the Belgian UFO Wave is best Explained as Aliens

I appreciate Daley posting what he considers evidence for aliens visiting Earth, but I think it is a bit much to expect me to watch over 70 minutes of video and respond to every point raised, particular as most (all?) seems entirely irrelevant to the topic we are debating. Remember that this is not a debate about the existence of aliens in general, like my opponent's current debate (where he seems to have posted the exact same set of videos) is: http://www.debate.org... This debate right here is about a specific set of sightings. If daley wants me to respond to any of the info in these videos, I'd appreciate him directing me to some specific part that he feels backs up his arguments about UFOs in Belgium. "if it defies our understanding of natural phenomena, then we must look to something outside of earthly, natural explanation." Daley's professed opinions regarding evolution clearly demonstrate that he doesn't have much faith in the ability of scientists to accurately assess the workings of nature. It is therefore contradictory for him to claim that things science can't explain are automatically other-worldly. In response to my question of why, for a Christian, an act of God should not be at least as plausible an explanation for strange phenomena as aliens, Pro seems to go off on a bit of a tangent. He conflates this case with other examples of supposed alien sightings, where metallic objects were involved, before saying: "The Biblical doctrine of God is not one who flies around in space ships." Well the Biblical doctrine doesn't have much to say about aliens either, does that mean they aren't real? My opponent can't have this both ways. If the Bible can be silent about aliens without it impacting on the likelihood of their existence, why does it need to describe Jahveh's version of the Millennium Falcon in order for such to be plausible? Remember God is omnipotent, so he can surely knock out a decent spaceship without too much bother. "Nor can a spirit being such as an angel be tracked on radar" How do you know? Have there been many studies on this? Is radar mentioned in the Bible? Again, I don't feel the need to examine other UFO cases, suffice to say, none have been confirmed as aliens and most scientists do not believe that aliens regularly visit Earth. "One would also have to wonder what would be the purpose of this "miracle" if indeed it were from God" It is a well known fact that God moves in mysterious ways. Since an omnipotent, omni-benevolent being regularly allows apparently innocent people to suffer terribly, I think it's fair to say that his motives are often not comprehendible, let alone obvious. This also raises an interesting point that one would "have to wonder what would be the purpose of this" if indeed it was aliens. Are we to suppose that a bunch of alien life forms used their incredibly sophisticated technology merely to fly around above the skies of Belgium (of all places) spooking the public? Surely if they could travel so far, detect radar and manoeuvre so well at such speeds, then evading detection altogether would have been a simple task for them. Why advertise their presence in this manner, if they did not intend to conquer, to trade or even to communicate with us? "Majorities don't decide truth" However, Pro believes that since a lot of people (how many was it again? two thousand and something?) think they saw alien ships, that it must be the truth. Pro's long diatribe about science discusses at length how science can't comprehend everything in nature, this contradicts his earlier statement: "if it defies our understanding of natural phenomena, then we must look to something outside of earthly, natural explanation" "Evolution is a theory that has so many problems in it ... The odds of getting a living thing from a non-living thing by natural means..." Although it's irrelevant to the debate, I feel compelled to point out the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, merely the origin of species. "the evidence we have for aliens is exactly what we would expect" Really? I would have thought if aliens were taking the trouble to visit Earth, they would be doing something a little more significant than providing elaborately choreographed light shows. In any case, accepting something as fact because it appears to conform to one's expectations is the opposite of the scientific method and a clear example of the kind of confirmation bias I referred to in previous rounds. "What else but an intelligence can do flight maneauvers better than our planes" Light beams operated by human hand, insects, birds, fish, a leaf caught in the wind. Lots of things are more manoeuvrable than several tons of jet fuelled metal. "travel faster than anyplane we have on earth" Rockets, meteors, lightning, light beams, lasers etc. "detect when we have them locked on to fire and dart away at tremendous speeds" Imaginary things can easily be ascribed imaginary abilities. "fly in patterns of a triangle" Light beam devices, three torches, birds, fireworks etc. "If my souce isn't reliable, tell me why." Wikipedia is a pretty decent source on the whole, however it must be remembered that it only gives an overview sourced from other documents. Also, as it edited and compiled by members of the public, inevitably some bias seeps into some pages. I would imagine that a page about a UFO sighting would be taken seriously mostly by those with a belief in the alien contact hypothesis, after all who else would be interested enough to take the time to create it? Wikipedia is however a far, far better source (imo) than the new one presented by my opponent in the last round which is unashamedly biased, coming as it does from the personal website of a paranormal investigator. "Space ships were in the skies of Belgium as sure as the Titanic sank and the Twin Towers fell" This is a bare assertion that is based around completely different categories of evidence. There was physical evidence in the form of wreckage in the cases of the Titanic and 9/11, the objects clearly existed, were manufactured by people, and people were in them when those things happened. I and millions of others watched the second tower fall on live TV. Very few people would dispute that the towers fell, just as neither I, nor anyone else is disputing that there were lights in the sky and strange radar behaviour that night, or that mysterious objects are seen in the sky generally. However what are not so clear are the exact actions, motivations, individuals and sequences of events that led to the towers falling. In the case of UFO sightings without any solid evidence there is even less certainty about the causes. We must remember that UFOs are, by their very definition, unidentified. Pro has not yet succeeded in identifying these ones on an evidential basis.