Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 Full story: Washington Times 6,103

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.

Full Story

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4969 Jan 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Dude that's a bit goofy calling Atheism a hypothesis.
It's more like a non statement isn't it?
It's exactly like you are trying to shift the burden of proof when you are making the claim. That's sort of revealing.
Actually, he said "at best it's a hypothesis", and he's not shifting the "burden of proof" (You are turning into Skippy) since there can be no scientific proof in the matter.

You can not prove that no gods exist any more than someone else could prove that the Christian God does exist.

Such proof would be beyond the ability of science.

However, what is NOT beyond the ability to science is to demonstrate that Ramses, who was a god, actually did exist.

Now, if you'd like to present evidence that Ramses did not exist, I'd love to see it.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#4970 Jan 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Skippy, that wasn't an ad hom.
Don't use terms you don't understand. It makes you look even more foolish.
Meanwhile, your description of creationists is just you looking in the mirror.
Seriously, are you even aware of your previous posts?
Zealots! You can't live with 'em and you can't live without 'em. Or can you?
I recommend a choke chain and/or cattle prod.
xD

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4971 Jan 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, nuggin's cheerleader, where would be without you? Just to remind everyone again how much of a coward you are since you were:
1. Cornered for not know what the "burden of proof" means. You expect scientists to go around disproving the imaginations of idiots all day long. The fact that you don't understand this makes you an idiot.
Well, this is ALMOST you providing us with a position.

And, weirder still, it's practically on topic for the current argument.

Skippy, are you saying that science _proves_ things or that science _disproves_ things?

Dude and I are in the _disproves_ camp.
Kitty and Aura are in the _proves_ camp.

Pick your side and give us an example of an experiment which demonstrates it.
2. For the last two years, running scared & unable to provide me with an example of something that is both real and unfalsifiable.
Actually, you were given a number of examples.

One of the more popular ones was microscopic bacteria pre-microscope.

Was bacteria real before we could see it? Yes.
Was its existence falsifiable? Nope.
Whenever we kick nuggin's arse, you seem to pop out of it like some discarded entrail.
Skippy, seriously, do you honestly think you've scored a single point against mean in this last year?

Can you point the specific post and point?

Remember, you saying "f*ck" is not an argument.
You editing my posts is not an argument.
You making wild ass claims about how I invented lizards is not an argument.

So, if you've been kicking my ass, care to give us a best of?

Go on. Find your post, give us a link.

I DARE YOU to try.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4972 Jan 2, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Public opinion is massively flawed considering the re-elections of scum like Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and Obama da DroneMeister.
Ummm, you need to change the channel.

Neither Ted Kennedy (who is DEAD) nor Barney Frank (who retired) was re-elected.

As for Obama using Drones. Yup! He's a pro-military president. Amazing to have someone in the White House who didn't serve and yet isn't eager to get American soldiers killed.

Which we have that in 2000. We wouldn't have a National Debt to be arguing over anymore.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#4973 Jan 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm, you need to change the channel.
Neither Ted Kennedy (who is DEAD) nor Barney Frank (who retired) was re-elected.
As for Obama using Drones. Yup! He's a pro-military president. Amazing to have someone in the White House who didn't serve and yet isn't eager to get American soldiers killed.
Which we have that in 2000. We wouldn't have a National Debt to be arguing over anymore.
They have all held office more than one term. I didn't say they were all still IN office. Der. Bill Clinton was also "re-elected" once upon time. Maybe you would like to play with that for a while too, or do you need a tissue first? Don't worry, I'll wait for the blood to return to your brain before expecting a reply.

You don't seriously believe that Obama gives a flying fk about any soldier who has died during his time as president, do you? Wow.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4974 Jan 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Ah, nuggin's cheerleader, where would be without you? Just to remind everyone again how much of a coward you are since you were:
1. Cornered for not know what the "burden of proof" means. You expect scientists to go around disproving the imaginations of idiots all day long. The fact that you don't understand this makes you an idiot.
Actually I do know what it means, and I don't think scientists have to go around falsifying undemonstrable claims. You on the other hand claimed you HAD. The fact you don't understand this makes you an idiot. And the fact that you never actually bother to address the content of my arguments makes you a dishonest idiot.
-Skeptic- wrote:
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 incorrect since I HAVE actually done so.

Numerous times over.

Still waiting for you to address it.

Would you like them again?

Just give the word so you can dodge all over again just like you have done for however long it's been since we first had this argument. Don't think it's quite been two years yet but probably over one.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Keep talking you piece of sh*t with no integrity.
Projection.
-Skeptic- wrote:
I'll keep repeating these same two points
Yes you will. You won't deal with the fact your arguments are wrong though.

You never have.
-Skeptic- wrote:
that smack you the f*ck back down to earth every single time.
Except I'm already on Earth. Don't feel no smacking either, least of all from you. Probably has something to do with the fact I eviscerated these arguments last year.

And countless times since.(shrug)
-Skeptic- wrote:
Whenever we kick nuggin's arse, you seem to pop out of it like some discarded entrail.
Nuggin has little to do with it. I post in the evolution forums, of which this thread is a part. Have done for nearly 5 years maybe? Everyone who knows me around here knows that, so finding me participating in this thread is NOT unusual. And you don't kick anyone's arse except your own.

SO.

Got any comebacks we HAVEN'T dealt with yet?

Didn't think so.

Keep lying Skip.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#4975 Jan 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You can not prove that no gods exist any more than someone else could prove that the Christian God does exist.
You can say that such an entity is unlikely.

For example the evidence of the universe is that it evolved from simple beginnings and increased in complexity over time. To start out with an infinitely complex being seems unlikely.

Plus the Bible-God is man made on the evidence of the Bible. It is exactly the religion you would expect if man were half a chromozone away from a chimpanzee.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#4976 Jan 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll give you one more attempt on "all" before I add it to the NASA, lizards and C-14 list.
Oh, is that your list of "things that can't be argued against that I will accuse people when my main illogical arguments fail"?

Good, keep making that list longer, it only makes you look more and more ridiculous here.

When you've figured out what the burden of proof is and know what the definition of the word god actually is, I'm all ears.

Actually, I'm not, I don't give a f*ck what you have to say at all, because you're a proven lying troll piece of sh*t..

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#4977 Jan 2, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I do know what it means, and I don't think scientists have to go around falsifying undemonstrable claims. You on the other hand claimed you HAD. The fact you don't understand this makes you an idiot. And the fact that you never actually bother to address the content of my arguments makes you a dishonest idiot.
<quoted text>
You are incorrect since I HAVE actually done so.
Numerous times over.
Still waiting for you to address it.
Would you like them again?
Just give the word so you can dodge all over again just like you have done for however long it's been since we first had this argument. Don't think it's quite been two years yet but probably over one.
<quoted text>
Projection.
<quoted text>
Yes you will. You won't deal with the fact your arguments are wrong though.
You never have.
<quoted text>
Except I'm already on Earth. Don't feel no smacking either, least of all from you. Probably has something to do with the fact I eviscerated these arguments last year.
And countless times since.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Nuggin has little to do with it. I post in the evolution forums, of which this thread is a part. Have done for nearly 5 years maybe? Everyone who knows me around here knows that, so finding me participating in this thread is NOT unusual. And you don't kick anyone's arse except your own.
SO.
Got any comebacks we HAVEN'T dealt with yet?
Didn't think so.
Keep lying Skip.
I confess, I don't read your posts anymore, I simply mark them as the spam that they are and move on.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4978 Jan 2, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>They have all held office more than one term. I didn't say they were all still IN office. Der. Bill Clinton was also "re-elected" once upon time. Maybe you would like to play with that for a while too, or do you need a tissue first? Don't worry, I'll wait for the blood to return to your brain before expecting a reply.
You don't seriously believe that Obama gives a flying fk about any soldier who has died during his time as president, do you? Wow.
First, yes those were politicians in the past. Do you want to play the: "Well, x number of years ago so and so did this" game? Seriously? Because I've got some complaints about Millard Filmore.

Second, I find it funny that you are complaining about re-elected officials instead of talking about the damage done by W who was neither elected nor re-elected.

Third, yes, Obama does care about the troops, that's why he didn't send them to Libya. That's why he hasn't cowtowed to the hawks who want him to invade Syria. That's why he authorized the killing of Bin Laden.

Care to guess when it was that Bush said that he didn't care if we got Bin Laden or not? It was Dec. 2001. 2 months after the attacks.

Weird, right? I mean, it's not like Bush was in business with Bin Laden's brother.... oh wait, that's right. He was.

But, please. Go on. Tell me about how Clinton got a BJ. Clearly THAT was a bigger deal than working with/for the terrorists.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#4979 Jan 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I confess, I don't read your posts anymore, I simply mark them as the spam that they are and move on.
Your reply belies your claim.

Stupid.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4980 Jan 2, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You can say that such an entity is unlikely.
For example the evidence of the universe is that it evolved from simple beginnings and increased in complexity over time. To start out with an infinitely complex being seems unlikely.
Plus the Bible-God is man made on the evidence of the Bible. It is exactly the religion you would expect if man were half a chromozone away from a chimpanzee.
I agree with all of that.

The point is more that science doesn't make definitive claims about things which are part of the sphere of science.

Since science can not evaluate magical claims, it can't proclaim them true or false.

Unlikely? Sure. Extremely unlikely? Yep. Unfathomably unlikely? Totally.

Absolutely 100% zero? Nope. Can't do it.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4981 Jan 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
When you've figured out what the burden of proof is and know what the definition of the word god actually is, I'm all ears.
I've given you definitions of both.

You've failed to address them or present alternative definitions.

YEs, you are all ears. All ears no brain.

I've LITERALLY begged you to present your definition of these two things. You haven't because you can't because you know you won't win the debate.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4982 Jan 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I confess, I don't read your posts anymore, I simply mark them as the spam that they are and move on.
I don't even bother to mark your posts. They are self evident for what they are.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#4983 Jan 2, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Public opinion is massively flawed considering the re-elections of scum like Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and Obama da DroneMeister.

I agree but it worked for them?
Hitler included , even if it led to a massive downward spiral.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#4984 Jan 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First, yes those were politicians in the past. Do you want to play the: "Well, x number of years ago so and so did this" game? Seriously? Because I've got some complaints about Millard Filmore.
Second, I find it funny that you are complaining about re-elected officials instead of talking about the damage done by W who was neither elected nor re-elected.
Third, yes, Obama does care about the troops, that's why he didn't send them to Libya. That's why he hasn't cowtowed to the hawks who want him to invade Syria. That's why he authorized the killing of Bin Laden.
Care to guess when it was that Bush said that he didn't care if we got Bin Laden or not? It was Dec. 2001. 2 months after the attacks.
Weird, right? I mean, it's not like Bush was in business with Bin Laden's brother.... oh wait, that's right. He was.
But, please. Go on. Tell me about how Clinton got a BJ. Clearly THAT was a bigger deal than working with/for the terrorists.
Your libetards is showing from under your clown suit.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#4985 Jan 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh, predictably this is getting nowhere.
Do you or do you not have any examples to back up your claim about science PROVING things?
Or are you willing to accept that, once again, you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of the topic at hand and a complete incapability of admitting that you wrong.
It's amazing how someone like you could spend SO much time complaining about me doing ad homs while talking about my penis and yet can't find the time to come up with a SINGLE example of a SINGLE experiment which has ever conclusively proved something.
Tip:
Don't debate people who are better at arguing, particularly when they are both smarter and better informed than you.
Protip: Don't underestimate someone because they are female.

Thank you for providing more evidence that you have no clue what's happening, anywhere.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#4986 Jan 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and re-read your posts.
Every couple of weeks you admit that you were wrong.
If you want to recant, then be specific. Tell me which point EXACTLY you disagree with?
Is it that Egypt exists?
Is it that a dictionary contains definitions of words?
Is it which words are or are not in a certain definition?
These are all pretty straight forward points.
What's giving you all the trouble comprehending them?
Yet no matter how often you are wrong, you never admit it, even if it means lying about it.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4987 Jan 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Your libetards is showing from under your clown suit.
Big surprise, you're a conservative. Knew that from your argument that Jesus is the only god that counts.

Now, if you'd like to provide a single example of the conservative movement achieving anything, I'd be happy to see it:

So far, the record goes:
Civil War - fail
Equal Rights for blacks - fail
Equal rights for women - fail
Remove Clinton from office - fail
Ban minorities from voting in key states - fail
Remove Obama from office - fail
Ban evolution from schools - fail

Yeah, you guys are batting a million so far.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4988 Jan 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Protip: Don't underestimate someone because they are female.
Thank you for providing more evidence that you have no clue what's happening, anywhere.
Yawn. It's been what? 20 posts from you now? STILL no examples to back up your claim about science.

I'm not underestimating you at all. You are as low or lower than I expect.

And it's not because you are a women. It's because you made a claim and can't back it up.

I only mention the woman thing because you are clearly more obsessed with my penis than presenting and argument to back up your claim.

Let me guess what comes next... Yet another post in which you claim I'm mean and fail to present your evidence.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 min Rosa_Winkel 228,566
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Reason Personified 700
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 hr Dally Mama 5,587
Heaven 6 hr susanblange 2
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 7 hr Patrick 7
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 8 hr Patrick 152
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 16 hr Patrick 140

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE