans are different, but, still, they are humans" We can categorize objects because shared characteristics, if the earth if flat, it is not a planet and it's breaking the laws of gravity, maybe that can happen, we don't know, but the evidence tell us that's not the case.

Do scientists normally make this many assumptions?  So I have a number of problems again with your incredibly dumb post.  My only argument has and will be for this thread a response to someone claiming that the earth was not special.  If you look at the definition of special, the earth is clearly special.

1.)  I never said being special changed anything, All I said is that the earth is in fact special.  I also said that there were other factors that differentiated it from the other planets in RET.

2.)"intelligent life in contrast with some kind of other life" - this is not an argument, and I certainly did not say this.

3.)Since you do not have a clear definition of intelligence - Not providing and not having are two very different things.  Stop making assumptions.

So, all this discussion is about nothing. "Special" means nothing, since it changes nothing. And "intelligent" means nothing since you don't even have a definition of it.

At least now I know you like to wrangle endlessly about nothing, making any discussion a waste of time.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 04, 2013, 01:24:51 PM

Do scientists normally make this many assumptions?  So I have a number of problems again with your incredibly dumb post.  My only argument has and will be for this thread a response to someone claiming that the earth was not special.  If you look at the definition of special, the earth is clearly special.

1.)  I never said being special changed anything, All I said is that the earth is in fact special.  I also said that there were other factors that differentiated it from the other planets in RET.

2.)"intelligent life in contrast with some kind of other life" - this is not an argument, and I certainly did not say this.

3.)Since you do not have a clear definition of intelligence - Not providing and not having are two very different things.  Stop making assumptions.

So, all this discussion is about nothing. "Special" means nothing, since it changes nothing. And "intelligent" means nothing since you don't even have a definition of it.

At least now I know you like to wrangle endlessly about nothing, making any discussion a waste of time.

You mean pointlessly critiquing something did not prove fruitful for you?  Are you asking for me to define intelligent or do you just want to keep assuming I don't have one?

Someone else brought up the earth not being special, so why don't you attack them for bringing up something pointless instead of attacking me?

Quote from: markjo on January 03, 2013, 04:45:50 PM

Agreed, at first glance, geocentrism does seem to make more sense than heliocentrism.  However, the egotism kicks in when you start to believe that your senses alone are sufficient to determine the true nature of the universe.

If one's senses are insufficient to determine the true nature of the universe, to what purpose is the study of it at all?

Well, obviously to answer the age old question (in the immortal words of V'ger) "Is there nothing more?"

Quote from: RealScientist on January 04, 2013, 06:25:12 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 04, 2013, 01:24:51 PM

Do scientists normally make this many assumptions?  So I have a number of problems again with your incredibly dumb post.  My only argument has and will be for this thread a response to someone claiming that the earth was not special.  If you look at the definition of special, the earth is clearly special.

1.)  I never said being special changed anything, All I said is that the earth is in fact special.  I also said that there were other factors that differentiated it from the other planets in RET.

2.)"intelligent life in contrast with some kind of other life" - this is not an argument, and I certainly did not say this.

3.)Since you do not have a clear definition of intelligence - Not providing and not having are two very different things.  Stop making assumptions.

So, all this discussion is about nothing. "Special" means nothing, since it changes nothing. And "intelligent" means nothing since you don't even have a definition of it.

At least now I know you like to wrangle endlessly about nothing, making any discussion a waste of time.

You mean pointlessly critiquing something did not prove fruitful for you?  Are you asking for me to define intelligent or do you just want to keep assuming I don't have one?

Someone else brought up the earth not being special, so why don't you attack them for bringing up something pointless instead of attacking me?

Do you mean me? when did I say the earth is not special? I said, saying it is special is a subjective statement, i did so to try to get more concrete answers from part of flat earthers about the question (why are all planets spheres and the earth is not) but it clearly didn't work because all i got was a discussion of how the earth is in fact, special. I could not care less if you want to say the earth is special and my objective was not to argue about that.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 04, 2013, 06:55:42 PM

Quote from: RealScientist on January 04, 2013, 06:25:12 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 04, 2013, 01:24:51 PM

Do scientists normally make this many assumptions?  So I have a number of problems again with your incredibly dumb post.  My only argument has and will be for this thread a response to someone claiming that the earth was not special.  If you look at the definition of special, the earth is clearly special.

1.)  I never said being special changed anything, All I said is that the earth is in fact special.  I also said that there were other factors that differentiated it from the other planets in RET.

2.)"intelligent life in contrast with some kind of other life" - this is not an argument, and I certainly did not say this.

3.)Since you do not have a clear definition of intelligence - Not providing and not having are two very different things.  Stop making assumptions.

So, all this discussion is about nothing. "Special" means nothing, since it changes nothing. And "intelligent" means nothing since you don't even have a definition of it.

At least now I know you like to wrangle endlessly about nothing, making any discussion a waste of time.

You mean pointlessly critiquing something did not prove fruitful for you?  Are you asking for me to define intelligent or do you just want to keep assuming I don't have one?

Someone else brought up the earth not being special, so why don't you attack them for bringing up something pointless instead of attacking me?

Do you mean me? when did I say the earth is not special? I said, saying it is special is a subjective statement, i did so to try to get more concrete answers from part of flat earthers about the question (why are all planets spheres and the earth is not) but it clearly didn't work because all i got was a discussion of how the earth is in fact, special. I could not care less if you want to say the earth is special and my objective was not to argue about that.

No I don't mean you.

10- Why the earth is special? There's no proof that it's different from other planets. Fail

Lets all keep jumping to conclusions, its going extremely well.

Quote from: Beorn on January 04, 2013, 08:44:50 AM

That's not how it goes. REers say earth is not special. We show why the earth is special.

Not all "RE'ers" say Earth is not special. And not all "RE'ers" say Earth is special. It is just an inane discussion. Whatever you want to say when you talk about Earth being special is totally useless.

Irrelevant, a REer brought it up, we put points up against it. Don't hijack threads if you feel that an REer says something you disagree with.

If intelligent life is a measure of the "special" quality of Earth, we have no evidence whatsoever that there are no extraterrestrials a million times more intelligent than us.

Irrelevant, we know where there definitely isn't extraterrestrial  and frankly, that's a big area. Even if there is more intelligent life around we are still special

We could be as "common" as ants, or even amoebas when compared with some extraterrestrials. Or we could be the kings of the universe. We just don't have evidence of either.

Incorrect, we could be as common as ants if there are LOTS of other intelligent lifeforms. If there is just one that is a lot smarter than us, we're still special.

And on the other hand, since you have no evidence whatsoever towards FE "theories", you cannot use it to demonstrate that we are "special".

Incorrect, from an RE viewpoint we are still special.

Whatever your approach, neither the word "special" nor the word "intelligent" take us any closer to any truth.

Tell that to the REers who say that Earth must be round because we are not special.

Greetings everyone. I am enjoying the discussion.

Quote from: RealScientist on January 04, 2013, 12:40:41 PM

Whatever your approach, neither the word "special" nor the word "intelligent" take us any closer to any truth.

Tell that to the REers who say that Earth must be round because we are not special.

I will tell it to any scientist you can find who would make such a claim... which is... no real scientist whatsoever.

Search each and every scientific article, each and every scientist's opinion, and you will not find one who uses the argument that life, or humanity, or Earth is "special" (or "not special") and therefore Earth is round.

The ones who use this "we are special and therefore we are <place your favorite claim here>" are the religious fundamentalists who take the claim of humanity's special status from the bible. Are you one of them?

The total number of planets in our solar system that is similar to Earth in observable composition, surface temperature, gravity, moon count, and color is 0.

Therefore the Earth is unique in our solar system. Since our ability to scan other solar systems for comparison is weak, then we can ignore these as comparisons due to lack of evidence.

Since the Earth is unique in our known area, we can then say that the Earth is special.

The total number of planets in our solar system that is similar to Earth in observable composition, surface temperature, gravity, moon count, and color is 0.

Therefore the Earth is unique in our solar system. Since our ability to scan other solar systems for comparison is weak, then we can ignore these as comparisons due to lack of evidence.

Since the Earth is unique in our known area, we can then say that the Earth is special.

My car has plate number EWK432. There is no other car that I have seen which has the same plate. I have no way to go to any other country to check whether there are more cars with the same plate. Therefore I consider my car as "special". Have I gained something with my argument?

The only ones who gain something (or at least try) with the classification of humanity or Earth as "special" are the biblical literalists who cannot accept that God might have created men or something similar in another planet, and not tell us about that in the Bible.

In science the "special" or similar classifications were once used a long time ago, for example when we classified animals as wild or domestic, and useful or harmful. But science has matured a lot since then. Now the only example of the word "special" in science is in Relativity, where the meaning has a totally different connotation.