ManusJustus said:
No, I do not. I was referring to the style in which they present their argument. For the record I do not believe in UFOs. Some people who believe in UFOs make logical arguments, such as stating backable evidence such as government reports or other facts and figures. Aliens must have created crop circles because they are too perfect for humans is a logical argument, even though it did come out that people were using simple, yet sophisticated methods for creating crop circles. Other arguments like the possibility of organic life elsewhere and possibility of super advanced technoloy fall in this category. Some people who believe in UFOs make bad, illogical arguments. Such as heresays, making wild assumptions, stating stories that somebody told a source who later told them, and other bad arguments. I apply the same comparison to religion. If someone comments on a study on prayer and health or makes a comment on the conservation of matter and energy I think that is a much better argument than I know a guy who knows a guy who claimed this happened. |
My posts never said "I know a guy that knows a guy who claimed this happened" I stated things I witnessed personally, as well as things that reputable people I know directly stated with the corroboration of several witnesses. Eyewitness accounts are some of the most important arguments in a court of law, especially when verified by multiple witnesses, why are they not viable here?
