Aliens and evolution

Aliens and evolution

There are 6309 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#851 Aug 6, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
We are ALL agnostic in that none of us really know.
Total agreement. Exactly my point.
Hedonist wrote:
Now, what would you say is the possibility that one or more deities exists? 50-50 ... highly probable ... highly improbable ... remotely possible but highly unlikely ...????
Very remotely possible but highly unlikely.

Also, does not keep me up at night.
Hedonist wrote:
I kind of like Isaac Asimov's take on the question -- "I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
I never argue with Asimov.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#852 Aug 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
Like proving the possibility (and definition) of the god(s) you claim are possible.
Since you LOVE referring people back to the dictionary, let's see how well you stand up to the same process.

Dictionary definition of a "god":
1 (capitalized): the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler

Now, since I'm _NOT_ capitalizing "god", you can toss out definition #1.(Just like "turkey" and "Turkey" are two very different things).

So,#2, a being _BELIEVED_ to have more than natural attributes.
#3, A person of supreme value
#4, A powerful ruler.

Any Egyptian Pharaoh meets ALL THREE dictionary definitions.

So, what EXACTLY is your position now? That NASA faked Egyptian history? Are you going to deny the existence of the pyramids?

Seriously, you've spend MONTHS on this thread arguing about dictionary definitions of "burden of proof" and you couldn't be bothered to look up the definition of "god"?

So, go on, PROVE to us that the Egyptians didn't worship their Pharaohs. PROVE to us that it's _IMPOSSIBLE_ for a Pharaoh to exist.

Show us that you have met the "burden of proof".

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#853 Aug 6, 2012
MikeF wrote:
Very remotely possible but highly unlikely.
I should add, to be clear, I find the cartoon god of the bible to be ridiculous.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#854 Aug 6, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
So is it then your position that if an "extra-dimensional being" exists, then "god" exists?
I'm not sure what the term "extra-dimensional" does to change the question concerning the existence of "gods" one way or the other.
Plenty of gods exist, have existed and will continue to exist.

My point about things which are outside our ability to detect (ie extra-dimensional beings) is that they are not "impossible" simply because we can not detect them.

Just because we don't think something exists and don't have evidence to believe that it exists, doesn't mean that it doesn't actually exist.

At one point, people didn't believe and had no way of detecting, that other stars where suns.

Same thing with germs, same thing with radiation, etc etc etc.

Skeptic's claim is that it is impossible for something to exist if we can't detect it. That's false.

His further claim (MIND BOGGLING as it is) is that apparently Egyptians didn't exist until recently since he believes that it's "impossible" for Pharaohs to have existed.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Level 1

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#855 Aug 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Plenty of gods exist, have existed and will continue to exist ... His further claim (MIND BOGGLING as it is) is that apparently Egyptians didn't exist until recently since he believes that it's "impossible" for Pharaohs to have existed.
Okay, now you just twisting things around to take shots.
.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
...My point about things which are outside our ability to detect (ie extra-dimensional beings) is that they are not "impossible" simply because we can not detect them. Just because we don't think something exists and don't have evidence to believe that it exists, doesn't mean that it doesn't actually exist. At one point, people didn't believe and had no way of detecting, that other stars where suns. Same thing with germs, same thing with radiation, etc etc etc. Skeptic's claim is that it is impossible for something to exist if we can't detect it. That's false.
...
But that also doesn't mean that we should assume they do exists either.

But more to the point. It doesn't really matter if "extra-dimensional" anything exists or not. Until you can define what you mean by "god" it is absurd to say that "god may exist". The sentence itself is just meaningless.

Even if other "n-dimensional" things exists, things that cannot be observed nor measured might as well not exists. So if there is no measurable effect, "extra-dimensional" might be a fun mathematical exercise, but does nothing to forward the argument for any "god".

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#856 Aug 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Plenty of gods exist, have existed and will continue to exist.
My point about things which are outside our ability to detect (ie extra-dimensional beings) is that they are not "impossible" simply because we can not detect them.
Just because we don't think something exists and don't have evidence to believe that it exists, doesn't mean that it doesn't actually exist.
At one point, people didn't believe and had no way of detecting, that other stars where suns.
Same thing with germs, same thing with radiation, etc etc etc.
Skeptic's claim is that it is impossible for something to exist if we can't detect it. That's false.
His further claim (MIND BOGGLING as it is) is that apparently Egyptians didn't exist until recently since he believes that it's "impossible" for Pharaohs to have existed.
I resemble that.

xD
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#857 Aug 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a good idea to pick up a dictionary and memorise the definition of the burden of proof.
That will really help your effort to avoid looking stupid here.
It's funny, I help you to not make a logical fool of yourself, but you invite this stupidity upon yourself.
The definition is not the problem, we both know it. Your understanding of how it applies is the problem.

You made a positive claim. Now back it up, or retract your positive claim that it was "impossible" and admit you made a mistake.

You won't though as you still haven't even retracted your other two mistakes yet either.

Just like a good little fundie.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#858 Aug 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't cry, maybe you can attempt to lie about somebody else and try to make out that they deny the moon landings.
Maybe it will work on someone else and you won't be so frustrated at me for calling you out on your lies about me.
Also, a tip: look at my response to the dude, it really helps if you own a dictionary and can read.
That way in about 5 years, you'll have enough brain power to accomplish basic logic.
Like proving the possibility (and definition) of the god(s) you claim are possible.
Try doing that for me, there's a good little boy. We'll try and arrange for some gold stars your way when you've figured out what a collosal fool you've made of yourself here over the last few weeks.
Skippy, why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#859 Aug 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
As a reminder to all the idiots, Bluenose, The Dude, Nuggin.
"Your positive claim is that undefined, impossible magical creatures that created the universe exist are possible"
But the funny thing is that you liars can't even bring a shred of proof to the table for this claim.
Instead of doing the hard work and proving your claim, you're asking me to disprove it.
Yep. Because you said it was "impossible".
-Skeptic- wrote:
Which is funny since you haven't even defined what your god actually is or is capable of.
Then you have no basis from which to make your positive claim that such a thing is "impossible". All you need do is point out that the current definition is inadequate and therefore ruled out as irrelevant as far as the scientific method is concerned unless new evidence or a better definition becomes available in the future.

This however was not enough for you.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Remember, you're claiming he's possible and hence real.
False. We've been very clear that it is not our position and have merely been discussing the subject within the context of the scientific method.
-Skeptic- wrote:
But all evidence says you're a liar.
Projection.
-Skeptic- wrote:
But will you bring evidence to say god is possible.
OF COURSE NOT. BECAUSE YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON YOU.
Actually it's not. Since we're not making a positive claim that it exists. We're disputing YOUR positive claim which was that it was "impossible". Your posts have been dissected piece by piece every step of the way yet you have taken to misrepresenting your opponents.

You've made three separate mistakes. And not admitted to a single one.

Reality is often theologically inconvenient for fundies.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#860 Aug 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
And what is the opposite of POSSIBLE???
IMPOSSIBLE.
There's all you need to become an atheist.
But of course you need the brain power and intellectual honesty to understand this all as well.
Yes, we understand the concept of opposites. However you are neglecting the simple fact there are three potential outcomes here:

1 - Possible.

2 - Impossible.

3 - Currently indeterminable.

We cannot demonstrate 1. You cannot demonstrate 2.

You can haz math?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#861 Aug 6, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
We are ALL agnostic in that none of us really know.
Except for Skippy, who's 100% "true atheist" and knows more than anyone else.

He's been to the edges of the universe and beyond.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#862 Aug 6, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
So is it then your position that if an "extra-dimensional being" exists, then "god" exists?
I'm not sure what the term "extra-dimensional" does to change the question concerning the existence of "gods" one way or the other.
Neither are we.

That being might be the luminous essence of Master Yoda.

He wouldn't be a God, but he'd be damn cool.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#863 Aug 6, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
The inductive nature of science limits us to just under 100% certainty for everything.
Pah! DON'T LISTEN TO HIM, SKIP!!!

>:-(
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#864 Aug 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
Same thing with germs, same thing with radiation, etc etc etc.
Skeptic's claim is that it is impossible for something to exist if we can't detect it. That's false.
Which is why according to the Skippy scientific method, bacteria did not exist and were impossible in 1500 AD, which Chimney pointed out. He continually badgered him to produce something which was both real and unfalsifiable long after it was provided. Since then he's called him a liar and never apologized.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#865 Aug 6, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, now you just twisting things around to take shots.
He's teaching Skip to pay attention to dictionary definitions.

However Skippy's a poor student.
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
But that also doesn't mean that we should assume they do exists either.
But more to the point. It doesn't really matter if "extra-dimensional" anything exists or not. Until you can define what you mean by "god" it is absurd to say that "god may exist". The sentence itself is just meaningless.
Even if other "n-dimensional" things exists, things that cannot be observed nor measured might as well not exists. So if there is no measurable effect, "extra-dimensional" might be a fun mathematical exercise, but does nothing to forward the argument for any "god".
And that should be enough. But Skip's under the mistaken impression that science "proves" theism "impossible". Been trying to tell him that science couldn't give a shite about theology either way.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#866 Aug 6, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, now you just twisting things around to take shots.
He's been EXCEEDINGLY clear that he wants to go by dictionary definitions.

If you like, I can probably give you 20+ posts in which he's referred people to the dictionary.

It's perfectly within reason to hold him accountable to the same standards to which he demands everyone else uphold.

So, given that ALL three of the pertinent dictionary definitions easily reflect the positions held by Egyptian Pharaohs, the only two possible conclusions we can draw are:
A) Skeptic is unaware of the dictionary definition of the word he is choosing to argue about. Given his REPEATED demands that we go by the dictionary, this option can be discarded.
B) Skeptic doesn't believe that Egyptian Pharaohs actually existed.

Seems to me like I'm not twisting anything.
But that also doesn't mean that we should assume they do exists either.
"They" here being "Extra-dimensional beings". No one who's posting here is giving the impression to me that they believe that they do exist, nor that they think that others should believe that they do exist.

What people are objecting to is Skeptics insistence that they are "scientifically impossible", which is a contradiction.

Science does not and would not proclaim them impossible, only exceedingly unlikely.

Given how stringent Skeptic is being about dictionary definitions, it's perfectly reasonable to point out that he either doesn't understand the term "scientific" or the term "impossible" or both.
Until you can define what you mean by "god" it is absurd to say that "god may exist". The sentence itself is just meaningless.
I've given three very clear definitions, all from Websters. All three of which apply to Egyptian Pharaohs among other things.

Just because a Jew would disagree doesn't negate what the Egyptians believed. Despite what Jews and their splinter groups believe, they are not the sole definers of words.
Even if other "n-dimensional" things exists, things that cannot be observed nor measured might as well not exists. So if there is no measurable effect, "extra-dimensional" might be a fun mathematical exercise, but does nothing to forward the argument for any "god".
You are mistaking two things.

I don't need to put forward an argument FOR "god" to demonstrate that the claim that "X is impossible" is not scientific.

Also, I don't need to cite an extra-dimensional being to prove that gods exist, have existed, and will continue to exist into the foreseeable future.

The PROBLEM here is the Skeptic is demanding that the rest of us meet "the burden or proof" when disputing his claim that something "Is impossible".

That's an outrageous demand. I don't need to prove something ACTUALLY exists (though I clearly HAVE) to prove that something is not impossible.

The Universe is a VERY VERY VERY big place. If there's a multi-verse, that is much bigger still.

To believe that Skeptic is the end all be all of all possible knowledge is, frankly, ridiculous.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#867 Aug 6, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why according to the Skippy scientific method, bacteria did not exist and were impossible in 1500 AD, which Chimney pointed out. He continually badgered him to produce something which was both real and unfalsifiable long after it was provided. Since then he's called him a liar and never apologized.
Yup, ditto with Skeptic and the moon landing.

First he claims it never happened, then he claims we are lying about his position despite the fact that his post is still available on page 4.

He's only fooling himself.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Level 1

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#868 Aug 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
He's been EXCEEDINGLY clear that he wants to go by dictionary definitions.
If you like, I can probably give you 20+ posts in which he's referred people to the dictionary.
It's perfectly within reason to hold him accountable to the same standards to which he demands everyone else uphold.
So, given that ALL three of the pertinent dictionary definitions easily reflect the positions held by Egyptian Pharaohs, the only two possible conclusions we can draw are:
A) Skeptic is unaware of the dictionary definition of the word he is choosing to argue about. Given his REPEATED demands that we go by the dictionary, this option can be discarded.
B) Skeptic doesn't believe that Egyptian Pharaohs actually existed.
Seems to me like I'm not twisting anything.
....
You know that within the context of the conversation we were having the ancient Pharaohs were not applicable.

And since you seem to want to obsess on "aliens on the Moon", it can be argued that since the Moon in question is part of our local system, humans should not be considered "alien", so the entire conversation was disingenuous.

Look, I don't like Skippy's style at all. But you guys are playing words games and being trite. If that's the best you can do, then you obviously don't want any kind of serious discussion.

Now, do you want to keep arguing about Skippy when replying to me, or do you want to actually have a conversation with me?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Level 1

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#869 Aug 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
...You are mistaking two things.
I don't need to put forward an argument FOR "god" to demonstrate that the claim that "X is impossible" is not scientific.
Also, I don't need to cite an extra-dimensional being to prove that gods exist, have existed, and will continue to exist into the foreseeable future.
The PROBLEM here is the Skeptic is demanding that the rest of us meet "the burden or proof" when disputing his claim that something "Is impossible".
That's an outrageous demand. I don't need to prove something ACTUALLY exists (though I clearly HAVE) to prove that something is not impossible.
The Universe is a VERY VERY VERY big place. If there's a multi-verse, that is much bigger still.
To believe that Skeptic is the end all be all of all possible knowledge is, frankly, ridiculous.
It doesn't matter how big the universe is or how many folds it has in it. I'll even let you assume that it is infinite, which allows for the argument that everything that can possibly exist must exist somewhere.

You still have the burden to define what is is you say is possible such that some kind of determination can be made. Call it "X" or "god" or whatever you want.

To say that you can't define what "X" is, but its existence must be considered possible is, frankly, ridiculous ... absurdly ridiculous.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#870 Aug 6, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You know that within the context of the conversation we were having the ancient Pharaohs were not applicable.
And since you seem to want to obsess on "aliens on the Moon", it can be argued that since the Moon in question is part of our local system, humans should not be considered "alien", so the entire conversation was disingenuous.
Look, I don't like Skippy's style at all. But you guys are playing words games and being trite. If that's the best you can do, then you obviously don't want any kind of serious discussion.
Sure it's word games. But Skip's no less guilty than us in that regard. And when we examine those words it turns out that particular words have particular meanings in particular contexts. And they ended up showing that Skip was wrong.
Hedonist wrote:
Now, do you want to keep arguing about Skippy when replying to me, or do you want to actually have a conversation with me?
You came into this conversation part way through, however you were able to recognise that Skip's view of scientific method was flawed.

This thing between me and Skip has gone on for 6 months or more, started out on another thread entirely with hardly anyone else bothering to get involved while we sparred each other. So if it winds you up then I apologize as it's all my fault (oh, and his) for letting it all go on so long. There's also the guilty pleasure I get from yanking his tail and watching him bark.

Point is that ultimately he's using science as a battering ram for atheism and I pointed out that he was guilty of exactly the same kind of dogmatism the creationists are. If he wants to paint theists in general with the same brush as the fundies then I wish him luck in his crusade. Personally though I don't think that such a crusade is great for promoting science to a population of mostly theists.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min IB DaMann 67,759
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr MADRONE 161,068
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr River Tam 28,721
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 4 hr No Surprise 432
What does the theory of evolution state? 4 hr River Tam 186
Curious dilemma about DNA 5 hr Subduction Zone 446
News Alabama science literacy threatened by antiscie... 10 hr Subduction Zone 3
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 hr Regolith Based Li... 221,400
More from around the web