On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:04:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Aug 16, 11:47*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:37:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Aug 14, 1:19 am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 04:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Goo lied:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
>> >> >> >> >> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
>> >> >> >> > is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
>> >> >> >> already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
>> >> >> >> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.
>>
>> >> >> >Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may
>> >> >> >look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe
>> >> >> >has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the
>> >> >> >form of earthly based DNA life-forms.
>>
>> >> >> Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those
>> >> >> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every
>> >> >> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to
>> >> >> ignore that one and if so why?
>>
>> >> >Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent
>> >> >extraterrestrials if they existed?
>>
>> >> It would depend on whether they want us to be able to or not.
>>
>> >That is different to what you said before.
>>
>> * * Like what?
>>
>> >> For example if
>> >> such beings do come to this planet and some of the thousands or millions of ufo
>> >> sightings are actually of xts, it means the people were able to see them because
>> >> the xts wanted to be seen. It's always their lights that allows people to see
>> >> them, so it must be intentional if it's happening at all. If they do exist they
>> >> apparently want us to be isolated and not know about it for sure. Humans do the
>> >> same sort of thing, and have non-interference ideas and try to have zero or very
>> >> little influence etc with wildlife. So even if they exist and are having and
>> >> have had tremendous influence there's no reason to think we'd be able to know
>> >> about it, unless some ufo sightings and crop circles etc are for real. If some
>> >> are then they're giving us little glimpses but not enough that we can say for
>> >> sure they exist, much less allow us to detect their transmissions of whatever
>> >> they use to communicate. And we damn sure can't jump around to check out a bunch
>> >> of star systems to see what's going on. For all we know there could be star
>> >> systems with hundreds of inhabitted worlds filled with beings far more
>> >> intelligent and advanced than we are whithin 20 light years of here, or not. We
>> >> have no way of knowing. Were you unaware of that?
>>
>> >No, and I gave you no grounds for thinking that I was.
>>
>> * * Then you should be able to appreciate why we wouldn't necessarily be able to
>> detect them, and especially if they didn't want us to. We're in no position to
>> go find out.
>
>That is not what you said. You didn't say that it was a possibility
>that they might go undetected. If you had said that you would have got
>no argument from me. You said categorically that they would go
>undetected. This is the claim that I asked you to justify.

If any exist it's pretty obvious that we couldn't detect any of them even if
they inhabit every other star system in the universe, since we haven't detected
any even if they inhabit every other star system in the universe.