Re: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Honored By Scientific American

From: Ralph Nesbitt (ralph-nesbitt_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 12/05/04 

Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:53:06 GMT

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <lifeform1@atlantic.net> wrote in message
news:29de1a66.0412050929.11c9bfde@posting.google.com...
> December 5, 2004
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message :
>
> > It has been my experience people that think they know it all & will not
> > listen to the ideas & questions of others soon is shown to be the fool
for
> > not listening to or challenging the ideas of others in a
> > reasonable/responsible manner.
>
> I only picked this up in google because I've already fully developed
> your plonk file.
>
> Generally when you challenge scientific evidence or a scientific claim
> within the framework of scientific methods (as I understand them), you
> are expected to make your own claim, backed up by evidence, in other
> words, your challenge is itself a claim. With regards to life on Mars
> (past or present), I have seen precisely *ZERO* evidence provided by
> anyone that there *IS NOT* or *NEVER HAS BEEN* life on Mars, whereas
> *ALL* of the evidence (the totality of our knowledge of science and
> life to date, plus the totality of our knowledge of Mars to date) has
> been to the contrary, that indeed, past and present life on Mars is a
> credible and reasonable working hypothesis, and fits the observational
> evidence gathered thus far. The biolgical hypothesis is not only
> reasonable, it is responisble, indeed, it appears to be (from the
> totality of evidence) a cosmological imperative.
>
> Go ahead, challenge my claim. However, I've seen nothing from you
> since I've fully plonked you to challange my plonking criteria for
> you, and your current post certainly still satifies my plonk criteria,
> thus, you remain <plonked>, except in google, where I am unable to
> <plonk> you.
>
> FYI : http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm
>
> Thomas Lee Elifritz
> http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
>
The indifference it takes to demand someone prove a negative, while asking
someone to challenge a vague hypothesis filled with statements like "the
totality of our knowledge of science and life to date, plus the totality of
our knowledge of Mars to date" & " indeed, it appears to be (from the
totality of evidence) a cosmological imperative" among others indicates
someone is trying to play "Big Fish in a Small Pond".

I look forward to reading your paper supporting your claims above in "The
Journal Science". Please be so kind as to let us know when your paper will
appear in "The Journal Science".
Ralph Nesbitt.

Relevant Pages