Recently in my church's young adults page, I had a rather unpleasant encounter with one Adam Hunter. He displayed an incredibly poor reading comprehension and his manners were no better than what you'd find in a kindergarten.
Rather than joining Adam in a tirade of childish name calling, it seems more appropriate to post my comments alongside his, with my response to each comment below.
To begin with, Adam talks about cellular life forms existing in the Universe. I ask
^^^Are you able to send a link for a report, journal article, news article etc which discusses these cellular life forms please
To which Adam replies
No but I can provide you with ample documentation on the size and age of the universe and abiogenises and the number of planets that we have observed which could support life and extrapolations for a number of them for just our galaxy the rest is pure statistics my friend. As it is extremely likely that there are over billions of planets/moons that can support the existence of life and the age of the universe and that we know that life originated at least once (not necessarily on Earth) then it would be supremely ignorant to suggest that life is not present somewhere else in the universe at this moment, let alone any other point in time and very reasonable to think that life is not relatively uncommon throughout the universe.
Mr Hunter could have finished my input on the post there and then by linking me any article, discussion, or video which covers life outside earth (of which there are plenty). Instead, he throws in some scientific jargon and circumstantial statistics. The mere existence of many planets in the universe does not prove life exists there. In many cases, the planets and moons are too close or too far away from each star. The age of the universe debate is irrelevant. Going on modern science, its safe to assert its around 13.5 billion years old. Mr Hunter proves his comprehension is a bit rusty when he says "it would be supremely ignorant to suggest life is not present somewhere else in the universe." Where he got the impression I was coming at that remains unclear but it was not suggested by me.
Adam then snidely says
I am almost certainly right but dw, I am used to that
If Mr. Hunter would like to prove how right he almost always is, perhaps he'd like to answer a few questions from here. Which foods are good to eat when running an Ultra-marathon? How effective is gastric band surgery vs a Hypnotic gastric band in losing weight? What are all the chemical base pairs which make up the entire DNA sequence? Is Europe a better tourist destination than South America? Yes, a nice comprehensive answer for every single one is wanted, without the help of the internet.
Not providing any links I ask again, even providing him a link to give him an indication of what I'm looking for with a link.
I'm well aware of how old the universe is and its vast size. I want to see some objective evidence, like such
Adam ignores the question again and writes
Well of course I can't give you objective proof you fool, I never said I could... If I could then it would be common knowledge and I wouldn't have to. What I did say was that it is almost 100% based on statistics nothing more. I mean what exactly do you want?
It is here, where Mr Hunter brings back some rather bad manners one would have thought a grown man would have disposed of in primary school. No matter though, he uses the word fool to try and dismiss my question as unworthy. If Adam could not put two and two together and provide me with a simple link, he ought to start reading some more to improve his reading comprehension. You can decide for yourself how clear my wording was.
A middleman intervenes and comments
He means scientific reasoning and evidence, not statistics.
Adam replies
I gave him scientific reasoning which involves statistics. If he wishes to disagree with my conclusion then he must first falsify any of the claims I put forward not ask for something that doesn't exist.
Once again, Adam fails to see that at no point in time I disagreed with him that life may exist outside of earth. He can try argue this until the cows come home. If he does though, he must not use the phrases "your questions implied" or "it seems like." Either I disagreed with him or I did not.
In a bid to simplify my questions to Adam's pathetic level of reading comprehension, I decided to phrase it in an even more specific manner.
I'll reword my question (which wasn't worded well I'll admit). Can you please provide a link to any scientific discussion, debate, story, video clip, etc which backs up your statistic claim that there is likely to be other forms of life out there? This "fool" is interested in seeing where your statistics come from, as they raise many questions in my mind.
Adam either finally understands the question or has just decided now is the right time to give a proper answer.
Well you may not necessarily be a fool but you are certainly ignorant. The drake equation comes to mind which is more of a summary of my points (but specifically about intelligent life that we may be able to contact at some point) but Hawkin, Dawkins, Michio Kaku all come to the same conclusion. Which one of my points do you disagree with or argue with?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16515944 is the most important point which had some doubt around it until recently
Mr Hunter's pathetic reading comprehension appears again. Rather than engage properly in the discussion, he continues with his tirade of immature name calling in an attempt to try elevate his argument as the superior one (even though one was never initiated). In an effort to try drag me into the argument he says "which one of my points do you disagree with or argue with?" Well, he can go back and read very carefully to see that I did not, at any point disagree with him. All the time I was asking him to post a link or two with scientific discussion about the topic. If he cannot understand that was all I wanted, then he must explain what was so complicated about the question.
In a response to the post I wrote
Well this "ignorant fool" is able to admit he is devoid of a reasonable understanding about the cosmos and life in the universe. If you actually read carefully, you'll see that I do not disagree with you at all. I just wanted to see the sources of your statistics.
Once again: Adam
nothing wrong with being ignorant as long as you aware that you are and attempt to fix it. You can use google as well as I can as I do not have sources on hand. In short any biologist or cosmologist will tell you that is is very very likely life exists somewhere else (probably in time too)
No apology is given by Adam for misreading my questions. Instead it is another round of ad hominem and abuse.
The middle man joins the conversation again, having clearly read our discussion and being able to comprehend it maturely.
Like Stuart said, he was never disagreeing with you, he simply wanted to know your reasoning. Labelling him 'ignorant' and 'foolish' was not only incorrect but also uncalled for. Discuss with respect, or your comments will be deleted.
Adam, unable to admit he was arguing against nobody, conveniently avoids the issue.
Erm... I rescinded my calling him a fool but calling somebody ignorant isn't an insult, I am ignorant about many things. So jog on
In a tower high above everyone else, Mr Hunter has been trying to shoot arrows into the night, hoping they'll hit a target. Calling someone "ignorant," I repeat "ignorant..." (one more time "ignorant") is not an insult. So according to him, I completely lack general knowledge or awareness because I asked him for a link about cellular life on other planets. In a rather clumsy effort to vindicate his comment he admits he is ignorant about many things. How sure can he be that calling someone ignorant is not an insult? Is he again convinced of his own rightness or is he not letting in on something?
If Adam Hunter can respond in a civilised way-which he has struggled to do previously- then he can defend his position here as much as he likes. I'm not going to say too much more about the issue after replying to his response.
***A note to my readers as well. At the end of next month, newswithmorenews will no longer be a blog. Most of my political articles will now appear on getfrank.co.nz.
No comments:
Post a Comment