mooeypoo

You're making no sense. The question is about your free will -- you have a clear choice: save someone's life on the expense of another, or let someone be killed. This isn't about YOUR safety, it's about allowing an innocent woman to die. That's the moral question. Really? That's disturbing. Do you *REALLY* see no difference between a mad-crazed-blood-thirsty rapist killer and yourself? Interesting. And kinda sad, I think. ~moo

Now who's playing word games? Omnipotence is the ability to do everything, not the inability to do anything or the ability to have an inability. I don't understand what you mean here. First off, of course you can prove a negative. That isn't a philosophical statement, it's a misunderstood concept. Here's a negative for you: "There are no toxins in my glass of water." I can prove that. There is no philosophical problem here because there's no philosophical argument. The argument of "you can't prove a negative" in relation to God isn't so much about showing a non-existence as it is about the argument itself being too broad - and hence, unfalsifiable. If a claim is properly phrased (as it *should be in science!*) then you can either confirm it or deny it. "Toxins do not exist in my cup of water" is something I can test for; I know what toxins are, I know what my cup of water is, and I can test and either confirm this or prove it to be wrong. "God does not exist in my cup of water" is meaningless. We don't know what god should look like, we don't know how to test for his existence, and whatever and any experiment I can possibly think of, could be argued that it doesn't prove anything because God can just choose not to be detected. This isn't really 'proving a negative', it's more 'proving an unfalsifiable', which in science is a nonscientific concept. It's a definition, forufes. Omnipotence means someone that can do anything. You found something he can't do, therefore by definition he's no longer omnipotent. I do agree that it's semantics (which is what I said above). If god does indeed exist outside of our realm of comprehension (I have more problems with this particular claim, btw, than I do with the 'omnipotence' one) then the definition we chose to put on omnipotence might not be suitable to the situation. Still, though, your reasoning makes little sense if we talk philosophically. There *IS* a contradiction. You can claim it doesn't matter, but the contradiction still exists. It's not about casual as it is about making sure you are clear. Try to take time to go over your own post before you hit "Submit Reply" and see that the sentences make sense, otherwise it is just hard to understand what you mean. Good, because that specific part of my reply wasn't really a request. ~moo

That's anecdotal, and it's interpreted. As I said above, I can offer an alternative explanation for this that doesn't involve aliens and both explanations will have equal footing - the question that shall remain is which one is more reasonable, which we can argue. That doesn't change the fact that it's *not* founded, and it's *not* a scientific theory, and it does *not* have *EVIDENCE*. It has interpreted anecdotal accounts. You should be careful of that distinction. No, you're making the claim, it's up to you to substantiate them. This isn't fact, it's a claim, and until it's verified, it's not a facct, not one of my ancenstor's fact and not your facts. It's not a fact. It's a claim. You make it. You need to bring the evidence. That's the way it works in science. Look. You are making no sense whatsoever. We can disagree on subtle details all you want, but you have no scientific evidence. You cannot, therefore, claim this is factual. You are not in a myth or conspiracy-theory forum you are in a science forum. We go by the scientific method, and by the scientific definition of fact, theory, evidence and hypothesis. Your claim fits none of the above, especially not fact, and you should stop making it seem like it's fact. Instead, you should work on substantiating what you say in accordance to the *rigor* of science. Alternatively, you can look for a conspiracy ufo forum where people might be less annoying in their requirement of proper evidence. Pick your audience, eh? ~moo

You're allowed. But until you give some evidence, it's still an opinion. Excellent reasoning - but it's still not substantiated, is it? There isn't any *proof* or *objective evidence* that stands the rigor of science that transforms your idea from an opinion (well reasoned as it may be) to a scientific fact. I can explain what you bring up here (common 'tales of our beginning' and the similar accounts and drawings) with possibilities that make total sense and have nothing to do with aliens. I won't treat mine as absolute fact, though, or even substantiated theory, since they're not. Neither are yours. You're in a science forum, and we have rigor in scientific claims. You are very much allowed to present your ideas and your opinions - but don't pretend they're fact when they're not, or that they're substantiated when you given us barely some anecdotal evidence that can be interpreted in more than one way. ~moo

This is a philosophical contradiction, though. Omnipotence means one can do *anything*. When you show that there's something you can't do, you're no longer omnipotent. Very simple. I do agree with you that this is a relatively weak argument against the existence of God - that is, it's a philosophical inconvinience that doesn't necessarily means God's existence as an omnipotent being is impossible, but the philosophical argument remains contradictory. You know, forufes, people will undersrtand you much better - and debate you much more efficiently - if you treat the debate properly and use sentences rather than shorthand abbreviations in nonexisting sentences. It's a bit messy and confusing, specially when we deal with arguments like these that are philosophical and sometimes deal with some subtleties that are really unclear from the way you conveyed them. And finally, I'd appreciate it if you don't mock those who disagree with you. The rules of the forum will appreciate it too, if you care to read them. ~moo

Moved to homework help. triclino, you are not new nin this forum, you know the rules and you know how we operate. If you want help, show what you already did and where you got stuck and we'd love to help you. We're not here to solve the question for you. ~moo

Moved to homework help. triclino, please tell us what you've tried and where you got stuck. We would love to help, but we're not in the habit of feeding answers with a spoon. ~moo

Try to be a bit less demanding and more cooperative then. Like we say all the time to *EVERYONE* with a question, we're not in the habit of solving questions for others; we want to see where you got stuck and what you already tried so we can help. Moved to homework help.

You know, it's one thing to argue (like it seems Moontanman and myself are, each on opposite side of the fense) that the odds favor or the odds are against UFOs being aliens. It's another to make an unfounded claim in a factual manner. We might have a history with them - but you have no proof of that, and it's not something that's widely accepted as to make a definitive argument for. You *THINK* Hawking was wrong because of what you said above. I also am of the opinion that Hawking was wrong, but I don't go around pretending that my opinion is fact. Hawking, too, made his statement as an opinion, not as fact, as no one really can make any of this factually. Hawking is a brilliant physicist, but he's also human, and his opinions are only opinions. No one in the scientific community takes his opinion as dogma; he made his opinion known, and people argue about it. If it was fact that he'd assert, he would be peer reviewed - as everyone in science is - but we would all have some evidence to examine and analyze. One of the key issues in science is knowing how to separate fact from opinion. ~moo

Triclino, we're not your students and this isn't a "solve this" forum. If you are stuck with a problem, post it in the homework section and tell us what you already tried and why you're getting stuck. If you have a point to prove with these multiple "SOLVE THIS!" threads, then make your point on the first thread and ask your question. This is enough. We've asked you more than once already. This is a forum for debate and discussion not a place to lecture, test others or plan ways to create elaborate condecending traps. Is this a homework question? Did you try to solve it? Are you stuck with this? Is there a point to this? Make it. ~moo

These creatures (shark/dolphin/etc) all developed in the same environment - the same atmospheric pressure, the same chemical composition more or less, etc. The deviations between environments is EXTREMELY small. The odds of finding a planet that has the same environmental conditions as the earth is ridiculously low. Odds are, there will be more differences than similarities. You can see that when the pressure changes only relatively slightly you have COMPLETELY different animals (you can see that in the oceans - different depths have completely different animals, the 'far' end of that spectrum are totally weird looking creatures at the bottom of the ocean, looking nothing like the creatures at the top layer). So if an environment in another planet has slightly less pressure, and slightly less oxygen, and slightly less water, etc etc etc - the change is likely to be insanely greater, and we would very much more likely to meet aliens that are NOT humanoid. Perhaps bug'oids. Bugs are extremely *more* capable of self preservation and existing in extreme environments than the relatively frail bodies of humans. ~moo

Cranial nudity?

Wait, but God (at least in the old testament) has occasions where he regrets his actions. So.. are the actions still good? Also, I'm not sure that follows either.. God is all knowing and all seeing. So every time a woman is raped, for example, God is allowing for this to happen. We can argue back and forth whether or not there's a problem "of evil" with this question, but my current point is that if you claim that God is the example of good, then ignoring someone suffering is good? Not sure I'd take the God of the old testament as "good", honestly. Not all of us have that, though, and also, many different nations have a different approach to right and wrong. It's quite "right" in african tribes to mutilate the female genitalia. I would consider that morally appalling. It's quite right in Iran to stone to death a woman who committed adultery - a quite horrifying public death. I would consider that horrifically unethical. I personally think that there are some basic concepts that are 'evolutionary ethics' - murder (not killing, that's different) is considered unethical in most societies because it comes against the group safety (and hence against the individual safety), rape is an act that threatens the safety of the sperm of the husband (if his wife is raped, she may bear a child that isn't his) so it makes sense in an evolutionary/development stage *on top* of the moral standpoint of seeing someone suffer, etc. But there *ARE* things that seem to be subjective, and different between societies.. I do agree that we should reform criminals. While my gut reaction is total repulsion from rapists, and my emotional immediate reponse is to want to castrate them, I don't really view that as the moral response. Castration in the chemical sense, perhaps, might be moral, if the rapist has a disease that needs fixing, and some forms of chemical castrations are shown to work. I do believe in reformation, but there's a limit; I wouldn't release said rapist to the world. I would lock him (or her) up in jail and away from society for as long as they live, or as long as I (and professional doctors) are convinced, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are never going to do anything like this again, and that they repaid their debt to society and to the victim. And even then, some restrictions should be put on the person (like not working as a security guard.....). So in essence, I think we agree. I just don't call it 'sin', I call it 'unethical' or 'wrong'. But the principle is the same. And when he stabs you in the gut out of rage? The entire point of the scenario is to draw a situation where this is an obvious action to come - it's very clear the person in front of you intends on violence, does not care about consequences, etc. So when he stabs you, and then proceeds to stab his girlfriend -- are you still "good"? *knowing* he will kill his girlfriend? Well, sure. I would prefer not dying. I would prefer to lie not only to not die, but to not have another person die. The scenario about the boyfriend/girlfriend wasn't just about how to prevent your own death it was about protecting someone else. If you know for a fact that this guy just killed 10 people in cold blood, he's crazy, he will stab you before you start talking if you tell him you know where his gf is ---- that is, if you KNOW you will both die if you tell the truth -- is it still sinful to lie? And are you really a 'good person' for not lying when the girlfriend is now dead as a result? ~moo

Speed physics. You know, if we think about this seriously for a moment, I think that the odds for having a species that is radically different than humans is so much greater than meeting a species that shares some of our traits that I would imagine the competitions - if we do them mixed - will go on the basis of technical data ("Height: x", "grooming level", "cleanliness", "consistency of color", etc) rather than subjective opinion of beauty. If you think about it, too, there are a few 'standards' that we generally put up as "beautiful" that take them away from the subjective, somewhat. Most of them, I think, have to do with symmetry and softness of the curves (before you jump up, men, I mean facial features, like a round small nose). The interesting thing will probably be to try and find some standards that are shared between the species that can be considered "above average" to judge on. On a good note, if there is a true "Miss Universe" (rather than today's miss universe which is more like miss north-and-south-america), and it involves slimy, tentacled creatures then my chances of winning will improve greatly. ~moo

Good point. Still, though, I think we're arguing over definitions that aren't well defined, like "Good" and "Perfect".

Interestingly enough, it seems to me that both options imply you will resort to other actions that are considered "not good" themselves, though... For that matter, using your power against a less-powerful being by itself can be considered not-good, and specially when/if you resort to violence, which, sometimes, you must (so the claim purports).

Screw that, I want to actually have a chance to win something...

So a perfect being in your opinion is one that is always good? I don't disagree with this, but I am not entirely sure I necessarily agree, either. First off, if in philosophy we deal, then we should also discuss what "Good" means, since it definitely has some subtleties that are different from person to person. Here's an example off the top of my head - killing is considered not good. I don't think you'll find many (specially christians) who will disagree with that. I agree with it too. However, what if a situation arises when killing is actually preferable to not killing? For example, you see a woman being raped by an armed soldier. Assuming you are armed too, you might have no other option but to kill him -- but is that not "being good"? Also, lying is generally considered bad (or at least 'not good'). There's the famous dilemma, though - a woman knocks at your door, bloody and beaten with her clothes torn. She begs you to help her hide from her murderous boyfriend. You agree and send her down to hide in the basement. A moment later, another knock on the door - the boyfriend, his hands bloody, holding a knife and with murder in his eyes - asks you if you've seen his girlfriend. Ethically, you should probably lie - either tell him you didnt see her, or tell him you saw her running down the other direction. Is that not "being good"? Is that moving someone away from perfection or towards perfection, and if "good" is the measure for perfection, then if God does neither of those, is he good at all? is he perfect? ~moo

I agree, I don't see the logic in the imperfection statement either.. it seems to me that self-sufficiency is preferable, if not perfect. Which got me thinking by the way. I'm not too sure I know what "perfect" is, or if we're all in agreement on the definition of perfection. I mean.. isn't "perfect" subjective? Self sufficiently sounds to me as beneficial, so I would consider something that's not self sufficient *not* perfect; on the other hand, I know a few cultures where self-sufficiency isn't as important as community dependence, or the cooperation between the people in the group - so in those cultures the dependency on one another (mutual trust, cooperation, etc) is considered a step towards perfection. Shouldn't we define what we think perfect is before we put what we think god(s) is/are into the definition? ~moo

Hitchhike a UFO!

You fall into a very common misconception here, by reducing things that have more than two options into two simplistic options. After doing that, no wonder things fit your theory. The thing is, science goes the other way - you first see how things *are* and *then* you can describe them. Fior that matter, Clipper, there's not just 'back' and 'front' to your body (not just to a cube). There's also the sides (or so I hope, unless you're a flat cartoon ). Also, the body is round - so in principle it has infinite amount of sides. What happens if the bottom of your foot itches? What about the sides? What about the bottom of your midsection (the part connecting your legs) versus the bottom of your feet? You're oversimplifying, and the theory makes sense *only* when you oversimplify. Once you see there are more than two sides to a three-dimensional existence (by definition... ) your theory falls on its face. If you're interested in being a scientist, you need to make sure your thinking follows the methodology. Simplification is useful, but oversimplification runs the risk of discribing nonreality rather than reality. Instead, you should see how the world actually is, and then see if you have a theory that explains it. As it goes at the moment, your idea seems to fall flat on everything that isn't flat. It has 6 sides, that's the point. A *rectangle* has four sides. It's also flat. Two dimensional. You *could* try and make the case that two-dimensional items have a front and a back (although that, too, is problematic.. what would you call a flat triangle?) but anything that is three-dimensional always has three dimensions. By definition, of course. It has a height, a width and a depth. And you can always turn and twist it in those three dimensions - hence, it has at *LEAST* three sides. Of course, I can also rotate something half-way; so if I have a playing dice, for example, I can look at either side (1,2,3,4,5,6) but I can also look at a corner-head on, and see two sides at once (1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc) and I can also look at a quarter corner, and see partial of three sides. Try it, you'll see. Who's to say which are the front and back? Isn't it obvious that there are more than two sides? and an infinite option of rotation? Another suggestion I will make to you is this: If you want to do science - real science, and change the world while you're at it - you *have* to keep an open mind. You're asking us to do the same, after all. If you suggest a theory, the first thing you should do is take a step back and act as your own devil's advocate: where are the weak points of your own theory? what can people try to do to disprove it? If you can't think of anything that will disprove your theory, it isn't science. All scientific theories are falsifiable. They have to be. There must be a condition that - if found to be true - renders the theory bunk. But overall, you have to try and make sure your reasoning follows through consistently. In your case, you simplify definitions into a two-dimensional perspective and try to stick them onto a three-dimensional world. ~moo

Unicorns *cannot* exist? Why not? Fine. Replace 'aliens' with 'bigfoot', and you tell me what proof you'd need. Is that better? My point is that you seem to neglect the fact that the aliens you're suggestion are a huge hypothesis. The idea that there might be alien life out there in the universe is accepted, generally, in the scientific community. It also makes sense. However, the idea of alien-visitations as UFOs, requires these multiple assertions to be made. None of these are proven. Some require a leap of faith, some require much more. But together, they're built on top of one another, and the *combination* is exponentially less likely than every one of them separate: Aliens exist. Aliens are intelligent. Aliens arrived to Earth. Aliens can communicate with us, extensively. Aliens are sufficiently similar to humans to allow for communication and compatible thought pattern. Aliens understand our politics, and either don't want to be visible, or agree with whatever-government(s) that they shouldn't be visible. Aliens talk with only one government, *OR* Many governments are involved in one of the biggest conspiracies ever. Aliens are able to travel huge interstellar distances, And there are more subtle assertions the UFO claim often raises, depending which type you lean towards. I keep raising Ocham's razor, and it keeps being ignored (or swallowed in the rest of the claims), but honestly, if this was about ferries, or unicorns, or bigfoot, Ocham's razor would have probably been the first item of our list of why the claim is scientifically invalid. The point of this 'exercise' of switching UFO with unicorns - or ferries, or bigfoot, or [insert unlikely creature here] - was to remind everyone that the aliens in the UFO claims are much more than just a 'possible creature'. While life in the universe is plausible, the idea they arrive here is less likely (possible, and less likely.. please notice my terms), and the idea they resemble us in thought patterns or the like to allow for extensive communication is even less likely (possible, and unlikely), and the idea they have enough technology to arrive to earth is less likely--- etc. 1 is unlikely. 2 is unlikely. 3 is unlikely. 1 *AND* 2 *AND* 3 are *extremely* unlikely. Much more than each one separately. I'm sure each and every one of you have claims you dismiss because of occham's razor. Replace "alien visitations" with one like that. Now tell me what, in all that is science'y - is the difference between those and the aliens-are-visiting-us-UFO. I'm not dismissing offhand. I'm using a scientific methodology to try and judge relevancy. I fails the test, like other claims, and it seems to me, those who make this claim forget that they use the methodology on other claims themselves. I'm not trying to ridicule. I'm trying to understand. This is so preposterous, I'm having real hard time understanding how it could possibly be a proper scientifically-valid suggestion to something we can't explain, and have no evidence for. If that's not 'jumping to conclusions', I'm not sure I know what is. ~moo

Moontanman, replace "Aliens" with "Unicorn" and then you tell me what kind of proof you would require.

It feels like you're trying to stir things up. How 'bout you give me a bit of the benefit of the doubt, read what I said throughout the thread before you claim I am being non skeptical. And as I've pointed out, if we were talking about a single ship - or a small number of ships - then your point would be right. But we seem to be talking about *hundreds* of ships throughout the centuries, if not much much more. Not only would we have been able to spot something, statistics would dictate we'd be spotting something -- ANYTHING -- anomalous that would require more explanations. We are looking at the skies quite a lot, and we should've spotted something anomalous that would - most definitely - lead to further investigation of the region, and would yield further anomalies (even *after* the ship leaves an area, you would spot remnants of it, if you looked). Nothing was found in the past many many years of investigation. Not a peep. Nada. That doesn't say alien visitations are impossible, and it doesn't say they don't exist. It makes them that much more unlikely, though. Either one is fine, since I said 99% of those that were investigated were found to be man-made or natural, not 99% of all UFO sightings. I do have a few sources, but I'm not home, I'll have to get back with the sources on this. This isn't very different from the stories of bigfoot. There's no definitive study 'debunking' bigfoot. And the animal may very well exist. However, the multitude of fake evidence (that turned out to be definitively fake), the fact there are no traces of such an animal when those *should* exist, and the fact that most accounts of it are unsupported, render the claim unlikely. Not impossible. Unlikely. There's a difference. And the UFO claim is in the same basket. Not impossible, in the least. Just very - very - unlikely. It seems to me, though, that we're going backwards a bit in this particular case. We need evidence *FOR* alien visitations, not evidence they don't exist. Right? Again, the fact we can't explain something doesn't mean it supports the proposition. It just means we can't explain it. Argument from ignorance is far from proof, and since we require extraordinary evidence in this case of extraordinary claims, it's *far* from sufficient. Of course not. But there are very few propositions in science that have 100% anything. Everything is based on plausibility -> research -> establishment -> change -> and so on. There is a claim. You test for its plausibility, then check for evidence, and judge if there's any sense in continuing. I gave the example of the unicorn for a reason. There's no evidence showing unicorns don't exist - as science rarely deals with what doesn't exist, but rather with what does exist. How far would you investigate the unicorns claim? How far would it take until you dismiss it practically, if not entirely? The fact you dismiss a claim practically means you won't waste resources until you get a reason to. It doesn't mean you make the claim that it's impossible. Same for UFOs. They both are possible. They are also both implausible. They both need a really big reason to reconsider their scientific merit. Don't you agree with this assertion? That's all I'm saying, really. Which is why I said a simple picture isn't going to be enough, but still, it seems like most UFO sightings are either hearsay or *REALLY* crappy videos. I'm not saying this, on its own, is enough to dismiss the claim entirely, but that also explains why those pieces of evidence are not good enough. The 'rant' about the better video was a caviat, really. Not relevant, I was making a tongue-in-cheek point. Then the claim can't be proven. However, there's also the issue of occham's razor and the fact that the assumption of visiting aliens require a multitude of assumptions, each rather extraordinary on its own. Ocham's razor itself requires us extraordinary evidence to consider this assertion, as you know, since the UFO claim can be explained much easier, much simpler, with less assumptions made, by other natural explanations. Do you disagree? The majority of the scientific publications don't take these seriously, mainly for the reasons above (ocham's razor, insanely extraordinary assumptions on assumptions, and lack of evidence that should be there). UFO evidence aren't published either, though, so in this point they're both under the same last. And again, regarding the cites, I'll look for them when I get back. You should check JREF site, though, they should have a few as far as I remember, and Skeptoid.com went over a few too. I'll cite a few of the investigations when I come back. I would like to point out, though, that even if those were not investigated, that's less the point I'm trying to make here. I think they *should* be investigated, but I also understand why scientists have no funds, time or inclination to research these at the moment - scientific research, many times, is about prioritization. This subject is indistinguishable from ferries and unicorns; there are no proof, there's no evidence where you *should* find evidence, and occham's razor wins. The side for the UFO-as-visitors should bring forth something much better than what they have so far if they want to convince anyone from the scientific community to put funds, effort and research time on this. Like unicorns. It's about plausibility, or the lack thereof. We require all claim-makers to bring forth evidence that fit the claim. This claim is against Occham's razor, against what we see, and has no evidence. The claim makers should bring forth an incredible evidence, suitable to the incredible claim. ~moo

This is the third time you're doing this, which makes it even more annoying, capn. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I *REPEATEDLY* stated that I don't dismiss anything outright, I would like to see the evidence first. I "debunked" the evidence I already knew was checked out (min min lights, etc). And the current discussion isn't about debunking; it's explaining why - to begin with - this assumption that UFOs are aliens visiting the Earth is extraordinary and - in light of the fact that we haven't detected *ANYTHING* unusual, bordering on preposterous. You have a knack for keeping your mind overly open, which is great, just be careful not to let your brain fall out. I understand that you want to keep balanced discussion, but in this case, the evidence are so insanely lacking so far, that we need something *BIG*. My latest few posts was an attempt to explain why what I would require as evidence is bigger than what I would probably require as evidence for less extraordinary claims. That's not going beyond skepticism, Cap'n, that's being scientific. I'm not dismissing anything, but I'm not going to pretend like we don't know anything either -- OR that these claims were never ever ever tested, either. The facts are: We see quite a lot of our visible universe, and we observe a our near space constantly, from various places on earth. %99.9999999 of the cases where UFO sightings were tested scientifically, a solution that is not alien was discovered, proven, and was able to be reproduced. There were many instances where UFO "sightings" were faked, and proven to be faked. Today's technology allows almost anyone to take relatively great-quality pictures or videos of almost anything. Amazing how such sightings are always grainy, lacking light, and are never on time. EVER. Even statistically, someone should be taping a good video by now. At some point, you have to state where you put your resources. If you claim the moon is made of cheese, then as a good skeptic, you shouldn't dismiss it outright; however, if a vast amount of cases show you are probably wrong, *and* a vast amount of observation is against it, *and* what we know of physics prevents it - then at some point, you dismiss this claim until there is some seriously extraordinary proof to show otherwise. This is what's happening in the case of alien visitations and UFOs. UFO sightings *are* researched. Not all of them, no, but many. *MANY*. And every time we check into a claim (most of them are pretty repetitive, we can assign many of them to recurring spacial phenomena we know well) the claim turns out to be either natural or man made. Add to that the fact that in our current day and age, technology gives almost anyone the ability to look up into the night's sky -- all over the world -- quite far, or quite accurately close, and yet we have not a SHRED of evidence there's anything remotely anomolous out there. All these add up to show how far fetched the idea is. At some point, the claim of alien visitation just seems so preposterous, that you require equally extraordinary evidence. I didn't dismiss anything, I was making exactly this point. It isn't going beyond skepticism, it's being scientific. We have no proof that unicorns don't exist, either. They might, why not? Maybe they're perfectly good at hiding really really well. At some point, though, the claim just becomes laughable - no simple picture would convince you of the existence of unicorns, will it? You will require something more. A life specimen, perhaps. Something more than what you would require to prove, say, that a certain type of trout exist. Because the evidence must accomodate the claim, and in this case - much like the case of the unicorn - the claim is a build-up of so many assumptions, each so preposterous on its own - that the required evidence should be equally as extraordinary. I didn't say this can't possibly be true. I said this is unlikely, and it is. ~moo