As vast as the universe is there is definitely a probability that there is other life out there. We are soooo insignificant its not even funny, I love watching that show HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS. Really gives you a scale of how small we are in the universe.
" @Jimmi: Science Blogs is actually a very serious and respected site. It is written by a fairly large selection of experts in a variety of fields and is followed by many in the scientific community. The Journal of Cosmology... not so much.
I know that this is a superficial way of judging merit, but just take a look at their websites and tell me which one you think is more credible. Science Blogs Cosmology "
But none of that matters because the Journal Of Cosmology is a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. If you ever went to, oh, I don't know, COLLEGE, or ever written an essay on, oh, I don't know, ANYTHING, peer-reviewed journals are the best sources to cite.
@Napalm: I understand the function of peer reviewed journals and am not bashing them solely because they have crappy websites. That was just a simple way to get the point across that this one maybe doesn't have much going for it.
The Journal of Cosmology doesn't properly exist. It has a website and a few issues, but it is not recognized anywhere and is all seemly run by one man who will publish anything that might support his theory that life originated in space. I am not trying to discredit journals in general as a valuable resource with legitimate expert studies and opinions, only this one.
@Slaker117: I'm just stating facts, duder. You're welcomed to disagree, and don't call me a jerk because I bring up how important scholarly peer-reviewed journals are. I was not* speaking of this one particularly, but if I can find it on a state-run site like Galileo, then it is nearly guaranteed to be credible, whether you agree with his points or not.
@Slaker117: I was upping the sarcasm on my original post. I guess you were invested too heavily in this topic to see that, which is fine. My point still stands, regardless.
@Napalm: I wouldn't call your tone "just stating facts" and I have stated that I understand the importance of peer reviewed journals. I'm not here to pick fights, but look at the post you made and tell me that you don't come off as incredibility smarmy. I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that's an error in interpretation. I don't think you can say "if you ever, oh, I don't know, SOMETHING IN ALL CAPS" and not be purposefully condescending.
See? I just did a variation of it and now I'm starting to look like a jerk myself. I'm not lashing out because I disagree with your points, I don't. It was your manner of delivery that the final comment was aimed at.
Really dude, I'm not getting mad, and don't want you to get mad, but you can't pretend to be the nice guy or act bothered when someone calls you out on it.
@Slaker117: I'm sorry, but I'm not reading all of that. I was simply stating a position, but you can pretend like you're "exposing my wildly false intellect," if you want to give yourself some sense of achievement, but either way, I don't really care what you have to say, or what you think. If you didn't like what I wrote, then you should have just let it be and stopped being an annoying little twerp while constantly quoting and nicely name-calling me. And yes, I just did it myself because good god you are annoying the hell out of me.
This is the internet: you're not required to respond or even acknowledge anything.
" Also, if Fox News deigned to interview the guy, you can bet he's not the most reliable scientist. "
To be honest that kind of makes me think he's a very realiable scientist. I mean we're talking about a news company that has GLENN BECK (and to a less extent, orielly) on their crew and claim to be fair and balanced.
There's no way this scientist could be more nuts than beck.
Log in to comment