3) Why don't LEGITIMATE scientists consider it
> No offense, but who cares what they think?!?
We're supposed to believe a scam artist with a psych degree of all things over geneticists and anatomists? Really?
At best, they are
> typically 50 years behind the curve and at worst they're
> claiming that 96% of the universe is made of two magical
> substances nobody has any direct evidence for whatsoever, nor
> has either been directly observed, tested, or studied.
How are they 50 years behind the curve? If you mean they can't keep up with conspiracy theories and delusions, you're probably right. Their brains don't work that way.
On the Science board, someone posted a link to a paper by a mathematician, in a fringe journal, purporting to have found diatoms in a meteorite. Do we believe that just because it was published? Of course not. It doesn't work that way.
You'd do well to educate yourself in these fields before believing any crazy thing.
> seriously, scientists were giving housewives lobotomies to make
> them more docile as recently as the sixties! And you need these
> guys to give you their official seal of approval before you
> actually wonder if something is possible/plausible?
Guilt by association fallacy. Just because they did some stupid stuff in the past doesn't mean they're wrong NOW.
I don't rule out the possibility that there's life elsewhere. In fact, I think it's inevitable. BUT that doesn't mean that the Starchild is alien. I've explained why that's faulty reasoning, and the claim that it is alien isn't backed up by the evidence.
4) Why have all previous tests come back saying it's
> Doesn't the scientific community's lack of interest in the
> subject make you wonder just a bit?
That's because the evidence is conclusive. The child is human, nothing to get excited about.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is simply nothing here that can't be explained as a deformed human child.
Look at homo floresiensis.
> It's possibly a deformed human. Or it's a new species. (The
> latter seeming fairly likely at this point, BTW.) Why not the
> same approach to the SC skull? Could it be another hominid?
> Could it be something else? Either way, why not lots and lots
> of scientific testing? Instead of a smattering of general tests
> and then these scientists go right back to making artificial
> meat from stem cells for Monsanto or whoever...
Yet another red herring, and you're ranting. There was no doubt that H. floresiensis was a hominid. The question was over classification.
What you DIDN'T hear when the first bones were found was "Oh my God! Look at this! It's an alien!" like you did with the Starchild. No, what they said was, "previously unknown hominid or possibly deformed human". If Pye was any kind of scientist at all, that is what he'd have said about the Starchild.
> Umm... Yeah, Richard. Don't you know there's people who will do
> the thinking for you? No need to question the paradigm and be
> open-minded about anything. Besides, we've got this whole sixth
> Great Extinction thingy finally under control. Just keep
> consuming! And remember, thinking is for suckers!
I think someone needs to take their Prozac. Or is it just time for a nap?