Aliens and evolution

Aliens and evolution

There are 6221 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4830 Dec 29, 2012
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.
Actually you have that the wrong way round. "Proof", as they say, is only for math and alcohol. In science you cannot ever get "100% proof positive" of anything, for there is always the chance that something may falsify it later. We can demonstrate concepts to be false (as long as they are falsifiable that is), but never "prove" them, even if we can demonstrate them beyond shadow of a reasonable doubt.
KittenKoder wrote:
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.
Yup.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4831 Dec 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Speaking of straw-men, why are you still making him out to be like a creationist?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4832 Dec 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Slim or not possible at all? Near proof or proof? Please tell me that you're not like Skippy and DO actually understand the concept of falsification and how it pertains to science?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#4833 Dec 29, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except he does not accept the possibility of existence of (a) God due to lack of evidence. Science doesn't care. All it requires is evidence. Skippy's approach on the other hand is to claim that if there is no evidence for something then it does not exist, period. He has apparently falsified the non-falsifiable, without performing any kind of scientific test for falsification.
We agree that there is no scientific evidence for it. But science does not state outright that there never can be. The reason being it is ALWAYS open to the potential of new evidence being discovered later. Just like evolution is still falsifiable, as science is still open to the possibility of the discovery of a pre-Cambrian rabbit. The concept of falsification is what separates science from dogma.
Skippy promotes dogma. He doesn't give a crud about science. He only cares about atheism. And that is his flaw. He is by all accounts a fundamentalist atheist. The very thing that a rational atheist would say *should* not exist.
I never said scientific evidence. ;) Though evidence run through the scientific method would be nice, but any real evidence at all would be a step up.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#4834 Dec 29, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you have that the wrong way round. "Proof", as they say, is only for math and alcohol. In science you cannot ever get "100% proof positive" of anything, for there is always the chance that something may falsify it later. We can demonstrate concepts to be false (as long as they are falsifiable that is), but never "prove" them, even if we can demonstrate them beyond shadow of a reasonable doubt.
<quoted text>
Yup.
Yes, I did misspeak there.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#4835 Dec 29, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of straw-men, why are you still making him out to be like a creationist?

He uses creationist style arguments.
In fact his criteria for existence of a god is exactly the same.
That belief alone is evidence of a god, this is clearly not so.
In fact it is only evidence of a "belief"
AKA: an Imperial Cult has a god yes but ......
that does not make the god real.

Example; People "believe" the creation story.
Does that somehow make it true?
I think not.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#4836 Dec 29, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Slim or not possible at all? Near proof or proof? Please tell me that you're not like Skippy and DO actually understand the concept of falsification and how it pertains to science?
Yes I do understand it very very well.
The fact something is falsifiable does not mean it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Theory of Evolution is a perfect example.
There are 100,000 bits of evidence that converge all pointing at it's authenticity, while it is falsifiable the evidence is so strong the chances of it being wrong on all 100,000 bits is so remote it can be considered fact beyond refute.

10,000 points could be wrong and the theory would still stand, while it can be revised it probably never be falsified.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#4837 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it was either Eagle or Urban, uncertain now as my memory sucks and I'm too lazy to seek it out.
That was Buck.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#4838 Dec 29, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
That was Buck.
Oh yeah!

Now I remember why seeing his posts always makes me laugh no matter what he says.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4839 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said scientific evidence. ;) Though evidence run through the scientific method would be nice, but any real evidence at all would be a step up.
Absolutely.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4840 Dec 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
He uses creationist style arguments.
In fact his criteria for existence of a god is exactly the same.
That belief alone is evidence of a god, this is clearly not so.
In fact it is only evidence of a "belief"
AKA: an Imperial Cult has a god yes but ......
that does not make the god real.
Example; People "believe" the creation story.
Does that somehow make it true?
I think not.
And at no point has he claimed that the existence of Pharoah (for example), nor the belief he/she had magical powers was evidence that they DID have magical powers.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4841 Dec 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do understand it very very well.
The fact something is falsifiable does not mean it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Theory of Evolution is a perfect example.
There are 100,000 bits of evidence that converge all pointing at it's authenticity, while it is falsifiable the evidence is so strong the chances of it being wrong on all 100,000 bits is so remote it can be considered fact beyond refute.
10,000 points could be wrong and the theory would still stand, while it can be revised it probably never be falsified.
I'm sorry, what's that? Did you say "PROBABLY"?

I've just been through it again, KittenKoder got it. Seems like you didn't.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#4842 Dec 29, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And at no point has he claimed that the existence of Pharoah (for example), nor the belief he/she had magical powers was evidence that they DID have magical powers.
It is divinity and magical powers that separate gods from normal people. Take those two defining traits away and what do you have?

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#4843 Dec 29, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, what's that? Did you say "PROBABLY"?
I've just been through it again, KittenKoder got it. Seems like you didn't.
Probably yes, no scientific determination is absolute. There is always room for revision.
To disprove evolution entirely it would take the God to reveal itself and establish it's existence and magical creation powers.

Do you seriously think that is going to happen , even though a possibility ?

So yes evolution is scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt.
But I will not bar the unimaginable so evolutionary theory is only 99.95% proven , I will allow .05% possibility of that happening.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4844 Dec 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
1 in 13 billion is scientific proof no other man ever encountered by the female could possibly by numerical odds be the father of the child.
Sigh. I was wondering if you would walk away clean, or if I'd have to beat you to death on this too.

First of all, there is no paternity test which has 100% accuracy. There is always room for error in collection and analysis.

Second, there are less than 13 billion people alive today. Hundreds of millions of them are identical twins/triplets/+. While it is true that even identical twins have have individual mutations the odds of a child having the "unique to this twin" mutation are just 50/50. Given HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of twins, that means that there is at least ONE child somewhere in the world that, though his father/mother has 10 "unique to this twin" mutations, carries NONE of them.

THAT child (and there are likely thousands if not tens of thousands of children just like that one) can not be determined to be the offspring of one twin or the other.

That means that you scientific certainty of "1 in 13 billion" doesn't hold true within a single data set of just 7 billion. It also likely fails as low as 1 billion. I admit that I don't have data on the prevalence of twins in India or China handy.

In other words, you claim of "scientific certainty" fails the test of _reality_.

THAT should have been obvious to you with even just a few seconds thought. However, I gave you a full 48 hours.

And you still failed.

Sad.

Science proves things to a degree of near certainty by showing the probability of any other is near impossible.
Your claim was that science proves things ABSOLUTELY with ZERO probability of ANY other answer (even as of yet unheard of concepts).

THAT is how you KNEW with certainty that Newtonian Physics was the furthers we would ever go in Physics. Right?
You can't escape that. Just as science proves that gravity is a universal force that can be calculated by the mass of a body.
Actually, science doesn't prove that. Science uses mass as a measurement which is determined by gravity. Gravity can not be caused by a measurement of gravity.

If you've been reading anything about the Higgs (which has been EVERYWHERE for SEVERAL MONTHS NOW, you would realize this).
Science proves lighter than air objects can float.
No, science observes that forces which cause higher pressure try to equalize an object of lower density. When such an object can not be equalized, the force causing the pressure will impart kinetic energy on the object causing it to move toward an area with less resistance (lower pressure). Objects don't "float in air" they "travel towards a lower pressure area".

If you can create a low pressure area immediately below a helium balloon (with a fan for example) the balloon with go to the fan, not up into the sky.

Science. Look into it.
There is a very long list of scientific proofs.
No. There is a long list of mathematical proofs.
There is a long list of scientific observations which have not changed.

However, science does not claim that they COULD never change. Only that they most likely won't.
Actually many people have the idea of theory wrong , a reining theory is proof until proven false.
No, a theory is a cohesive collection explaining a set of observations and measurements into a system which allows is to both make sense of the observations and predict future data accurately.

That's not proof.
proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Why are you changing your argument. Have you already conceded before you've begun?

Sad.
it's the simple truth.
Truth is for religion. In science we deal with facts. And the fact is, you're wrong.
Science also proves that no heartbeat no respiration and no brain activity is death and leads to decomposition.
Water bear. You lose again.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4845 Dec 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
He uses creationist style arguments.
In fact his criteria for existence of a god is exactly the same.
That belief alone is evidence of a god, this is clearly not so.
Actually, that's not my argument. I've clearly statement my argument a great number of times.

Thor is a god because people believed that he was a god.
Thor, however, does NOT exist. Never did. Never will.

Their believe ranks him as a god, it does not CAUSE his existence.

Ramses on the other hand DID EXIST.
He existed whether or not people believed in him. His existence is not related to their belief.

However, the fact that the people ALSO believed that he was a god, earns him the rank of god.

Therefore, Ramses is an example of a god (because people believed in him) who ACTUALLY existed (because he DID in fact ACTUALLY exist).

Thus, Skippy's claim and your entire argument is falsified. There have been gods which have really existed.

Same EXACT argument I've been making since day one.

I've written this about 500x now.

Yet, for some unknown reason, you CAN'T grasp it.
Example; People "believe" the creation story.
Does that somehow make it true?
I think not.
The creationist story is not defined by whether or not people believe it. You don't have to believe a story for it to be a story. The word "believe" does not appear in the definition of "story" in the dictionary.

However, the word "believe" DOES appear in the definition of "god" because belief is a CRITERIA of godhood.

You can not be a god if no one believes in you.
You can write a story that no one believes.

That's the difference.

Still the EXACT same argument it has been for a year.

The SAME argument you have conceded 4x already.

Are you prepared to concede a 5th time? Or are you going to continue to try and argue against this PAINFULLY obvious grammatical point?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4846 Dec 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably yes, no scientific determination is absolute.
So, in other words, you were WRONG.

Just come out and admit it.

Don't drag this one for six more months.

Once again, you tried to argue against me and you've proven you didn't know what you were talking about.

So, we either beat this point to death for MONTHS AND MONTHS.
Or you act like a grown up and grovel for forgiveness.

Which is it, bitch?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4847 Dec 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It is divinity and magical powers that separate gods from normal people. Take those two defining traits away and what do you have?
People who were believed to be gods.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#4848 Dec 29, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh. I was wondering if you would walk away clean, or if I'd have to beat you to death on this too.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/...

You made so many errors I need only address one.
Air pressure causes wind currents , not the density factor that causes lighter than air objects to rise.
In fact Ships float on the same principle , the density of a ship is lighter than the space it occupies in the water , therefore it is lighter than water and floats.

So if a boat weighs 1,000 pounds (or kilograms), it will sink into the water until it has displaced 1,000 pounds (or kilograms) of water. Provided that the boat displaces 1,000 pounds of water before the whole thing is submerged, the boat floats.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-m...

The same is true with the displacement of lighter than air balloons.

"Your claim was that science proves things ABSOLUTELY with ZERO probability of ANY other answer (even as of yet unheard of concepts)."

I never made such claim in fact my claim is..

Things are proven to a degree of certainty that the possibility of
it's falsification is so slim that it can be regarded as "proven".
When the uncertainty factor is so small it is so unlikely there is another answer it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

But I love how you make things up.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4849 Dec 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably yes, no scientific determination is absolute. There is always room for revision.
Bingo. Hence why 'proof' is left for math, not science.
Aura Mytha wrote:
To disprove evolution entirely it would take the God to reveal itself and establish it's existence and magical creation powers.
Actually it would merely take a pre-Cambrian rabbit.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Do you seriously think that is going to happen , even though a possibility ?
From the evidence so far? Highly unlikely.
Aura Mytha wrote:
So yes evolution is scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt.
But I will not bar the unimaginable so evolutionary theory is only 99.95% proven , I will allow .05% possibility of that happening.
So NEARLY proven, but not QUITE proven. I'm glad we sorted that out.

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
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 min Uncle Sam 243,460
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr USaWarringIdiotSo... 9,438
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 hr Brian_G 19,796
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... Sat Amused 2
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Sat thetruth 38
News Founders created secular nation (Jul '10) Sat knight of Jesus 521
Disney Buys The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latte... (Nov '12) Jul 3 millertr1 5
More from around the web