Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Washington Times

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.

Comments
4,161 - 4,180 of 6,103 Comments Last updated May 20, 2013

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#4220 Dec 2, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and read the posts.
And stop using words you don't understand. You're here arguing that C-14 dating is fake, you don't get to call OTHER people "godbot"
Your link has nothing to do with your original post.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#4221 Dec 2, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Dipshit, he's talking about YOU
Reading comprehension is not your strong point is it.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4222 Dec 3, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link has nothing to do with your original post.
Wow, I'm pretty f*#king bored with you, so I'll give you this last post to try and clear things up.

Here's the history of this discussion:

1) A creationist came on and said C-14 was unreliable.
2) I posted an extensive post explaining that C-14 was reliable and outlining multiple ways it can be cross checked against other dating methods.
3) Skeptic claimed I was making it all up.
4) You jumped in and claimed that I was wrong.
5) I pointed out again that C-14 is reliable.
6) You insisted on arguing with me.

So, for the record -
You are arguing AGAINST C-14 by taking sides with Skeptic.

If that is NOT your intention, then you are f$(king up and have fundamentally misunderstood the conversation into which you jumped.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#4223 Dec 3, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, I'm pretty f*#king bored with you, so I'll give you this last post to try and clear things up.
Here's the history of this discussion:
1) A creationist came on and said C-14 was unreliable.
2) I posted an extensive post explaining that C-14 was reliable and outlining multiple ways it can be cross checked against other dating methods.
3) Skeptic claimed I was making it all up.
4) You jumped in and claimed that I was wrong.
5) I pointed out again that C-14 is reliable.
6) You insisted on arguing with me.
So, for the record -
You are arguing AGAINST C-14 by taking sides with Skeptic.
If that is NOT your intention, then you are f$(king up and have fundamentally misunderstood the conversation into which you jumped.
You are a total fr!gging idiot. I posted:-
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
So there is NO misunderstanding C14 dating is accurate, tree rings and ice cores are not.
How is that "arguing AGAINST C-14"?

BTW You still have not cited your original story.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4224 Dec 3, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a total fr!gging idiot. I posted:-
How is that "arguing AGAINST C-14"?
You posted in opposition to me. You can not then claim to be in support of my position AND still be arguing with me.

I accept that you are now surrendering and admitting that you were wrong. Stop arguing, you already lost.
BTW You still have not cited your original story.
Are you talking about the example I gave trying to educate you on how the different kinds of dating systems work?

That's not something that requires citation. It's an EXAMPLE OF HOW THE DIFFERENT DATING SYSTEMS WORK.

IF you are two stupid to know the difference, there's very little I can do to help you.

You must be the kind of person who reads a recipe in a cookbook then flips the page and complains that the cake isn't actually there in the book.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#4225 Dec 3, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You posted in opposition to me. You can not then claim to be in support of my position AND still be arguing with me.
I accept that you are now surrendering and admitting that you were wrong. Stop arguing, you already lost.
<quoted text>
Are you talking about the example I gave trying to educate you on how the different kinds of dating systems work?
That's not something that requires citation. It's an EXAMPLE OF HOW THE DIFFERENT DATING SYSTEMS WORK.
IF you are two stupid to know the difference, there's very little I can do to help you.
You must be the kind of person who reads a recipe in a cookbook then flips the page and complains that the cake isn't actually there in the book.
Now that you tried to play pigeon chess and had a meltdown are you going cite your original post?

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#4226 Dec 4, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The argument is:
Are human beings native to the moon?
Your answer is that the moon orbits the Earth.
That does not relate to the argument at hand, nor does it provide any support for your position.
You really don't seem to be able to comprehend the discussion. Perhaps there's an adult there who can help you
R. P. wrote: My answer,"that the moon orbits the Earth", would be on this page in one of my previous posts, right? Try as I might, I just can't see it, nor do I have the memory of that particular posting.

My words >>>>> "We are not alien to our own moon."
"My contention? Earth's moon, Dipshit, as in not belonging to Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, etc.<<<<

and

your words >>>

Nuggin wrote: The argument is:

Are human beings native to the moon?

Your answer is that the moon orbits the Earth.

That does not relate to the argument at hand, nor does it provide any support for your position.

You really don't seem to be able to comprehend the discussion. Perhaps there's an adult there who can help you <<<<<<.

R. P. wrote: What I said, and what you are saying, that I said do not match up. Do you know why that is? It is because you are obliged to lie, so that you might have that bone of contention to gnaw on. Are you Barefoot?

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#4227 Dec 4, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link has nothing to do with your original post.
That seems to be habit with him.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4228 Dec 4, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>
R. P. wrote: My answer,"that the moon orbits the Earth", would be on this page in one of my previous posts, right? Try as I might, I just can't see it, nor do I have the memory of that particular posting.
My words >>>>> "We are not alien to our own moon."
"My contention? Earth's moon, Dipshit, as in not belonging to Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, etc.<<<<
and
your words >>>
Nuggin wrote: The argument is:
Are human beings native to the moon?
Your answer is that the moon orbits the Earth.
That does not relate to the argument at hand, nor does it provide any support for your position.
You really don't seem to be able to comprehend the discussion. Perhaps there's an adult there who can help you <<<<<<.
R. P. wrote: What I said, and what you are saying, that I said do not match up. Do you know why that is? It is because you are obliged to lie, so that you might have that bone of contention to gnaw on. Are you Barefoot?
Your argument is that because the Moon is near the Earth, humans are from the moon.

That is a ridiculous argument.

India is near Australia. Kangaroos are not from Indian.

Kangaroos are native to Australian. They are foreign to India. If you found a kangaroo in India it would be an "alien species" to India.

Humans on the moon would be ALIEN to the moon as they are not FROM the moon.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4229 Dec 4, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
are you going cite your original post?
Let's review:

My post #4080 on Page 202 gives a long and detailed explanation of how C-14 dating is verified by cross checking the methodology with other independent dating methods.

Skeptic's post #4094 on Page 203 declares that I am wrong about C-14, that my detailed explanation is unscientific. And that I don't understand "proof".

On Page 206 in post #4164 I remind people that Skeptic's positions on this thread have left him with no credibility. He has come out saying that the moon landing was faked, that lizards are imaginary, that Egypt never existed and, most recently, that C-14 dating is fake.

On page 207, in post #4177 you come to Skeptic's defense, proclaiming me a "godbot" for supporting C-14 dating.

NOW you are changing positions.

So, either you were WRONG in the first place and f'd up because you couldn't be bothered to read the posts.
-or-
You are giving up and admiting you were wrong about C-14 being fake.

Which is it?

There. Cited. Bitch.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#4230 Dec 4, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's review:
My post #4080 on Page 202 gives a long and detailed explanation of how C-14 dating is verified by cross checking the methodology with other independent dating methods.
Skeptic's post #4094 on Page 203 declares that I am wrong about C-14, that my detailed explanation is unscientific. And that I don't understand "proof".
On Page 206 in post #4164 I remind people that Skeptic's positions on this thread have left him with no credibility. He has come out saying that the moon landing was faked, that lizards are imaginary, that Egypt never existed and, most recently, that C-14 dating is fake.
On page 207, in post #4177 you come to Skeptic's defense, proclaiming me a "godbot" for supporting C-14 dating.
NOW you are changing positions.
So, either you were WRONG in the first place and f'd up because you couldn't be bothered to read the posts.
-or-
You are giving up and admiting you were wrong about C-14 being fake.
Which is it?
There. Cited. Bitch.
No that's not it, now when are you going to cite your original post?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#4231 Dec 4, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is that because the Moon is near the Earth, humans are from the moon.
That is a ridiculous argument.
India is near Australia. Kangaroos are not from Indian.
Kangaroos are native to Australian. They are foreign to India. If you found a kangaroo in India it would be an "alien species" to India.
Humans on the moon would be ALIEN to the moon as they are not FROM the moon.

That was true up until the USA flag was planted firmly in lunar soil.
Now the moon belongs to America , as ridiculous as you are there is logic to this ridiculous premise.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4232 Dec 4, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
No that's not it, now when are you going to cite your original post?
I'm bored with you.

I've answered this question. I've asked you to be more specific with this question. I've given you citations for the entire argument. I've asked you for specifics about what precisely you are disagreeing with.

Your response is always the same.

It comes down to this:

I'm right about C-14 Dating being accurate. Your position against C-14 Dating is unsupported.

You're done.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4233 Dec 4, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That was true up until the USA flag was planted firmly in lunar soil.
Now the moon belongs to America , as ridiculous as you are there is logic to this ridiculous premise.
Wrong. The USA flag was placed on the moon AFTER the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids any country from claiming ownership.

AND, a flag is not a person. No one has ever been born on the moon.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#4234 Dec 4, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The USA flag was placed on the moon AFTER the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids any country from claiming ownership.
AND, a flag is not a person. No one has ever been born on the moon.
I didn't say native or indigenous.
The moon treaty was updated in 79, but not ratified by any space fairing nation ..Therefore failed!

The plans to build a permanent installation to be used as a base
and jump point for a Mars mission is on the drawing boards.
Real estate on the moon will soon become reality.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#4235 Dec 4, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm bored with you.
I've answered this question. I've asked you to be more specific with this question. I've given you citations for the entire argument. I've asked you for specifics about what precisely you are disagreeing with.
Your response is always the same.
It comes down to this:
I'm right about C-14 Dating being accurate. Your position against C-14 Dating is unsupported.
You're done.
Show one post where I have said C14 is not accurate. I keep asking for you "to cite your original post?" because you have not done so.

Stop lying and cite your original story.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4236 Dec 5, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Show one post where I have said C14 is not accurate. I keep asking for you "to cite your original post?" because you have not done so.
Stop lying and cite your original story.
I just gave you the specific post number 2-3 posts ago.

You jumped into the discussion AGAINST my position and in FAVOR OF Skeptics position.

Are you NOW claiming that you were WRONG with your first post?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#4237 Dec 5, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
...I remind people that Skeptic's positions on this thread have left him with no credibility. He has come out saying that the moon landing was faked, that lizards are imaginary, that Egypt never existed and, most recently, that C-14 dating is fake.
....
These are all lies which are founded on purposeful quote mining of his posts. This appears to be you standard modus operandi as you have also done that with my posts.

And, NO, I am NOT starting any conversation with you. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your "holier than thou" facade for those who actually care to do their own research.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4238 Dec 5, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
These are all lies which are founded on purposeful quote mining of his posts. This appears to be you standard modus operandi as you have also done that with my posts.
And, NO, I am NOT starting any conversation with you. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your "holier than thou" facade for those who actually care to do their own research.
You and I both know that this is false.

Skeptic clearly stated that I made up the moon landings.
He was given MONTHS of opportunities to clarify his position and admit he was wrong in his initial post. He stuck to his guns.

He CLEARLY stated that I invented lizards. Again, given MONTHS of opportunities to clarify his position and admit he was wrong. He stuck to his guns.

You and he BOTH took the position that the Egyptian Pharaohs never really existed, or at the very least, weren't as "real" as Jesus. Again, given plenty of opportunity to admit you were wrong, you still stuck to your guns.

Look, I get it. You got busted being an ass and it's hard to admit you were wrong. However, you WERE. It's ALL right here on the thread.

Go back and read it for yourself.

And for the record:

Egyptian Pharaohs REALLY existed.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#4239 Dec 5, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>You and I both know that this is false.

Skeptic clearly stated that I made up the moon landings.
He was given MONTHS of opportunities to clarify his position and admit he was wrong in his initial post. He stuck to his guns.

He CLEARLY stated that I invented lizards. Again, given MONTHS of opportunities to clarify his position and admit he was wrong. He stuck to his guns.

You and he BOTH took the position that the Egyptian Pharaohs never really existed, or at the very least, weren't as "real" as Jesus. Again, given plenty of opportunity to admit you were wrong, you still stuck to your guns.

Look, I get it. You got busted being an ass and it's hard to admit you were wrong. However, you WERE. It's ALL right here on the thread.

Go back and read it for yourself.

And for the record:

Egyptian Pharaohs REALLY existed.
Skeptic does that often. Makes claims and never proves them.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 3 min Thinking 412
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min Thinking 226,288
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 13 min True Christian wi... 44
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 34 min Carchar king 23
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Thinking 21,500
100% Faith Free 2 hr Thinking 11
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr ChristineM 902
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••