Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 Full story: Washington Times 6,101

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.

Full Story

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#891 Aug 6, 2012
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Hedonist is ignostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
Thanks! Hadn't heard of "Ignosticism".

But from your link:

"Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether they are a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

....I'll stick with Agnostic, thankyouverymuch.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#892 Aug 6, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks! Hadn't heard of "Ignosticism".
But from your link:
"Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether they are a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.
....I'll stick with Agnostic, thankyouverymuch.
A lot of people aren't familiar with that philosophy. Just thought it would give a little more perspective to Hedo's position.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#893 Aug 6, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
As an Agnostic,
You cannot prove, or *reason* there is no Supreme Being in the Universe.
Nor OUTSIDE the Universe.
Nor can anyone else.
Wrong. Agnostics are lazy people who don't understand science.

The moment a theist defines their god and claims it is real, they are open to argument and attack from people that demand evidence of these claims.

Nuggin & The Dude continue and fail to try to fight against basic logic:

If you claim something, you must find evidence to support you're claim.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#894 Aug 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, this isn't true.
The best you can say is that to the best of your ability there is no elephant in your room that you can detect assuming that elephants have the given set of characteristics that you currently believe they have.
Scientists a few decades ago could tell you with some certainty that they knew the general distribution of most (if not all) the matter in the Universe. That's because they didn't know the actual characteristics of matter.
When dark matter and dark energy were discovered, they learned that they in fact only knew about a tiny fraction of the matter in the Universe and that the rest of it had gone undetected.
So, while I also believe that Elephants are corporeal beings of some significant size, it is not possible to prove that there is some as of yet unknown ability of elephants (or any other living thing) to exist within the confines of your room and remain undetected. Nor, for that matter, are the confines of "your room" so well defined as to disregard the possibility that there are ways in which things could exist within it that would render them undetectable to you.
Stating that you can definitively determine that there is no elephant in your room means that you, ALONE in the UNIVERSE know everything there is to know about matter/space/life/etc.
Is that YOUR definition of a god?
<quoted text>
Actually, there were three very specific properties given. You choose to ignore them.
It's not my fault that you don't like the definition, or that the definition is uncooperative with your line of reasoning.
<quoted text>
No, those are not usual characteristics of a deity. They MAY be characteristics of what the Jews and their offspring have claimed to be the "one true god", but they are certainly not characteristics of the vast majority of religious figures which share the same label.
No one claims that Coyote is a causal factor in the formation of the Universe. Nor that he is omnipresent. Ditto Thor. etc.
<quoted text>
The rest of the rant is frankly useless because you've revered to using the word "God" instead of the correct usage for the discussion which is "god".
Just like no one eats Turkey on Thanksgiving, we are not discussing the fictional hero of Jewish mythology. We are discussing the classification which applies to more than 15,000 figures, some mythological, some real.
As the end of the day, you claim "god is possible".

WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

That's you're positive claim / thinking error.

It's a shame you're too stupid to realise this even after three posters explain it to you repeatedly.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#895 Aug 6, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks! Hadn't heard of "Ignosticism".
But from your link:
"Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether they are a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.
....I'll stick with Agnostic, thankyouverymuch.
Who cares about what philosophers think, science proves that gods are impossible.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#896 Aug 6, 2012
There's one characteristic of god that all theists can't help but lie about, and it's a proven lie:

"real."

In the entire history of the planet earth, no theist has ever been brave enough to present any scientific evidence to prove that they aren't common liars.

This is the theist disease - believing that they will be respected when they deliberately talk about god, without presenting and proof.

incidentally, its also the agnostic disease too.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#897 Aug 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Agnostics are lazy people who don't understand science.
I guess that makes you an agnostic then.

Tell me, how exactly are you going to scientifically prove that Egyptians are "impossible".

Have you designed an experiment or something?
Nuggin & The Dude continue and fail to try to fight against basic logic:
If you claim something, you must find evidence to support you're claim.
You claimed that "gods" are impossible to have ever existed.
I pointed out that Pharaohs were "gods" by all definitions of the word.

Do you HONESTLY need evidence that Pharaohs existed? Or is this another moon landing thing where first you deny it then you claim you never did?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#898 Aug 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
As the end of the day, you claim "god is possible".
WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
In this case "god" is ANY Egyptian Pharaoh.

So, your claim here is that there is _NO EVIDENCE_ that there was EVER even ONE Egyptian Pharaoh.

Brilliant.

So, what? NASA faked the mummies?

Skeptic, GET A DICTIONARY! Stop using words if you don't know what they mean. You are making yourself look pretty foolish with these outrageous claims.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#899 Aug 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
There's one characteristic of god that all theists can't help but lie about, and it's a proven lie:
"real."
In the entire history of the planet earth, no theist has ever been brave enough to present any scientific evidence to prove that they aren't common liars.
This is the theist disease - believing that they will be respected when they deliberately talk about god, without presenting and proof.
incidentally, its also the agnostic disease too.
Sigh. And here again is yet another denial that Egyptian Pharaohs were "real".

What's the matter? Do you not believe in "Egypt"? It's STILL there you know. Or is it you don't believe that anyone lives in Egypt?

Hell, even your precious BIBLE records the presence of Egyptian Pharaohs are being REAL.

And I haven't even started to talk about the Pyramids, the tombs, the FRIGGIN' MUMMIES!!!

Denying the moon landing was one thing. I mean, you can't ACTUALLY go to the moon to see the stuff yourself. You, however, CAN go to a museum.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#900 Aug 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess that makes you an agnostic then.
Tell me, how exactly are you going to scientifically prove that Egyptians are "impossible".
1. There's Egyptians don't have any mystical undefined features in their definition.

2. There's scientific evidence that proves Egyptians existed.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you designed an experiment or something?
<quoted text>
The burden of proof is upon the person who claimed Egyptians existed in the first place.

And that person was correct, because the definition has a real-world meaning AND there is physical evidence that cannot be refuted.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You claimed that "gods" are impossible to have ever existed.
No, I stated a fact that god's are impossible as proven by science.

You main a positive claim by saying "gods are possible".

But you are yet to be honest and present any evidence that proves your claim.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I pointed out that Pharaohs were "gods" by all definitions of the word.
Do you HONESTLY need evidence that Pharaohs existed? Or is this another moon landing thing where first you deny it then you claim you never did?
1. Pharoahs existed because there is scientific evidence to say they existed. There are physical human bodies in the ground that you can dig up and talk to if you wanted to.

2. I've never denied the moon landing. You tried to lie about this and failed.

It really helps if you are able to prove your positive claim that "god's are possible", other wise this discussion is going nowhere fast.

Also you're lies are getting more and more desperate.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#901 Aug 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares about what philosophers think, science proves that gods are impossible.
Science does not attempt to solve the philosophical but has a philosophy. It also does not deal with the untestable supernatural , not that it disproves it but states it is simply impossible to determine. The Discovery of the Higgs field hints there exists a beyond our senses or ability of observation a thing as well as dark energy and dark matter are things we know little about. But have discovered they are there.

I'm not lobbying for the existence of god or gods but rather pointing out you are only in arrogance arguing from a non existent position of authority of science to make a determination impossible by empirical methodology to make. This is why science does not attempt to either , but does not dismiss anything because it is possible a test could be devised for things not yet possible.

Science has been known to change it's position in less than a skinny when evidence did become available, for what was considered impossible or contrary to what was thought to be solid ground by many.

To name a few game changers..

Nicholas Copernicus
Michael Faraday
Charles Darwin
Louis Pasteur
Georges Lemaître

There are many more , but we are no different now than then as there is always the possibility of a dynamic new discovery , or brainstorm that sheds new light and enlightens humanity to the advent of a new horizon.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#902 Aug 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
In this case "god" is ANY Egyptian Pharaoh.
So, your claim here is that there is _NO EVIDENCE_ that there was EVER even ONE Egyptian Pharaoh.
Brilliant.
It's sad that you have such poor reading comprehension skills.

I stated the fact that you have no evidence for your claim that "gods are possible".

You keep repeating this positive claim, without providing any evidence that you aren't a liar.

So I must conclude that you are a liar.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what? NASA faked the mummies?
Your imagination is no match for my hard facts.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Skeptic, GET A DICTIONARY! Stop using words if you don't know what they mean. You are making yourself look pretty foolish with these outrageous claims.
Says the idiot who doesn't know the definition of the "burden of proof".

You have no evidence that gods are possible and you are beating a dead horse to the ground.

What will you attempt and fail to lie about next I wonder? Lizard creatures perhaps?

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#903 Aug 7, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Do people worship him?
Do people believe he has supernatural abilities?
Do people consider him to be in charge?
That, but definition, is a god.
Elvis
+ Chris Angel
+ Charles
__________
= god

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#904 Aug 7, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
1. There's Egyptians don't have any mystical undefined features in their definition.
2. There's scientific evidence that proves Egyptians existed.
So, now you are coming down on both sides of the issue again.
Which is it? Were Pharaohs gods by the definitions you've so stringently demanded that we apply or no?
Did people worship them? Yes. Did people believe they had supernatural powers? Yes. Did people see them as rulers? Yes. Did people value them greatly? Yes.
That makes them a god.
The burden of proof is upon the person who claimed Egyptians existed in the first place.
And that person was correct, because the definition has a real-world meaning AND there is physical evidence that cannot be refuted.
And those Egyptians had rulers. And those rulers were called Pharaohs. And those rulers were gods.
Now that we are all on the same page, how exactly is it that you are claiming to be an atheist when there is CLEAR evidence of numerous gods which have existed in the past?
No, I stated a fact that god's are impossible as proven by science.
And since that's neither a "fact", nor is it something that science would ever claim - you're about as wrong as you can possibly be.
First, science NEVER says something is impossible.
Second, science HAS proven conclusively that Pharaohs existed.
You main a positive claim by saying "gods are possible".
But you are yet to be honest and present any evidence that proves your claim.
And you're already back to claiming that Egyptian Pharaohs didn't exist.
Geez man, you can't go two paragraphs without changing your position on this.
Pick a position already.
1. Pharoahs existed because there is scientific evidence to say they existed. There are physical human bodies in the ground that you can dig up and talk to if you wanted to.
And you are back on the other side of the fence AGAIN.
Which is it? They existed or they didn't?
You are claiming that Pharaohs exist. You are claiming that gods don't. Pharaohs are gods.
Do I need to diagram this out for you with logic.
Okay, here we go:
Pharaohs are gods.
Pharaohs exist.
Therefore gods exist.
2. I've never denied the moon landing.
Page 4. You claimed that I made up the moon landing to try and sound cool.
Look, I get it. It was an embarrassing moment for you when you found out you were wrong about the moon landing. It's okay. Just admit it and it's over.
It really helps if you are able to prove your positive claim that "god's are possible", other wise this discussion is going nowhere fast.
And now you are back to denying that Pharaohs exist.
You really need to get yourself a sticky pad or something and write down your position. This back and forth stuff is useless.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#905 Aug 7, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
I stated the fact that you have no evidence for your claim that "gods are possible".
You keep repeating this positive claim, without providing any evidence that you aren't a liar.
So I must conclude that you are a liar.
You LITERALLY just quoted me saying that Pharaohs are gods. This quote from you is a response.

This is CLEARLY a denial of the existence of Pharaohs.

It's simply not possible to debate you when you change your position so many times.

It's unclear what YOUR position is.

Sometimes you say that Egyptian pharaohs existed. However, above you are calling me a liar and claiming that I can not present any evidence to support the claim that Egyptian pharaohs existed.

Which is it?

Did they exist or did I make them up? This is the moon landing all over again.
Your imagination is no match for my hard facts.
What hard facts? Show me a single "hard fact" that disproves the existence of Egyptian Pharaohs. You've got none.
Says the idiot who doesn't know the definition
I gave you the definition. I explained clearly how Pharaohs fit not just one, but ALL THREE of the available definitions.

What's confusing about that? Oh right, you don't know how to read.

You have no evidence that gods are possible and you are beating a dead horse to the ground.
And again you are back to claiming that Pharaohs aren't real.

Seriously? You know that YOU already disagreed with YOU on this, right?
What will you attempt and fail to lie about next I wonder? Lizard creatures perhaps?
Oh man, now you are claiming that reptiles aren't real?!?!

You clearly need to take your medicine.

Tell me, what sort of evidence do you need to prove to you that lizards actually exist and that they are living creatures?

Oh wait, let me guess, you are going to be on both sides of this issue as well.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#906 Aug 7, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yuh huh...what The Dude says rules!
The Dude abides.

:-p

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#907 Aug 7, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>
Elvis
+ Chris Angel
+ Charles
__________
= god
I don't think "Charles in Charge" really counts as a dictionary definition of "ruler", though he is there just to take good care of me... like he's one of the family.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#908 Aug 7, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it wasn't possible.
I just want a working definitin to consider.
But if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that once you define what is meant by the word "god", it is easy to show any given definition is impossible?
If the definition is more complete, enough to be testable then maybe it's possible to find out.

Might not necessarily be easy though...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#910 Aug 7, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Agnostics are lazy people who don't understand science.
Actually we have well established that you don't understand science. Contrary to your baseless beliefs science couldn't give a hoot about your opinions on atheism.
-Skeptic- wrote:
The moment a theist defines their god and claims it is real, they are open to argument and attack from people that demand evidence of these claims.
Unless you happen to be Skip who doesn't need to wait for a testable falsifiable definition.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Nuggin & The Dude continue and fail to try to fight against basic logic:
If you claim something, you must find evidence to support you're claim.
You have made the positive claim that it was "impossible". So far you've provided zero evidence.

Oh, and you still haven't apologized for your other two mistakes either.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#911 Aug 7, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
As the end of the day, you claim "god is possible".
WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
That's you're positive claim / thinking error.
It's a shame you're too stupid to realise this even after three posters explain it to you repeatedly.
As the end of the day, you claim "god is possible".

WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

That's you're positive claim / thinking error.

It's a shame you're too stupid to realise this even after more than three posters explain it to you repeatedly.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min dirtclod 142,793
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr dirtclod 14,696
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 8 hr ChromiuMan 960
Why natural selection can't work 8 hr Chimney1 28
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 8 hr dirtclod 801
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... Thu paul porter 3
Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent De... (May '13) Wed Kong_ 455
More from around the web