::: OK, I'm learning. A mild summer can signify ... global warming in the views of some. That's news to me. As to life in outer space, I agree it's absurd but many [[liberals]] have believed in it with religious fervor, and wasted billions on looking for it. That's gullibility. The moon landing was real and brought back rocks disproving another liberal theory: that the moon had come from the earth. It didn't, and [[atheists]] have no plausible explanation for the moon now. See [[Moon Origins]]. But don't expect [[public school]] students to learn the truth!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: So, what's your theory on it? A captured asteroid? That seems to be the most logical explanation, at this point. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 19:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Kektk your intial argument against extraterrestrial life forms is we did not see fully developed aliens in the first 4 planets we stopped by? You ofcause overlooked the fact that any Carl Sagen often stressed that any extraterrestrial life form would most likly be just microbes (a bit hard to see from space). Also Christian apologist often harp on about the earth being in a habital zone and hence showing God's wisdom in that is were he put the plant with life on it (almost the equivalent to staring at fire and saying is it not good that the fire is hot enough to burn wood). Yet you list several plants outside a habital zone. These millions of dollars "wasted" to search for extraterrestrial life forms arn't to "find alians" it is to establish whether life is unique to earth or not?
:::::Also as far as I understood the rocks from the moonlanding found that the moon was formed by the collision from the earth and some large objects, I could be wrong if you can give me evidence I would like to see it.
:::::As for global warming whilst there are disenters, their existence dosn't disprove global warming anymore than the existence of people who support the hypothesis proves it correct.
:::::Liberal gullibilty to me seems to be disagreeing with you on things you closed your mind about several years ago. ETLF and the Moon to support weakly supported YEC views and global warming to support your ... I have no idea why people find the fact that humans affected the earth we live on so hard to believe. It can't be economic views as some people are using GW to make piles of cash in the free market look at the companies making hybrid cars. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:11, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::'''Comment''': We have moved away from the main point that you claim it is Liberals that claim to see UFOs please address my point under the heading '''UFOs?'''. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:13, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
So are you saying Aschlafly if it is wrong that the moon came from earth it must have been god?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:59, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, do your homework. Carl Sagan and many other suppossed 'leftists' believe in life in outer space but Sagan did not believe that they were visiting us via UFOs. Also I dont know why you are so sure there isnt life elsewhere.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Why is life in outer space absurd? Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 17:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
==Life in outer Space==
Its absurd to completely reject the idea that there may be life in outer space. We don't know whether there is or not. I am tempted to say this list isn't of Liberal gullibility, this article is worthless and should be thrown into the bin. It serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the prejudices of a very bitter man. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:52, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
== Comments on the above ==
Thanks for the comments by [[liberals]] demonstrating how they still think there is life in outer space. This confirms the point in the entry here.
One of the comments above stated, "Also as far as I understood the rocks from the moonlanding found that the moon was formed by the collision from the earth and some large objects, I could be wrong if you can give me evidence I would like to see it." You are wrong, and I did give you a cite: [[Moon Origins]]. But I don't expect you to pursue it with an open mind because, unfortunately, [[deliberate ignorance]] is classic [[liberal style]]. [[Liberals]] love saying things like, "I've never heard that," and then refuse to look into it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Ahhh I think you'll find conservatives believing that there is life out there too. It is entirely possible. And you never answered how you ''know'' there isnt?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:49, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Andy you have sucessfully railroaded this talk page away from the article. Your claim that Liberal's claim to see UFOs (different from the possible exsistence of ETLF) exclusivly/more often than conservative something you still have not addressed is the map showing the distribution of UFO sighting remain largly in Republican states and mostly in rural areas were Republican voting is higher.
:Also you tend to treat YEC as a default stance. You think that by shooting down alternative theories yours then becomes right. However the moon was created it was not placed there magically 6,000 years ago. It is older than that any decent amount of effort would find you that. For starters there are human culters that go back further than that. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:'''Comment''' Did you read all the [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/program.pdf talk abstracts]? Most were supportive of the GIT and the first invited speakers on timing intial statement was that it is well established the Earth is 6.57 billion years old but dating the moon is harder yada yada... You have been selective with your choice of references and again showning yourself wrong in your claim scientist are censoring opposing views in that the disenters were invited to the conference in order to present the papers you cite. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
==Circular Logic?==
''Circular reasoning "proves" something. (For example, assuming an element had a half-life of 700 million years in order to "prove" that the universe is older than 700 million years).''
This strickly speaking isn't circular, it is fallacious to assume something true when it is not readibly obvious in order to prove something, but this isn't circular.
Circular would be "This object is 700 million years old I know this because I have this test which shows it is. This test works because it found this 700 million years old object to be 700 million years old."
The half-life of isotopes are well established and intimatly link to the strong-nuclear force. It is a little detailed to go into here and you would need to take a course in quantum-field theory. There are some isotope who have a half-life in excess of the age of the universe and no one is claiming the universe is that old as a result. The practice of radiological dating has problems but at no point has someone "assumed an element had a half-life of 700 million years" test by physicist have found it to be that long indepedent from its use in geology. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)