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
4,801 - 4,820 of 6,103 Comments Last updated May 20, 2013

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4868
Dec 30, 2012
 
Oh, and what happened to your 1 in 13 billion comment?

Can't help but notice you dropped that like a hot rock after I handed you your ass.

Funny how that keeps happening to you

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4869
Dec 30, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
Oh, and what happened to your 1 in 13 billion comment?
Can't help but notice you dropped that like a hot rock after I handed you your ass.
Funny how that keeps happening to you
The frequency of the DNA profile obtained from the stain on White House intern Monica Lewinsky's dress was reported to be 1 in 7.9 trillion.

http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb41/lecture...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4870
Dec 30, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Actually a Precambrian rabbit would not falsify evolution.
No? If not it would require a SERIOUS restructuring of the biological tree if it were genuine.
Aura Mytha wrote:
But would require an explanation
Indoobedoobidely. Other possible explanations may include time travel. Which some might argue was even more unlikely than the existence of a pre-Cambrian rabbit itself.
Aura Mytha wrote:
but since no such thing has been found it doesn't quite fit anything but conjecture.
So what? The fact is it's a valid falsification because it does not fit with the current predictions of the modern evolutionary synthesis. This is a good thing. This makes evolution scientific.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Obviously such a thing in a singularity would be assumed ....of extraterrestrial origin.
Or that would be another possibility, yes. But again, possibly as unlikely as the pre-Cambrian rabbit itself. Besides, if Skippy's approach was correct, then extra-terrestrial origins are NOT in any way possible at all. Because if there's no evidence then they do not exist. We are therefore just left only with this pre-Cambrian rabbit.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4871
Dec 30, 2012
 
MaggieR wrote:
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.
Skippy sez otherwise. He rules the roost around here.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4872
Dec 30, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No? If not it would require a SERIOUS restructuring of the biological tree if it were genuine.
<quoted text>
Indoobedoobidely. Other possible explanations may include time travel. Which some might argue was even more unlikely than the existence of a pre-Cambrian rabbit itself.
<quoted text>
So what? The fact is it's a valid falsification because it does not fit with the current predictions of the modern evolutionary synthesis. This is a good thing. This makes evolution scientific.
<quoted text>
Or that would be another possibility, yes. But again, possibly as unlikely as the pre-Cambrian rabbit itself. Besides, if Skippy's approach was correct, then extra-terrestrial origins are NOT in any way possible at all. Because if there's no evidence then they do not exist. We are therefore just left only with this pre-Cambrian rabbit.

If it was proven non intrusive and was indeed dated over 530 million ya it would require a explanation , but by GR it's placement due to time travel would be impossible, as time can move only forward. So yes time travel would be less likely than being a intrusive alien from elsewhere.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4873
Dec 30, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Again.
No hypothesis is ever proven "true". Truth is not a part of science. It's a part of religion.
Learn the difference.
<quoted text>
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.
Hypothesis is much like an innocent until proven guilty trial. It is proven till proven false , but it's proof status is with zero confidence without testing. Which is why it is tested in as many ways as possible in attempt to falsify it.
Including using a null hypothesis as criteria in testing.

The more testing that meets predictions and still rings true the higher the level in confidence is in it's proven status.
So it is never proven absolute but surviving many tests is confidence that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Correctly stated as never absolutely proven because it would not be falsifiable then. So in actuality it's proven by not being proven false.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4874
Dec 30, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The frequency of the DNA profile obtained from the stain on White House intern Monica Lewinsky's dress was reported to be 1 in 7.9 trillion.
http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb41/lecture...
And yet, the error rate on DNA testing is higher than that.
And had Clinton been a twin, it would have been 1 in 2.

Your claim that every DNA test is 100% accurate 100% of the time and finds the one and only person that could fit that profile 100% of the time is incorrect.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4875
Dec 30, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Hypothesis is much like an innocent until proven guilty trial. It is proven till proven false
That statement is utter nonsense.

If something is PROVEN correct, then it can not at a later date be proven false.

If that possibility were available, then it was never proven correct to begin with.
So in actuality it's proven by not being proven false.
So, if I hypothesize that you are retarded. That hypothesis stands as 100% accurate because we refuse to test further.

So, by your own rationality, you are retarded.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4876
Dec 30, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
"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.
You people really should do more research before you make such sweeping statements.

" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/au... ;

Or do you really crave the attention that much?

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4877
Dec 30, 2012
 
Danged really gets really old.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4878
Dec 30, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
That statement is utter nonsense.
If something is PROVEN correct, then it can not at a later date be proven false.
If that possibility were available, then it was never proven correct to begin with.
<quoted text>
So, if I hypothesize that you are retarded. That hypothesis stands as 100% accurate because we refuse to test further.
So, by your own rationality, you are retarded.
You are supposed to say "special" or "challenged"; not retarded. That's just plain mean.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4879
Dec 30, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
That statement is utter nonsense.
If something is PROVEN correct, then it can not at a later date be proven false.
If that possibility were available, then it was never proven correct to begin with.
<quoted text>
So, if I hypothesize that you are retarded. That hypothesis stands as 100% accurate because we refuse to test further.
So, by your own rationality, you are retarded.

Sure you can make such hypothesis , but it will be at zero confidence. Now you must make a null hypothesis and test your hypothesis.

So Let's say the null is that you are completely wrong.
IE: Aura is not retarded. Retards would never understand the question at hand.

My IQ indeed exceeds retard by at least 000000.5% because
I understood your accusation and formulated a response.
So your null hypothesis failed because my ability to formulate a response.

Reformulate your hypothesis Nuglet .

Result...failed hypothesis.

Result confidence that Aura is actually not retarded is strengthened.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4880
Dec 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You people really should do more research before you make such sweeping statements.
" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/au... ;
Or do you really crave the attention that much?

I was actually aware of that,,,,but.. now go out in your back yard
and produce a rock that floats.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4881
Dec 30, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
You stated that it disproves things. So ... you first.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4882
Dec 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I was actually aware of that,,,,but.. now go out in your back yard
and produce a rock that floats.
That's not how this works. You made a claim and I proved that you were wrong. Period.

You don't get to make up the rules as you go along.

Be gracious and say, "ok, anomaly, you were right."

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4883
Dec 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you can make such hypothesis , but it will be at zero confidence.
According to your statement, that hypothesis has 100% certainty until tested 100% of the time.

That's 100% confidence.

It's _proven_.

If I do no further testing, then you are forever retarded.

You standard makes you retarded.

Interestingly, taking a different tactic to evaluate your performance here we'd come to the same conclusion.

However the fact that multiple methodologies return the same correct answer does not mean that each is as valid.

In this case, you just lucked into revealing you are retarded, as opposed to displaying you retardation over the course of hundreds of posts.
IE: Aura is not retarded. Retards would never understand the question at hand.
Would that be the question you incorrectly answered about the dictionary?
Or the question you incorrectly answered about the nature of science?
Or the question you incorrectly answered about weight vs density?
Or the question you incorrectly answered about...

Beginning to see the point?

You clearly haven't understood ANY of the questions.

Retardation "proven" 100% by stating a hypothesis that you are retarded.
Then re-"proven" by demonstrating it conclusively with your inability to formulate thoughts.

Seriously. You are _REALLY_ bad at this.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4884
Dec 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You stated that it disproves things. So ... you first.
You don't believe that science is capable of disproving things?

Are you completely unaware of experimentation as a concept?

Honestly, you have the scientific knowledge of a 4 year old.

I'm starting to really worry about whoever it is you have using the computer for you, because your level of understanding clearly precludes the ability to use the computer yourself.

Need an example: Fine.

Hypothesis:
An ordinary kitchen glass is unbreakable under all conditions.
Experiment:
Hit that glass with a hammer.
Result:
The glass breaks.

The hypothesis is DISPROVEN.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4885
Dec 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>That's not how this works. You made a claim and I proved that you were wrong. Period.
You don't get to make up the rules as you go along.
Be gracious and say, "ok, anomaly, you were right."
Oh no! Now you've done it.

Now he's going to accuse you of being responsible for slavery! And change your argument to be the opposite.

Then he'll say he know about those rocks and meant to post it that way because he meant it to be something else but that you should have known it.

See, he's never wrong. You just misunderstood because you read what he wrote.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4886
Dec 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>That's not how this works. You made a claim and I proved that you were wrong. Period.
You don't get to make up the rules as you go along.
Be gracious and say, "ok, anomaly, you were right."

You proved (claimed) a certain type rock can float. I agreed with though also said you could not produce one from your environment.
That means it is virtually possible but you cannot demonstrate it.

I don't make any rules but , my dear
I will enforce them.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4887
Dec 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
According to your statement, that hypothesis has 100% certainty until tested 100% of the time.
That's 100% confidence.
It's _proven_.
If I do no further testing, then you are forever retarded.
You standard makes you retarded.
Interestingly, taking a different tactic to evaluate your performance here we'd come to the same conclusion.
However the fact that multiple methodologies return the same correct answer does not mean that each is as valid.
In this case, you just lucked into revealing you are retarded, as opposed to displaying you retardation over the course of hundreds of posts.
<quoted text>
Would that be the question you incorrectly answered about the dictionary?
Or the question you incorrectly answered about the nature of science?
Or the question you incorrectly answered about weight vs density?
Or the question you incorrectly answered about...
Beginning to see the point?
You clearly haven't understood ANY of the questions.
Retardation "proven" 100% by stating a hypothesis that you are retarded.
Then re-"proven" by demonstrating it conclusively with your inability to formulate thoughts.
Seriously. You are _REALLY_ bad at this.
Nope try again nuglet.. The glass s half full or is it half empty?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••