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
4,781 - 4,800 of 6,103 Comments Last updated May 20, 2013

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4850
Dec 29, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Your god against me , so bring your Fayrogh, and I have vermin to kill.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4851
Dec 29, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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?
"Thus, Skippy's claim and your entire argument is falsified. There have been gods which have really existed."

The god claim is only valid to those in the Imperial cult of followers.
To scientifically prove Pharaoh is what he claims.
You will have to show he is the son of Horus and has supernatural powers. So yes he is god to you and his cult.

In reality you and his cult are "suckers".

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4852
Dec 29, 2012
 
Sucker

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4853
Dec 29, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo. Hence why 'proof' is left for math, not science.
<quoted text>
Actually it would merely take a pre-Cambrian rabbit.
<quoted text>
From the evidence so far? Highly unlikely.
<quoted text>
So NEARLY proven, but not QUITE proven. I'm glad we sorted that out.
Actually a Precambrian rabbit would not falsify evolution.
But would require an explanation , but since no such thing has been found it doesn't quite fit anything but conjecture.

Obviously such a thing in a singularity would be assumed ....of extraterrestrial origin.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4854
Dec 29, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
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.
Wrong again.

Ships are not "lighter than water". Ships float because they displace water.

If ships were lighter than water they could NOT sink. Styrofoam, for example, is lighter than water. It does not sink.

Ships on the other hand... check the bottom of the ocean.
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.
A boat can not "sink into water" if it is lighter than water. A boat can only displace water by being MORE dense than the water into which it is sinking (thus displacing the water in the process).

You are confusing density and weight.

1,000 pounds of aerogel has no problem "floating" on the water without displacing any of it.

Granted 1,000 pounds of aerogel would be an enormous amount of the extremely low density solid - but you picked the number.
The same is true with the displacement of lighter than air balloons.
Nope. You are wrong. A 12 inch balloon displaces the exact same amount of air whether it is filled with helium or a carbon dioxide.

Yet, the helium balloon floats and the exact same size balloon containing carbon dioxide does not.

Equal amounts of displacement.

Wrong again.

Wow. You are REALLY bad at this.
"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..
Actually, you did. When you jumped into the debate claiming that I was wrong, by default you took the opposite position.

I was saying that science can not prove things, it can only definitely disprove things. Science is never 100% certain

You said that I was wrong and that science was capable of proving things with 100% certainty.

You've now gone back on that claim because, as usual, you were WRONG.

Here's a tip: Next time don't hit "post comment" and you won't be wrong.
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".
Translation: Aura was wrong.
When the uncertainty factor is so small it is so unlikely there is another answer it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Would you say that we were certain beyond reasonable doubt about the Universe PRIOR to the discovery of dark matter?

Again, don't hit post comment if you don't want to be wrong.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4855
Dec 29, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
The god claim is only valid to those in the Imperial cult of followers.
So, you are saying that you are incapable of understanding this sentence:

"As a historian, I am particularly interested in the Ancient Greek writings about the god Zeus."

To you, that sentence is absolute nonsense. You can't make heads or tails of it.

Whoever said this can't possibly be a scientist. They can't possibly be rational. They _MUST_, by YOUR understanding of English, be worshipers of Zeus.

Seriously, Aura, you are SO hell bent on trying to prove me wrong that you keep taking up completely undefensable positions.

Just stop.

Realize this: I am right. I'm right because I'm smarter than you. I'm more educated than you. I'm better at debate than you.

If you go up against me, you will lose. As you have done EVERY time for MONTHS now. You will CONTINUE to lose because you continue to make the same mistake.

You oppose me.

If you want to win, stop. Read what I right then type this:

"I agree".

Anything short of that, and you are wrong.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4856
Dec 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Yes, I meant "write" not "right".

I need to stop dictating these.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4857
Dec 29, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Actually a Precambrian rabbit would not falsify evolution.
But would require an explanation , but since no such thing has been found it doesn't quite fit anything but conjecture.
Obviously such a thing in a singularity would be assumed ....of extraterrestrial origin.
Often people seem to conflate how falsifiable works. Evidence gets falsified, and a theory is simply expanded or "reconfigured," I don't know the right terminology so I'll use tech terms, to accommodate the new evidence, or to discard the falsified evidence. Theories explain a fact, and how that fact effects, and is effect by, the universe. For a theory to be discarded completely, the fact itself would have to be falsified. With the theory of evolution, things evolve, we know this as fact, the theory describes the influences involved with this fact and the effect this fact has on the universe, but things evolve, unless it is proven that things do not evolve at all, then the theory will always exist.

Am I correct in that?^_^ It's the sum of everything I have learned about what a scientific theory is from people who actually know more about it than me, yeah, I'm sort of begging for a compliment here, but I just ... wanna know how right or wrong I am on this now.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4858
Dec 29, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Actually a Precambrian rabbit would not falsify evolution.
Holy crap! Aura got something right!

Stop the presses.

Did someone hack your account?

A single pre-cam rabbit would be an anomaly requiring MUCH more detailed examination of the methodology and discovery point.

Then, assuming no errors were found, a MASSIVE undertaking to find other such data points would have to be taken.

Then, they would have to actually be found.

Then, someone would have to come up with a new paradigm which adequately accommodated the new data AND the existing data.

Odds are evolution would not be "disproven" but rather "time travel" would be hypothesized.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4859
Dec 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
Ships are not "lighter than water". Ships float because they displace water.
If ships were lighter than water they could NOT sink. Styrofoam, for example, is lighter than water. It does not sink.
Ships on the other hand... check the bottom of the ocean.
I'm sorry, but that's what he said, he just used more advanced terminology. Density and water displacement are directly connected.
MaggieR

Brisbane, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4860
Dec 29, 2012
 
To say that we are alone among billions is small minded ignorence.
Its like standing in a room full of people and closing your eyes..just because you cant see them does not mean they're not there.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4861
Dec 29, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Often people seem to conflate how falsifiable works. Evidence gets falsified, and a theory is simply expanded or "reconfigured," I don't know the right terminology so I'll use tech terms, to accommodate the new evidence, or to discard the falsified evidence. Theories explain a fact, and how that fact effects, and is effect by, the universe. For a theory to be discarded completely, the fact itself would have to be falsified. With the theory of evolution, things evolve, we know this as fact, the theory describes the influences involved with this fact and the effect this fact has on the universe, but things evolve, unless it is proven that things do not evolve at all, then the theory will always exist.
Am I correct in that?^_^ It's the sum of everything I have learned about what a scientific theory is from people who actually know more about it than me, yeah, I'm sort of begging for a compliment here, but I just ... wanna know how right or wrong I am on this now.

Hypothesis is tested and proven true or false , if proven false it is rejected and/or a new hypothesis must be formulated.

This is why science proves things indirectly , but never absolutely. The certainty never attains 100% regardless of the certainty because certainty is obtained by removing uncertainty.

So both positions are technically correct , but is the glass half full or half empty?

The hypothesis that rings true by experimentation and testing is proven true, but can be proven false by further testing.
Further testing rings true , the uncertainty is more removed.
With each test ringing true the certainty rises.
The glass becomes near full, proven by testing.

Evolution has a near full glass by every test given the certainty has risen thus it is proven , and stands till disproved.
By the same method of removal of certainty.

Again is the glass proven half full?
Or proven half empty?

If it is empty it is proven false.
If it is near topped it is proven true beyond all reasonable doubt.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4862
Dec 29, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
Ships are not "lighter than water". Ships float because they displace water.
If ships were lighter than water they could NOT sink. Styrofoam, for example, is lighter than water. It does not sink.
Ships on the other hand... check the bottom of the ocean.
<quoted text>
A boat can not "sink into water" if it is lighter than water. A boat can only displace water by being MORE dense than the water into which it is sinking (thus displacing the water in the process).
You are confusing density and weight.
1,000 pounds of aerogel has no problem "floating" on the water without displacing any of it.
Granted 1,000 pounds of aerogel would be an enormous amount of the extremely low density solid - but you picked the number.
<quoted text>
Nope. You are wrong. A 12 inch balloon displaces the exact same amount of air whether it is filled with helium or a carbon dioxide.
Yet, the helium balloon floats and the exact same size balloon containing carbon dioxide does not.
Equal amounts of displacement.
Wrong again.
Wow. You are REALLY bad at this.
<quoted text>
Actually, you did. When you jumped into the debate claiming that I was wrong, by default you took the opposite position.
I was saying that science can not prove things, it can only definitely disprove things. Science is never 100% certain
You said that I was wrong and that science was capable of proving things with 100% certainty.
You've now gone back on that claim because, as usual, you were WRONG.
Here's a tip: Next time don't hit "post comment" and you won't be wrong.
<quoted text>
Translation: Aura was wrong.
<quoted text>
Would you say that we were certain beyond reasonable doubt about the Universe PRIOR to the discovery of dark matter?
Again, don't hit post comment if you don't want to be wrong.
"Ships are not "lighter than water". Ships float because they displace water."

FALSE!
Ships float because they are lighter than the water they displace.
Thus the density / or molecules in it's displacement are lighter than the same volume of water's density.

Of course for there to be anything within it... it requires a empty space , or volume of air.
If the empty space were filled and it's molecular weight exceeded the same amount or greater than the molecular weight of the water it displaces . It would sink.

If a ship were solid and lighter than the water they displace , then yes it would be unsinkable. Like a cork or polystyrene foam.

Yes balloons work on the same principle , but the medium is different. The meaning is the same the amount of molecules in a hot air balloon is lighter than the same volume of air it displaces, so it rises .

Actually Nuggin , you and I just argue over a fine point where you define belief as criteria , and I question the root of the belief.
Because if belief is proof then the truth can be a lie.

Not on my ground. I live on proving grounds.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4863
Dec 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

"Ships float because they displace water"

Rocks displace water, but they do not float.
Because there is more molecular weight in its volume,
than in the same volume of water.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4864
Dec 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but that's what he said, he just used more advanced terminology. Density and water displacement are directly connected.
Actually, what he said was "lighter than water".

Lighter is not descriptive of density but of weight.

One ton of feathers is not lighter than half a ton of lead.

You and Aura have both been making A LOT of errors in which you say one thing and then when you get called on it, suddenly you didn't mean it.

Then you whine and bitch about how unfair it is that we hold you to your word.

Guess what, if you make an argument you should MEAN it. If you can't formulate or express your argument accurately, then you should concede that you f'd up.

Instead, you come back again and again trying to demonstrate a basic understanding of either English or Science and failing miserably at both.

So, back to the top:

Science never PROVES anything.

You said that it did.

Were you lying? Mistaken? Or were you trying to express the opposite idea and you don't know how to do that?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4865
Dec 30, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Hypothesis is tested and proven true or false , if proven false it is rejected and/or a new hypothesis must be formulated.
Wrong. Again.

No hypothesis is ever proven "true". Truth is not a part of science. It's a part of religion.

Learn the difference.
This is why science proves things indirectly , but never absolutely.
You know who disagrees with you? Aura. You and Aura should get together and figure out what the one of you believes and then come back.

This is you going back on your earlier claim.

So, where you stupid then? Or are you just conceding again.

Stop disagreeing and you won't have to make this correction posts.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4866
Dec 30, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
Ships float because they are lighter than the water they displace.
Thus the density / or molecules in it's displacement are lighter than the same volume of water's density.
I accept your apology.

Next time, be more careful and you won't make these sort of stupid mistakes.

I'm glad to see you are going back and fixing your posts.
Yes balloons work on the same principle , but the medium is different. The meaning is the same the amount of molecules in a hot air balloon is lighter than the same volume of air it displaces, so it rises .
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the physics.

Gravity is a force.
Low density is not a force.

Having lower density than the air does not, in and of itself, provide the force needed to rise.

The object must have a force acting on it in order for it to move.

In this case, the force acting on it is the pressure of the higher density air which in turn got it's pressure from gravity pulling down on the atmosphere.

The balloon is being pushed up because the force exerted on the rest of the air is greater causing the balloon to head towards an area of lower pressures.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4867
Dec 30, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
Rocks displace water, but they do not float.
Again, I've already accepted your apology.

There's no point in you repeatedly pointing out how wrong you were.

Now, let's move back to your claim that science is a religion which determines absolute truth with 100% certainty every time.

I'd love to hear you explain how you are taking both positions on that issue.

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.

•••