Actually this another inconsistent statement.
You stated earlier that you don't believe in life elsewhere when you stated, "I do not believe in anything for which there is no evidence".
Now you state, " As for life elsewhere, I don't know".
Which is it Kev?
There's absolutely no inconsistency whatsoever.
See above. lol...
There is no evidence that UFOs are alien spacecraft. None.
Yes, and didn't you alleged to have *evidence* to support this?
You stated earlier that you don't believe in life elsewhere when you stated, "I do not believe in anything for which there is no evidence".
Now you state, " As for life elsewhere, I don't know".
Which is it Kev?
No inconsistency whatsoever. Re-read it if you were confused the first time.
Yes, and didn't you alleged to have *evidence* to support this?
Your question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of inductive reasoning. Its like asking me to prove leprechauns don't exist.
Here's an example to make it easier for you:
-All known whales live in the sea.
-No known whales live on land.
-Therefore, all whales live in the sea.
Now, using your brand of reasoning, you would say "prove that all whales live in the sea". That is a fallacious argument as anyone can plainly see.
It is not my job to provide evidence that there are no land whales, it is your job to provide evidence of their existence if you wish to dispute the matter.
Now that totally leaves open the possibility that someday, we might find a whale living on land (Helen Thomas?). However, until then, with no evidence to their existence, we can inductively reason that they do not exist.
So, when a piece of an alien spacecraft drops to the Earth, you can bring it before the world and prove all of us wrong. But until then, we can safely reason that aliens have not visited this planet.
But I wish you good luck in your search.
Which is it Kev?
***Gunnie, is your first name Kevin or somesuch thing?