Aliens and evolution

Aliens and evolution

There are 6310 comments on the Washington Times story from Jun 19, 2012, titled Aliens and evolution. In it, Washington Times reports that:

DENTON, Texas, June 19, 2012 - Aliens are ingrained in our cultural psyche. They abound in books, movies, radio, and a thousand theories about the extra-terrestrial, little green men, UFO sightings, abductions, Area 51, and Roswell.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#5681 Feb 8, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>"our women"?
I doubt that there is a woman willing to be labeled as co-owned by you. Whether you can understand this or not, is debatable, but property does not include women. Even the slaver doesn't "own"' he may have enslaved humans, but he does not own them.
If one person sells you to another person you ARE owned, for all intents and purposes.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5682 Feb 9, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
Of course it is. It's unethical science, but it's still science.
No, Nazi human experimentation isn't science because if science is perverted from ethical behavior it becomes pseudoscience. The purpose of the "Nazi experiments" was to kill people, not to improve understanding or test theory.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5683 Feb 9, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is. It's unethical science, but it's still science.
Science is a process of discovery, not a perversion towards a predjudiced ideology.

To call what hitler did science, is called stupidity.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5685 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, Nazi human experimentation isn't science because if science is perverted from ethical behavior it becomes pseudoscience. The purpose of the "Nazi experiments" was to kill people, not to improve understanding or test theory.
Don't use terms you don't understand.

If I take a living person and dissect them to see how the organs work, I am doing science.

There's nothing "pseudo" about it. I'm not cutting them open to measure their psychic ability. I'm checking out the heart in action.

WE consider those actions to be unethical, but ethics is only opinion. It has no effect on whether or not what's being done is science.

You don't understand science, ethics or the term pseudo-science.

Your best bet here is to run away before you embarrass yourself further.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5686 Feb 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is a process of discovery, not a perversion towards a predjudiced ideology.
To call what hitler did science, is called stupidity.
First of all, it wasn't Hitler doing it.
Second of all, we aren't talking about racial bias against the Jews, or the Nazi movement in general.

We are talking about what a few Nazi scientists did to a few prisoners who were Jewish.

If you take someone, Jewish or not, and put them in a capsule and start to reduce the pressure in the capsule, they will die. However, if you do it multiple times with multiple subjects and keep records, you are doing an experiment. You are measuring how low the pressure can go before a human dies.

This is a valuable experiment for space exploration.

It's also violent and unethical by our standards.

That does not mean that it is not science.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#5687 Feb 9, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't use terms you don't understand.
If I take a living person and dissect them to see how the organs work, I am doing science.
There's nothing "pseudo" about it. I'm not cutting them open to measure their psychic ability. I'm checking out the heart in action.
WE consider those actions to be unethical, but ethics is only opinion. It has no effect on whether or not what's being done is science.
You don't understand science, ethics or the term pseudo-science.
Your best bet here is to run away before you embarrass yourself further.
I agree, but science that breaks international laws of human rights can bring international action, sanctions up to military intervention. The Japanese and Germans both did scientific research
that were unethical and these things made them considered evil empires. Though in the end the United States and Russians both gobbled up the research and swept it under the rug.
Happy to get it , but didn't want to shine it in the light.
Jumper The Wise

Owensboro, KY

#5688 Feb 9, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Where you were going with it hardly matters, you wrote "our women" shithead. I realize you don't understand half of what you reply to, nor do you understand most of your own replies, but using the words "our women", implies that you consider yourself as partial owner of more than one woman.
I take offence!
I do not label women as property.
As I feel myself to belong to all women.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5689 Feb 9, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
Don't use terms you don't understand. If I take a living person and dissect them to see how the organs work, I am doing science.
Only if they volunteer, else you are primarily murdering a living person,'science' is just an excuse. Don't blame others for your lacks of study, an unethical experiment is a non-experiment; it can't be replicated.

.
Nuggin wrote:
There's nothing "pseudo" about it. I'm not cutting them open to measure their psychic ability. I'm checking out the heart in action.
Your advocating murder under the guise of science; else you'd ask volunteers.

.
Nuggin wrote:
WE consider those actions to be unethical, but ethics is only opinion. It has no effect on whether or not what's being done is science.
The ethics of consent has nothing to do with opinion. If you measure using defect instruments or design experiments without respect to consent; your bad.

.
Nuggin wrote:
You don't understand science, ethics or the term pseudo-science. Your best bet here is to run away before you embarrass yourself further.
Science is the process of stating and testing assumptions about the world. Ethical scientists obtain consent. Non-science pretending to be science is pseudoscience. Ethics are profession based moral codes.

Immoral science is non-science, it lacks of discipline and wisdom for gathering and testing information. When murderers wear lab coats, it doesn't make evidence of their crimes into 'science' and it doesn't make them ethical. Consent is a foundation for ethics, shame on Nuggin for promoting unethical science and justifying Nazi war crimes.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5690 Feb 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Science is a process of discovery, not a perversion towards a predjudiced ideology.
Right on, the process of discovery to benefit mankind, some sciences are better than other sciences when it comes to technological implementation of theory.

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
To call what hitler did science, is called stupidity.
Nuggin is pretending these were rare exceptions to Hitler's Nazi genocide, insignificant to the whole. In fact, each death represents the whole; Hitler murdered doctors, children, women, boys, girls and women. To call it science is to misuse science and introduce moral blindness. Misuse of science to murder is simply evil.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#5691 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Only if they volunteer, else you are primarily murdering a living person,'science' is just an excuse. Don't blame others for your lacks of study, an unethical experiment is a non-experiment; it can't be replicated.
.
<quoted text>Your advocating murder under the guise of science; else you'd ask volunteers.
.
<quoted text>The ethics of consent has nothing to do with opinion. If you measure using defect instruments or design experiments without respect to consent; your bad.
.
<quoted text>Science is the process of stating and testing assumptions about the world. Ethical scientists obtain consent. Non-science pretending to be science is pseudoscience. Ethics are profession based moral codes.
Immoral science is non-science, it lacks of discipline and wisdom for gathering and testing information. When murderers wear lab coats, it doesn't make evidence of their crimes into 'science' and it doesn't make them ethical. Consent is a foundation for ethics, shame on Nuggin for promoting unethical science and justifying Nazi war crimes.
Science has no moral compass, people do.
There is what is considered unethical research, stem cell research was banned by Bush for religious reasoning. But he could only ban the funding by the government. So sometimes what is considered unethical science is changed politically. We generally thing it is unethical to harvest humans for this purpose, but they can now clone the cells, so it removed the unethical stigma it carried.
Some may not agree with this either, but it is an example how science is not morally bound, but the people doing it are.

So you can have science research totally devoid of moral compass, and still be science. We could possibly clone 10 foot tall soldiers that can regrow limbs, but is it ethical?
That is the difference.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5692 Feb 9, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>If one person sells you to another person you ARE owned, for all intents and purposes.
Enslaved is not owned.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5693 Feb 9, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>I take offence!
I do not label women as property.
As I feel myself to belong to all women.
You did label women as your property, and you are offensive.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5694 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Only if they volunteer, else you are primarily murdering a living person,'science' is just an excuse. Don't blame others for your lacks of study, an unethical experiment is a non-experiment; it can't be replicated.
More bullshit.

First of all, ethics is AN OPINION and nothing more. You can't invalidate a scientific experiment simply because one group of people thinks it is unethical and another group disagrees.

The PETA people feel that testing chemicals and animals is unethical. Does that mean that those tests did not yield results for the people who believed they were doing science?
Your advocating murder under the guise of science; else you'd ask volunteers.
No, I'm describing a possible scientific experiment. I'm not advocating for that experiment to be done. Learn the difference.
The ethics of consent has nothing to do with opinion. If you measure using defect instruments or design experiments without respect to consent; your bad.
"Bad" is not a scientific term. Consent is irrelevant for experiment which do not rely on feedback from the subject.

I don't need "consent" to determine at what temp hypothermia sets in. I just need to be able to expose someone to the cold.
Ethical scientists obtain consent. Non-science pretending to be science is pseudoscience. Ethics are profession based moral codes.
Immoral science is non-science, it lacks of discipline and wisdom for gathering and testing information.
Your thinking is completely muddled.

Ethics is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not data can be obtained.

Carbon does not give consent before being put through a chemical process.
When murderers wear lab coats, it doesn't make evidence of their crimes into 'science'
It's called forensic science. There are something like 10 VERY popular TV shows BASED on this branch of science.
Jumper The Wise

Owensboro, KY

#5695 Feb 9, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>You did label women as your property, and you are offensive.
I said OUR woman as in women of Earth.
If abducting old fat farmers for anal probes is your thing who am I to judge you.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5696 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Science has no moral compass, people do.
Science has a system of ethics, using involuntary subjects, especially when you do them great harm, is evil.

.
Aura Mytha wrote:
There is what is considered unethical research, stem cell research was banned by Bush for religious reasoning.
That's untrue; creating new stem cell lines was denied federal funding, there was no ban on otherwise ethical research conducted on the old stem cell lines.

Please note, Bush did not make federal funding of new stem cell lines, unethical; he made it illegal.

.
Aura Mytha wrote:
But he could only ban the funding by the government. So sometimes what is considered unethical science is changed politically.
No, funding is changed politically, the ethics remain the same.

Is it ethical to collect nascent human life and incinerate it? Is it ethical to grow human clones and subject them to harm?

These issues aren't decided by the President; organizations of scientists make those decisions.

Sometimes they make mistakes; that doesn't change unethical science into good.

.
Aura Mytha wrote:
We generally thing it is unethical to harvest humans for this purpose, but they can now clone the cells, so it removed the unethical stigma it carried.
Most ethical organizations say human reproductive cloning is unethical; there is division over therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning might alleviate suffering and delay death; but at what price? If a conscious subject is grown from human cells, the scientist must obtain consent or stop experimentation.

The question comes to, how does a clone become a human being?

US law leaves the legality of human cloning to the states.

.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Some may not agree with this either, but it is an example how science is not morally bound, but the people doing it are.
Bad scientists do bad science; they don't make bad science ethical by consensus. At best, bad science can be legalized; it can't become ethical.

.
Aura Mytha wrote:
So you can have science research totally devoid of moral compass, and still be science. We could possibly clone 10 foot tall soldiers that can regrow limbs, but is it ethical? That is the difference.
I'd like our maimed veterans to have regrown limbs; that's good. Growing 10' soldiers might make it easier for them to be hit, killed or injured and harder for them to be moved in vehicles; doesn't sound like good science to me.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5697 Feb 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
More bullshit. First of all, ethics is AN OPINION and nothing more.[QUOTE]Ethics is more than opinion, sometimes they are law and often, universal moral code. Murder is wrong, genocide is wrong, using involuntary subject and exposing them to harm is wrong; this isn't opinion, this is fact.

.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]You can't invalidate a scientific experiment simply because one group of people thinks it is unethical and another group disagrees.[QUOTE]The experimental design speaks for itself; can the experiment be ethically recreated? If no, the experiment is invalid.

.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]The PETA people feel that testing chemicals and animals is unethical.[QUOTE]If the animals are harmed without benefit to humans or to humans and animals; PETA is right about animal testing.

.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]Does that mean that those tests did not yield results for the people who believed they were doing science?[QUOTE]It depends on each experiment, how many animals were harmed, what degree of harm and what benefit?

.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]No, I'm describing a possible scientific experiment. I'm not advocating for that experiment to be done. Learn the difference.[QUOTE]Nuggin repeatedly describes Nazi experiments; he contends the results from those experiments are valid and valuable; but claims that's not 'advocating'. How does that work?

I'm rejecting experiments on involuntary subjects unless the subjects are animals, unable to give consent and the benefits outweigh harm.

.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]"B ad" is not a scientific term. Consent is irrelevant for experiment which do not rely on feedback from the subject.[QUOTE]Bad is a human term, not all science is good. Consent is good, murder is bad.

.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]I don't need "consent" to determine at what temp hypothermia sets in. I just need to be able to expose someone to the cold.[QUOTE]^^^Nuggin advocates unethical science; he rejects consent.

.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]Your thinking is completely muddled. Ethics is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not data can be obtained.
Carbon does not give consent before being put through a chemical process.[QUOTE]Carbon can not give consent; adult human beings can.

.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]It's called forensic science. There are something like 10 VERY popular TV shows BASED on this branch of science.
I don't watch TV.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5698 Feb 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
More bullshit. First of all, ethics is AN OPINION and nothing more.
Ethics is more than opinion, sometimes they are law and often, universal moral code. Murder is wrong, genocide is wrong, using involuntary subject and exposing them to harm is wrong; this isn't opinion, this is fact.

.
Nuggin wrote:
You can't invalidate a scientific experiment simply because one group of people thinks it is unethical and another group disagrees.
The experimental design speaks for itself; can the experiment be ethically recreated? If no, the experiment is invalid.

.
Nuggin wrote:
The PETA people feel that testing chemicals and animals is unethical.
If the animals are harmed without benefit to humans or to humans and animals; PETA is right about animal testing.

.
Nuggin wrote:
Does that mean that those tests did not yield results for the people who believed they were doing science?
It depends on each experiment, how many animals were harmed, what degree of harm and what benefit?

.
Nuggin wrote:
No, I'm describing a possible scientific experiment. I'm not advocating for that experiment to be done. Learn the difference.
Nuggin repeatedly describes Nazi experiments; he contends the results from those experiments are valid and valuable; but claims that's not 'advocating'. How does that work?

I'm rejecting experiments on involuntary subjects unless the subjects are animals, unable to give consent and the benefits outweigh harm.

.
Nuggin wrote:
"B ad" is not a scientific term. Consent is irrelevant for experiment which do not rely on feedback from the subject.
Bad is a human term, not all science is good. Consent is good, murder is bad.

.
Nuggin wrote:
I don't need "consent" to determine at what temp hypothermia sets in. I just need to be able to expose someone to the cold.
^^^Nuggin advocates unethical science; he rejects consent.

.
Nuggin wrote:
Your thinking is completely muddled. Ethics is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not data can be obtained.
Carbon does not give consent before being put through a chemical process.
Carbon can not give consent; adult human beings can.

.
Nuggin wrote:
It's called forensic science. There are something like 10 VERY popular TV shows BASED on this branch of science.
I don't watch TV.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5699 Feb 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Ethics is more than opinion, sometimes they are law and often, universal moral code. Murder is wrong, genocide is wrong, using involuntary subject and exposing them to harm is wrong; this isn't opinion, this is fact.
.
<quoted text>The experimental design speaks for itself; can the experiment be ethically recreated? If no, the experiment is invalid.
.
<quoted text>If the animals are harmed without benefit to humans or to humans and animals; PETA is right about animal testing.
.
<quoted text>It depends on each experiment, how many animals were harmed, what degree of harm and what benefit?
.
<quoted text>Nuggin repeatedly describes Nazi experiments; he contends the results from those experiments are valid and valuable; but claims that's not 'advocating'. How does that work?
I'm rejecting experiments on involuntary subjects unless the subjects are animals, unable to give consent and the benefits outweigh harm.
.
<quoted text>Bad is a human term, not all science is good. Consent is good, murder is bad.
.
<quoted text>^^^Nuggin advocates unethical science; he rejects consent.
.
<quoted text>Carbon can not give consent; adult human beings can.
.
<quoted text>
I don't watch TV.
I would not waste your time with nuggin.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#5700 Feb 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Science has a system of ethics, using involuntary subjects, especially when you do them great harm, is evil.
.
Nope, only people have ethics.
What is considered ethical research is entirely dependent on the people doing it. I'll give you a real world example.

Every other country in the world is against the US arms industry right now. But we dot not see it the same way, after all it is us killing them we research. That makes it ethical because we are protecting "our" interests. We don't mind selling weapons to the enemy who is the enemy of a bigger enemy.


&fe ature=player_embedded

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5701 Feb 10, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>I said OUR woman as in women of Earth.
If abducting old fat farmers for anal probes is your thing who am I to judge you.
In attempting to insult someone, you should say more about the insultee, than you do yourself. While that intended barb has completely missed any target, it by way of your choice of using it as weapon, has revealed more of who you are, than perhaps you would have intended. It does tell us where your mind is most at home, and that is imbedded in the rectal cavity of some portly country squire. That is fine for you but please get his permission before plumbing his bowels,

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 46 min Tricky little mon... 178,698
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Hit and Run 173,880
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr said 20,899
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr ChromiuMan 143,939
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... 8 hr karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) 10 hr dollarsbill 14
News Intelligent design Tue FREE SERVANT 23
More from around the web