Comments by "American Plague" (@American-Plague) on "Spark" channel.

  1.  @curiosus8668  It IS like that. Because you would have to compare the entire knowledge on Earth to just a single existing person who has just now walked onto the shoreline of the beach in the hypothetical example. Most people have not actually seen fish in the ocean. They only know fish exist in the ocean because of shared human knowledge. Since the Earth doesn't have any shared knowledge with anywhere else, we are like the single existing individual (who has never heard of fish existing in the ocean, because they are the only existing human) standing on the shoreline who has never been there asking "Are there fish in the ocean?"
    5
  2. Yeah...agreed. What's actually absurd is your intentional misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what's being said. Why exactly do you people do this? Take what's being said and twist it around to make it sound as stupid as you possibly can, then present that as what's actually being said and start going on about how ridiculous what YOU and nobody else said, is? Why don't we try an experiment to show you how stupid you sound: you give your version of how things happened and I'll make shit up, put it in your mouth and then we can all have a laugh at what YOU said? Actually I'm pretty sure we'd all have a laugh at what you actually said anyway without me having to twist anything so to make it shorter, just tell us what REALLY happened?
    4
  3.  @stephenr80  You might EAT fish every week but you don't SEE THEM IN THE OCEAN EVERY DAY. AND THE VAST MAJORITY of people don't even live on the ocean and therefore even see that every year. How do you not follow what I'm saying? Do you have comprehension issues? Perhaps YOU should learn to read and comprehend what you're reading, thereby completely understanding the comparisons before YOU comment.
    3
  4. Shannon Smith is correct. No vertebrate has backward facing knees. They all point forward. Just out of curiosity: are you a creationist/theist who was looking for some new, "intelligent" argument against evolution?
    3
  5.  @stephenr80  No...it's a god example. Read explanation above ☝
    2
  6. It isn't just HUMAN nature. It's PREDATORY nature. A predatory lifestyle begets technology. You need technology to hunt to progress. Of the few species on Earth who are capable of making and using a tool, ALL are predatory. What does this most likely say about a civilization that has technology far advanced being our own? Because it tells me that most likely they evolved as a predator....a species that evolved as a predator/hunter. Not a passive vegetarian. It takes intelligence to make technological advances that allow you to hunt prey. It doesn't take intelligence or technology to eat a plant that just sits there.
    2
  7. "Missing link" is a term that only creatards use. Scientists do not use this term. Furthermore...of course there isn't any missing link. That's because innumerable links between a common ape-like ancestor and modern humans have been found you fucking dolt. They aren't missing anymore. They are now just "links". Why don't you give us a clear and concise definition as to what is acceptable for a "missing link" were it to be found instead of just repeating the same, old, tired, repetitive, 200 year old shit that creatards have been spewing on about?
    2
  8. How the fuck did you get that the signal "said 'WOW'" out of this?! 😵 Unbelievable...
    2
  9. @Redding Shelby Stop telling people. If too many people do this, YouTube will figure out a way to stop it from working anymore.
    2
  10. Yes, and advanced humans would still recognize smoke signals as smoke signals. Whether or not they could translate exactly what it means isn't the point, it's whether they could recognize it as a message at all...which they would most likely be able to as can we with smoke signals. Also, what would you suggest? Using technology we don't even have yet? How's that going to work?
    1
  11.  @Mr11ESSE111  I didn't say they would answer with smoke signals. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said they would see it for what it is. They would understand that it's intelligent people doing it and then reply by whatever means they want to...if they even choose to reply at all. They would still understand it.
    1
  12.  @Mr11ESSE111  You think governments will be able to suppress aliens from doing whatever the fuck they want to do? If they want to show themselves to us they will. And exactly why are they too far away? What if they are only 10 light years away and far more advanced? You don't know what technology they might have. And why exactly won't they hear anything because of distance? Even if they are 1 million light years away they could've reached our level of technology 1 million years ago and the signal would just now be getting to us. Doesn't that make sense or can't you think?
    1
  13. Good point. It would seem, if done fairly, it should've been voted on by the global population at the very least.
    1
  14. That's what people thought about other galaxies until the 1920's and about other planets until the 1990's.
    1
  15. Yep. Depends where you are standing.
    1
  16. I'm having a hard time nodding...
    1
  17. Exactly. Life itself may be everywhere. INTELLIGENT life that has also developed civilization and at least 20th century Earth technology (hell...even BC era technology)....that's most likely a different story.
    1
  18. Just because atheists and science don't have an exact answer for your question YET doesn't validate your belief that a god exists. 1,000 years ago you'd think you were slick asking basically the same question (What I want to know is how atheists explain RAINBOWS!) as if THAT proved God simply because we didn't know yet. The answer DID come in time however and it never validated the "fact" that it's God's bow. Why can't you theists get these very basic and easy to understand points through your thick skulls? It's ALMOST like you're just intellectually lazy and don't WANT to understand....ALMOST....😑
    1
  19. Like Avatar. And, like Avatar (assuming we could get to their planet and back within a reasonable amount of time), we would immediately begin trying to take advantage of them any way we could.
    1
  20.  Hugh Jardon  It's not "utter bullshit". I do it ALL the time and did it on this one. Perhaps it's an operator error.
    1
  21. Yep. The mathematical odds are approaching inevitability.
    1
  22. The real problem is that technology is created and advanced by being an aggressive hunter, not a passive vegetarian. Of all the animals on Earth, the only ones who possess ANY form of technological advancement are extremely intelligent predators. In other words: aggressive killing machines. It would seem reasonable that technological advancement would provide similar advantages elsewhere. That being said: anything technologically advanced has most likely evolved to be a highly efficient killing machine.
    1
  23. So you can prove they don't exist? Out of the nearly endless planets and the fact that on a universal time scale we JUST opened our eyes to look and the mathematical possibilities that this implies, you somehow just KNOW they don't exist. Correct? Explain how you know this.
    1
  24. Less of a waste of taxpayer money than paying MILLIONS of people's electric bills and rent and filling their refrigerator with better food than I can afford who are 100% capable of working but thanks to the politically correct world we live in it is unacceptable to call it for what it is. Less of a waste by an exponential amount. Furthermore, they said right at the beginning that it's privately funded. What's the problem?
    1
  25.  @arourallis  Even if we did teach foreign languages from kindergarten on, who's to say they would be learning German instead of Spanish, as you pointed out, (which would be FAR more useful in the US)? The fact is that English is the "global" language that almost every country uses to communicate with another when they don't know the other country's native language. According to this idiot it's somehow not a good idea to use that "global" language so that the majority of people can understand. No..we should use German simply because it suits him and his country.
    1
  26.  David McCormick  Exactly. This idiot talks like he's an international airliner pilot. Any idiot can get a license to fly a Cessna.
    1
  27. Get rid of whatever device you are using to post your bullshit comments then. Science gave that to you so it's just a lie. Edit: I'm sorry: just a satanic lie. It doesn't really work. Throw it away and shut up then.
    1
  28. I heard 40 billion as well. Wtf.
    1
  29. Please train yourself to spell "propper" properly. It is "proper". It is basic middle school education. Come on. Don't have idiots type your comments.
    1
  30.  @MrRobertbyers  And as an atheist I would say that nobody cares what creationists/idiots think except other creationists/idiots.
    1
  31. I would disagree. The brain is nothing more than matter interpreting electrical signals, as is a computer. The only difference at this stage of time and human technology is the matter from which the computer is made, how these electrical signals are interpreted and how advanced is the technology. The simple fact that a brain exists and it's known exactly from which elements it is made tells us that a brain can be created. If we have the elements which make up the brain, which we do, the only thing stopping us from replicating a brain is our current level of technology. This crystal mumbo jumbo is exactly that: mumbo jumbo. There is nothing to compare it to, there are no preexisting examples of this working. It's just horse shit.
    1
  32. Omg! No way! 2 HUNDRED probes that never even left our one single solar system?! Well! In that case: case CLOSED. All the samples needed have been taken, life only exists on Earth. You don't have a Master's Degree in mathematics by chance do you?
    1
  33.  @arourallis  My GUESS would be because it doesn't fit with his/her religious view, therefore it's wrong.
    1
  34.  @ambulocetusnatans  Hahaha! I might do that....
    1
  35. Or if it were only 4.24 light years away (which is how far the nearest star is) it would only take a round trip of 8.5 years. So why not try? Even if it (the nearest civilization) WAS 100 light years away, so what? Should we not explore for future generations? What if past generations had that attitude? Where would you be right now?
    1