Aliens and evolution

[Lil Ticked]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Adjusting the irony meter again. Just thought I'd be helpful and point out your sig should read "Why do fundamentalists lie?"
You are one.

It isn't nice to pick on retards.

[nanoanomaly]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
You need verified scientific evidence of bigfoot for bigfoot to be real. End of f*cking story.
Same goes for god.

Nobody claims that bigfoot is supernatural, you idiot.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
You're a funny guy nuggin, but doesn't mean you have a better understanding. You of course try to explain why your twisted logic is
right, but can't accept you're incorrect because your insanity keeps getting in the way. Maybe it's time for your meds again?

That would be a fine position to hold if you and I were the only two people in this debate.

However, we aren't.

I've got a great number of people on my side who've read my position, understand it and agreed with it.

You? You've got Skippy. Only Skippy. And the two of you can't even argue against what I'm actually saying, you have to build straw men.(See Skippy quoting me and then misquoting me in back to back posts above).

It's time for you to realize, you are not on the rational side of this argument. You never have been. Continuing to claim that the dictionary causes slavery, etc is not going to win over any readers.

You lost. You admitted as much 4x already.

Just walk away.

[Nuggin]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<
Just to remind everyone again how much of a coward you are since:
1. Cornered for not know what the "burden of proof" means.

For the 97th time. Please Skippy! Please tell us what the "burden of proof" means and how you met it with your claim.

Your inability to demonstrate your knowledge is REALLY undercutting your continued claim that Dude doesn't know.

So, go on. Show us how smart you are.

You expect scientists to go around disproving

That's what scientists do. You can't prove anything, only disprove it.

2. For the last two years, running scared & unable to provide me with an example of something that is both real and unfalsifiable.

You are contradicting yourself.

And, those examples have been provided to you a number of times.

[Nuggin]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
You need verified scientific evidence of bigfoot for bigfoot to be real. End of f*cking story.
Same goes for god.

So, let's be clear.

According to your above statement, dinosaurs were never real.

Fossils - real.
Dinosaurs - not real.

Because there is not and can never be any "verified scientific evidence" of dinosaurs.

Brilliant.

I'll add that to you list of incredibly stupid claims.

[Nuggin]

-Skeptic- wrote:

we're all glad to be inferior compared to you.

I'm relieved that you've come to terms with your lacking intellect.

Now, go make me some french fries.

[Nuggin]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
At the end of the day, you're a rambling idiot who has no proof of god.

Egypt was a real place, Skippy. Continuing to deny it existed does not advance your position.

[KittenKoder]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
So, let's be clear.
According to your above statement, dinosaurs were never real.
Fossils - real.
Dinosaurs - not real.
Because there is not and can never be any "verified scientific evidence" of dinosaurs.
Brilliant.
I'll add that to you list of incredibly stupid claims.

Fossils are part of the verified scientific evidence of dinosaurs. We also have DNA, tracks, and things that I don't even know about yet, which are all verified and scientific evidence for the existence of dinosaurs.

[Nuggin]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Fossils are part of the verified scientific evidence of dinosaurs. We also have DNA, tracks, and things that I don't even know about yet, which are all verified and scientific evidence for the existence of dinosaurs.

Not by Skippy's standard.

After all, the fossils are really only evidence of fossils according to Skippy's claim above.

Ditto DNA, tracks, etc.

Sure, the existence of dinosaurs can best explain all those things in one simple step but their actual existence has not and can not be verified, only inferred.

So, by Skippy's standard, they didn't actually exist.

[KittenKoder]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Not by Skippy's standard.
After all, the fossils are really only evidence of fossils according to Skippy's claim above.
Ditto DNA, tracks, etc.
Sure, the existence of dinosaurs can best explain all those things in one simple step but their actual existence has not and can not be verified, only inferred.
So, by Skippy's standard, they didn't actually exist.

Yes, but there is no solid and verifiable evidence supporting any gods, which I think is his main point, and he's correct in that. Thus the only sane position on the matter of deities of any sort is to consider them all myths, until evidence suggests otherwise.

[KittenKoder]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
For the 97th time. Please Skippy! Please tell us what the "burden of proof" means and how you met it with your claim.
Your inability to demonstrate your knowledge is REALLY undercutting your continued claim that Dude doesn't know.
So, go on. Show us how smart you are.
<quoted text>
That's what scientists do. You can't prove anything, only disprove it.
<quoted text>
You are contradicting yourself.
And, those examples have been provided to you a number of times.

You have that backwards, you cannot disprove anything, that's impossible and inherently a fool's errand. You can only prove things, but even then, that's not how science works. Science begins with no assumptions, none at all, looks at the evidence, then see where that leads. The conclusions are based on the evidence. Remember the old apple falling on Newton's head? That illustrates the process most aptly.

[Nuggin]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, but there is no solid and verifiable evidence supporting any gods, which I think is his main point, and he's correct in that.

Sorry, that's just false.

We quite literally have the bodies of the Pharaohs. Add that to the actual historical record, the buildings which still exist in Egypt, etc. There's MORE than enough evidence to conclude that ancient Egypt really existed, that humans lived there and that Pharaohs were real people.

Denying that is crazier than his claims that the dinosaurs weren't real.

Thus the only sane position on the matter of deities of any sort is to consider them all myths, until evidence suggests otherwise.

So, you believe that the Pharaohs were a myth? That they never existed?

What about Prince Phillip? Should we write him a letter and tell him that he doesn't exist? What do you think will happen when he reads it?

[KittenKoder]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, that's just false.
We quite literally have the bodies of the Pharaohs. Add that to the actual historical record, the buildings which still exist in Egypt, etc. There's MORE than enough evidence to conclude that ancient Egypt really existed, that humans lived there and that Pharaohs were real people.
Denying that is crazier than his claims that the dinosaurs weren't real.
<quoted text>
So, you believe that the Pharaohs were a myth? That they never existed?
What about Prince Phillip? Should we write him a letter and tell him that he doesn't exist? What do you think will happen when he reads it?

Mortal gods, sure, immortal ones, no evidence. A "supreme" god, no evidence. A "creator" god, zero evidence. However the pharaoh claims are not the same as the deity claims, vastly different.

[Nuggin]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
You have that backwards, you cannot disprove anything, that's impossible and inherently a fool's errand. You can only prove things, but even then, that's not how science works.

Here's a tip. This thread is populated by people with advanced educations who know a great deal more about science than you do.

Don't speak up. You're just going to embarrass yourself.

Scientific experiments can ONLY disprove, never prove.

Hypothesis:
This switch controls that light.

Experiment:
Throw switch. Does light change.

Outcome:
No. The hypothesis is disproven.
Yes. Support for the hypothesis is found but not conclusive.

The REALITY:
The switch you are at does not control the light. It is controlled by a battery that happened to run down.

The NEGATIVE result disproves the hypothesis that the switch causes the light to change.

The POSITIVE result seems to prove the hypothesis but that conclusion is incorrect based on the reality.

Hence, science can never PROVE anything, only DISPROVE.

That's 7th grade science.

Science begins with no assumptions, none at all

False.

Science begins with several assumptions:
#1) Reality is real.
#2) What is real today was real in the past and will be real in the future.
#3) The laws which govern the Universe do not change.

Without those assumptions, no science is possible.

The conclusions are based on the evidence.

Yes, but those conclusions are not proof. Science does not PROVE things.

[KittenKoder]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's a tip. This thread is populated by people with advanced educations who know a great deal more about science than you do.
Don't speak up. You're just going to embarrass yourself.
Scientific experiments can ONLY disprove, never prove.
....

So, you know nothing of scientific inquiry or how the method works. Interesting. You claims "advanced" education yet only betray you are either lying or incapable of actually learning. The only time you care to "listen" to me is when I am pointing out the few points you are correct in, but when I call you on a false assertion you claim I am not as studied as you are.

Interesting, the psychological turmoil you must feel in your mind whenever someone disagrees with you must eat you up inside. Otherwise you would have no excuse for including false arrogance in your posts the way you do.

[Nuggin]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
So, you know nothing of scientific inquiry or how the method works. Interesting. You claims "advanced" education yet only betray you are either lying or incapable of actually learning. The only time you care to "listen" to me is when I am pointing out the few points you are correct in, but when I call you on a false assertion you claim I am not as studied as you are.

I have never claimed that you were intelligent or well read. Occasionally you can be right, but this usually coincides with you agreeing with me.

In this case you are disagreeing with me and are wrong.

That's not cause and effect, that's just an extremely strong correlation.

I'll wait while you look that up.

Okay, back?

Good.

Now let's talk about your assertion. You claim that science PROVES things. I claim that science DISPROVES things only.

Go ahead and outline an experiment in which science can PROVE something conclusively.

(bear in mind, I'm not asking you to give me an experiment about something we fully understand. That's not the same thing.)

Interesting, the psychological turmoil you must feel in your mind whenever someone disagrees with you must eat you up inside. Otherwise you would have no excuse for including false arrogance in your posts the way you do.

I have been disagreed with by people who have valid points but differing preconceptions about reality.

Conservatives hold that abortion is immoral because they believe life starts at conception.

I believe that abortion is moral because I believe that life starts at age 5.

Since our two positions start from different precepts about reality, there can be no agreement.

It does not cause me turmoil. But, those sort of disagreements can never reach a satisfying conclusion. They will always hold what they hold, I will always hold what I hold.

However, this is not one of those philosophical questions.

This is simply a case of you not understanding scientific methodology at a jr. high level or above.

Your viewpoint is not equally valid but coming from a different set of assumptions. It's just wrong.

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
That would be a fine position to hold if you and I were the only two people in this debate.
However, we aren't.
I've got a great number of people on my side who've read my position, understand it and agreed with it.
You? You've got Skippy. Only Skippy. And the two of you can't even argue against what I'm actually saying, you have to build straw men.(See Skippy quoting me and then misquoting me in back to back posts above).
It's time for you to realize, you are not on the rational side of this argument. You never have been. Continuing to claim that the dictionary causes slavery, etc is not going to win over any readers.
You lost. You admitted as much 4x already.
Just walk away.

BS in caps, Ive got the brightest minds in topix and I agree we are a small percentage.

But never the less we are towering over your ideas and ideals.
You submit to theocracy, we do not.

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, that's just false.
We quite literally have the bodies of the Pharaohs. Add that to the actual historical record, the buildings which still exist in Egypt, etc. There's MORE than enough evidence to conclude that ancient Egypt really existed, that humans lived there and that Pharaohs were real people.
Denying that is crazier than his claims that the dinosaurs weren't real.
<quoted text>
So, you believe that the Pharaohs were a myth? That they never existed?
What about Prince Phillip? Should we write him a letter and tell him that he doesn't exist? What do you think will happen when he reads it?

Your problem is providing evidence the pharaohs were more than human.

Good luck with that.

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's a tip. This thread is populated by people with advanced educations who know a great deal more about science than you do.
Don't speak up. You're just going to embarrass yourself.
Scientific experiments can ONLY disprove, never prove.
Hypothesis:
This switch controls that light.
Experiment:
Throw switch. Does light change.
Outcome:
No. The hypothesis is disproven.
Yes. Support for the hypothesis is found but not conclusive.
The REALITY:
The switch you are at does not control the light. It is controlled by a battery that happened to run down.
The NEGATIVE result disproves the hypothesis that the switch causes the light to change.
The POSITIVE result seems to prove the hypothesis but that conclusion is incorrect based on the reality.
Hence, science can never PROVE anything, only DISPROVE.
That's 7th grade science.
<quoted text>
False.
Science begins with several assumptions:
#1) Reality is real.
#2) What is real today was real in the past and will be real in the future.
#3) The laws which govern the Universe do not change.
Without those assumptions, no science is possible.
<quoted text>
Yes, but those conclusions are not proof. Science does not PROVE things.

GD you are such a manipulative pussy.You want god to be real so bad you construct these straw man arguments trying to make it possible.

It doesn't work.

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
I have never claimed that you were intelligent or well read. Occasionally you can be right, but this usually coincides with you agreeing with me.
In this case you are disagreeing with me and are wrong.
That's not cause and effect, that's just an extremely strong correlation.
I'll wait while you look that up.
Okay, back?
Good.
Now let's talk about your assertion. You claim that science PROVES things. I claim that science DISPROVES things only.
Go ahead and outline an experiment in which science can PROVE something conclusively.
(bear in mind, I'm not asking you to give me an experiment about something we fully understand. That's not the same thing.)
<quoted text>
I have been disagreed with by people who have valid points but differing preconceptions about reality.
Conservatives hold that abortion is immoral because they believe life starts at conception.
I believe that abortion is moral because I believe that life starts at age 5.
Since our two positions start from different precepts about reality, there can be no agreement.
It does not cause me turmoil. But, those sort of disagreements can never reach a satisfying conclusion. They will always hold what they hold, I will always hold what I hold.
However, this is not one of those philosophical questions.
This is simply a case of you not understanding scientific methodology at a jr. high level or above.
Your viewpoint is not equally valid but coming from a different set of assumptions. It's just wrong.

Science does prove things, by showing the possibility of anything else answering the question is very slim indeed.
Just as your providing answer is very slim indeed.