I'm only talking about your usage of occam's razor as if it really means anything.

I'm saying in light of the lack of evidence of ancient astronauts aside from reinterpretations of myths and ambiguous art makes my interpretation the more simple and therefore the most plausible. Just as the lack of evidence of the existence of unicorns or the ability to make them artificially makes a claim of owning one dubious. The simple and thus more plausible explanation of a person who claims to own one is that that person is lying. Of course you can't know for sure that I don't have one. That doesn't mean that you should take me seriously when I say that I do.

So more plausible is equal to truth.

It is for the purposes of scientific consensus. Evolution is more plausible than creationism, therefore we teach it in schools. Or would you rather we "teach the controversy"?

Of course my conclusions might turn out to be false in the future. I never said that could never happen. Somebody might discover an ancient spaceship, just as someone might discover some live unicorns frolicking in a remote part of the Amazonian rainforest. If such evidence appeared I would of course radically alter my worldview.

But until that happens, I stand by my conclusions.

Many people died because of these words.

Don't you dare Godwin this thread, you prick.

Bush, Nazis, Catholics, Christians, Romans, Russians, fucking shit I can go on, but you said the exact closed minded words of all these people.

Let me use you as an example. To date there is one picture of you. No one has ever met you. You have published the same picture a few times as you. One should assume you are someones character. Therefore you don't exist. Should I now just ignore every theory you have, or should I consider that I may be wrong and collect your theories as a possibility? What is the best way to grow the future? Doubt until proof or consideration until disproved?

In my eyes, you picked the most comfortable chair. I prefer adventure myself.

Uh, hello? The aliens used their nanoconstructors to create hundreds of different pyramids around the world. I think they can handle making a Youtube video of one of their supersoldiers rolling concrete blocks.

They left little hints in the video, like naming their guy "Wally Wallington". I'll bet he married "Wilma Wilmington". And the reason the audio is so terrible is because of packet loss resulting from the video being uploaded through the Van Allen radiation belt.

And don't forget this: "His passion is moving heavy items." Classic supersoldier passion.

You might even be Geggy's split personality. :tear

You are right O_O!

he ist das ubersoldat!

What the fuck is so implausible about unicorns anyway? its just a fucking horse with a single horn like a rhinocerus that contains magic and is as precious as a child's innocence. It's not like its impossible or something.

Narwhals were a myth.

lol this is exactly like this thread where she had arguments against futurism :(

I remember when I felt strongly about something. Turned out I was a teenager.

I don't quite understand what your getting at. Are you suggesting that my argument that the ancient astronaut theory is wrong to be analogous to concluding that I'm a character? Are you saying that I am failing to take evidence into account in my conclusions just as you would be if you assumed I was a character? If so, then perhaps this debate would be better served by presenting me with the evidence in question that you think that I've overlooked rather than continuing along this line of discussion.

Yes Jeanette, it is extremely hard for you to take in to consideration the whole of the universe. Things can actually relate to other things. I like to call it a comparison.

So present me with the evidence that you think I've overlooked in my hasty conclusion. Enlighten me.

The simple lack of evidence that you have provided is evident of your hasty conclusion.

No, you're the one defending the fringe claim. The onus is on YOU to provide me with evidence backing it.

I never said the theory you provided was false. The onus is on you because you are claiming the fringe claim is wrong.

I asked for specific examples from people to discuss. Do you really expect me systemically collect every last piece of ancient astronaut goobeldygook from every last weirdo out there and present them here?

What is it SPECIFICALLY about the theory that you find plausible?

I know what you asked for, but part of being a sentient being is to think for ones self. I don't bow to you. I don't expect you to know everything, that's the point.

What do I find plausible about ancient astronauts? I need to be clear on this. Is that your question?

I don't see how you've shown that any of this is not plausible.

To say that in the time of our elders, alien life with space travel could not have existed would sound completely fucking stupid. She is stuck between creationism and evolution and doesn't understand that there might be more that 2 choices.