Aliens and evolution

There are 6101 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.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4363 Dec 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey look, its Nuggin's other half. The moron who doesn't
a) Understand the burden of proof and thinks scientists jobs are to go around disproving the crap
Skeptic, YOUR claim is that scientists PROVE things.
OUR position is that they DISPROVE things.

You can't claim our position and then proclaim that we were wrong.

You've forgot your entire argument.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4364 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to be projecting, because I didn't insult you, nor did I say any such thing. Based on the definition of "alien" and "native," the Earth's moon is native to the Earth. Learn how to read, or the religious trolls will eat you for breakfast.
Once again, humans are NOT from the Moon. The fact that the moon is NEAR the Earth does not make the Moon PART of the Earth.

Mexicans are from Mexico, not from France. It doesn't matter that both countries are ON the Earth.

If we had discovered life ON the Moon, that life wouldn't be FROM Earth. IT would be FROM the Moon because... and this is key... write this down... that is where it was FROM.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#4365 Dec 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, humans are NOT from the Moon. The fact that the moon is NEAR the Earth does not make the Moon PART of the Earth.
Mexicans are from Mexico, not from France. It doesn't matter that both countries are ON the Earth.
If we had discovered life ON the Moon, that life wouldn't be FROM Earth. IT would be FROM the Moon because... and this is key... write this down... that is where it was FROM.
Point out exactly, word for word, where I stated that the humans born on Earth are native to the Earth's moon. Post reference too.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4366 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
humans born on Earth are native to the Earth's moon
Your previous post.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#4367 Dec 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Skeptic, YOUR claim is that scientists PROVE things.
OUR position is that they DISPROVE things.
You can't claim our position and then proclaim that we were wrong.
You've forgot your entire argument.
I speak for the entire planet when I say shut the mother f*ck up you piece of sh*t lying troll scum.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#4368 Dec 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, humans are NOT from the Moon.
What the f*cking f*ck. Nuggin you're an idiot.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#4369 Dec 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Your previous post.
Nope, not seeing it. Where?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4370 Dec 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey look, its Nuggin's other half. The moron who doesn't
a) Understand the burden of proof and thinks scientists jobs are to go around disproving the crap idiots like Nuggin invent.
b) The coward who for more than one year can't provide any evidence of something that is both real and unfalsifiable.
Go away, poor agnostic fool who doesn't understand basic logic, you're just an armchair embarrassment here.
a) Incorrect and straw-man. In fact my entire position has been based on the fact that scientists DON'T have to disprove non-falsifiable concepts. You KNOW this. You THEN claimed to have been able to FALSIFY said non-falsifiable concepts. You now appear to be reneging on this position but still not having the intellectual honesty to admit your egregious error.

b) Projection and outright lie on your part. You've been given example NUMEROUS times over the past year or so. You have NOT been able to address them. You HAVE repeated this same lie that you have NOT been provided with what you wanted when you HAVE.

See unlike you Skippy, I do not have to lie. I MAY even be incorrect, but unfortunately you do not have the capability to engage much less demonstrate my alleged errors.

I do.

Which is why you wuss out.

Every

single

time.

As always.

Now it's time for more Skippy ad-hom and skipping what he finds theologically inconvenient, and playing with the judge icons on my posts.

Anytime you wanna finally make a coherent argument just let us know eh?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4371 Dec 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
That's it Nuggin, I see you haven't changed your tactic of stating a ridiculous strawman and arguing against it with ALL CAPS.
You're just getting worse and worse at this!
Irony meter go boom.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4372 Dec 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you have and always will be a f*cking idiot in this forum.
And you'll always have your cheerleader the dude waving his pom poms in the background.
... except our disagreement was from LONG before Nuggin's involvement. Other people joined in later on and Nuggin happened to agree with me. And he wasn't the only one.

I wouldn't claim anything as ridiculous as calling any of them MY "cheerleaders" though.

So uh, you managed to formulate an argument yet? Or you gonna keep relying on lying and ad hom?

Uhuh. Thought so.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4373 Dec 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I speak for the entire planet when I say shut the mother f*ck up
Yeah, that'll work.

:-p

Go get 'im, pooch!
-Skeptic- wrote:
you piece of sh*t lying troll scum.
Warning! Irony meters on overload!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4374 Dec 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
What the f*cking f*ck. Nuggin you're an idiot.
Yup. You've really mastered the art of the Buck Crick style of "debating!"

The similarity, it's amazing. My hypothesis?

COMMON ANCESTRY!

:-D

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4375 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not seeing it. Where?
I literally just quoted it. Can't do much more than that giving the limitations of Topix.

Your post is less than two lines. If you can't find the words, I can't help you.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4376 Dec 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
What the f*cking f*ck. Nuggin you're an idiot.
So, you think humans are from the Moon?

How does this work with your belief that we've also never been to the moon?

You need to rethink your position on everything.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#4377 Dec 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, it's not the one you think.
See Aura, the problem here is simple.
You very much want to be right but you are wrong. You're wrong because you took up a position based on your biases not based on a very simple argument.
As a result, you keep trying to shoot down my position which is obviously correct and you keep running into the same road block: The fact that I'm right.
Then your rational side posts (as you've done 3+ times) a lengthy admission that I was right all along.
However your childish side then takes back over and you retract the statement (like what happened yesterday).
So, I'm going to let you off the hook. I'm going to give it to you as simple as possible.
The dictionary has a definition for the word "god".
Those parts are: "Is believed to have supernatural powers" and "is believed to require worship."
Pharaohs were BELIEVED to have supernatural powers and we're BELIEVED to require worship.
Arguments about whether or not they ACTUALLY had supernatural powers are irrelevant. Arguments about whether or not they ACTUALLY required worship are irrelevant.
The ENTIRE argument is whether or not the Egyptians BELIEVED these things. They did. Therefore Pharaohs were gods.
That's it.
It's EXTREMELY simple.
Now, you can either admit for the 4th time that all of that is correct.
Or, you can start another tirade about how "Pharaohs aren't as real as some other gods like Jesus."
I'd advise you follow your own lead and re-admit you lost this one months ago.

So you admit the definition relies on a fallacious set of criteria then I agree.

Because you see if any man claims to be a god in this modern world
He fucking better be Batman or Ironman , because he is gonna get sliced and diced in horrible ways .

Let me introduce you to the god myth slaying reality of the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnu...

There is no god who can face the music and they all fall down.

There is a predator on the loose and god is on the menu.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#4378 Dec 10, 2012

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4379 Dec 10, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
So you admit the definition relies on a fallacious set of criteria then I agree.
Not only is the criteria not fallacious, I can't see how you could determine if it were.

The criteria is:
Do people BELIEVE this?

Are you claiming that the people did _not_ believe it? How can you prove that?

You are STILL missing the point. It's the BELIEF that determines it, not whether or not what they believe is valid.
Because you see if any man claims to be a god in this modern world
He fucking better be Batman or Ironman , because he is gonna get sliced and diced in horrible ways .
The claim is not the criteria.
You can claim whatever you want. Doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not a group of people BELIEVE the claim.

If they do, then they've formed a religion and you are at the center of it. Ergo, you will then be a god.

It's _EXACTLY_ like how the people of the US believe in the Constitution and therefore we can assert that Obama is the President.

He is not ACTUALLY any different than anyone else other than the fact that a group of people have invested him with powers and believe that he has the right to wield those powers.

If NO ONE in the US _believed_ that he was President, then he wouldn't be President.
There is no god who can face the music and they all fall down.
This also doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not there was a religion and if they was a figure around which the religion was based.

Thor can't throw lightning because Thor doesn't actually exist. However that has no bearing on the fact that Thor was a god.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#4380 Dec 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only is the criteria not fallacious, I can't see how you could determine if it were.
The criteria is:
Do people BELIEVE this?
Are you claiming that the people did _not_ believe it? How can you prove that?
You are STILL missing the point. It's the BELIEF that determines it, not whether or not what they believe is valid.
<quoted text>
The claim is not the criteria.
You can claim whatever you want. Doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not a group of people BELIEVE the claim.
If they do, then they've formed a religion and you are at the center of it. Ergo, you will then be a god.
It's _EXACTLY_ like how the people of the US believe in the Constitution and therefore we can assert that Obama is the President.
He is not ACTUALLY any different than anyone else other than the fact that a group of people have invested him with powers and believe that he has the right to wield those powers.
If NO ONE in the US _believed_ that he was President, then he wouldn't be President.
<quoted text>
This also doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not there was a religion and if they was a figure around which the religion was based.
Thor can't throw lightning because Thor doesn't actually exist. However that has no bearing on the fact that Thor was a god.
Belief is irrelevant the CLAIM is fallacious , genius.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4381 Dec 10, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Belief is irrelevant the CLAIM is fallacious , genius.
The claim is:
"There exists a religion which is based around this deity."

Show me where that claim is fallacious.

It's NOT. Religions DO exist. They've existed in the past. They exist in the present. They will likely exist well into the future.

The fact that you personally disagree with a current or past religion has NO BEARING on whether or not that religion exists.

In fact, you CAN'T disagree with it if it DIDN'T exist.

Your entire complain demonstrates that these religions do in fact exist.

Your argument is moot

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#4382 Dec 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim is:
"There exists a religion which is based around this deity."
Show me where that claim is fallacious.
It's NOT. Religions DO exist. They've existed in the past. They exist in the present. They will likely exist well into the future.
The fact that you personally disagree with a current or past religion has NO BEARING on whether or not that religion exists.
In fact, you CAN'T disagree with it if it DIDN'T exist.
Your entire complain demonstrates that these religions do in fact exist.
Your argument is moot
Yes Nuggin your argument is exactly the circular argument the cristards use .

You are in fact saying god exists because the dictionary said so.
As opposed to god exists because the bible says so.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 21 min Thinking 31
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 31 min I Am No One_ 239,133
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 44 min MikeF 19,040
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Thinking 2,179
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Thinking 7,396
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 10 hr NoahLovesU 7,468
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 10 hr thetruth 115
More from around the web