Aliens and evolution

[-Skeptic-]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You are completely missing the point.
The point is not whether or not these planets exist according to what we currently know.
The point is that FUTURE DATA which is _currently UNKNOWN_ to us could radically change our understanding.
Can I tell you right now what that future data would be? No. Obviously. That's why it's called "future data".
I'm trying to give you a scenario that you can grasp which would highlight how a future discovery could change our understanding.
Can you see the forest? Or do you just want to talk trees?

You don't need to know everything to know something.

[The Dude]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Keep talk squirt, I'll keep reminding everyone here how you failed to understand:
1) The burden of proof - after a whole year still too lazy and cowardly to acknowledge you have no clue what it means and why it debunks your "argument".
The job of scientists has never been to go around chasing illiterate idiots who invent gods. Fact, you lose this point, sh*t the f*ck up.
2) After a year of babbling, you still fail to produce any example of anything that is both real and unfalsifiable.
Keep chatting sh*t as I say, everyone here knows exactly how full of sh*t you are, just like Nuggin is.
These two facts condemn every opinion that's ever graced your ridiculous, dishonest and arrogant mind.
Rest in peace moron.

Your two points were debunked a year ago.

Wanna try again or you prefer to stick to ad homs as usual?

Thought so.

Thought you said you never read my posts anyway? So where you lying then or you lying now?

Thought so.

[The Dude]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Do your own homework you ridiculous ranting troll oaf that couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag if his life depended upon it.

'nother irony meter.

[The Dude]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't need to know everything to know something.

But you claimed to know everything. That's the only possible way to falsify (what appear to be to the rest of us) non-falsifiable concepts.

[The Dude]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
Newton still stands with the laws of motion I don't think they will change.
Einstein superseded the Law of Universal Gravitation.
But with evolution it's pretty much proven , it can be refined and revised but I think it's here to stay. The only part that may turn out false is the concept of a singular beginning , some think it was three things that shared dna to develop into all life here.

"Pretty much"? You're arguing like a fundie. And this is after we just went through falsifiability just a couple of days ago.

[The Dude]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
We can tell this now Nuggin in fact we have discovered so many different type planets and solar systems.
It is believed they maybe all unique. That negates the possibility
of finding mirror planets. But we could discover though drastically different that evolution on them was similar.
In fact if life is found elsewhere we would to some degree expect it.

Sorry, did you just say that belief alone negates the possibility? Does that then validate that belief alone is a requirement for Godhood?

[The Dude]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Uh oh , did you just say that you believe that 500 years from now multiple clones of Earth will be found elsewhere in the Universe?

Nah, just under 300:

http://www.geektress.com/images/2008-07-15-Pi...

[The Dude]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Science can prove that you posted illogical rants and rambling accusations.
It's proven because your posts are written on a harddisk somewhere in the cloud, and we can access your posts by searching.
They are all time stamped. We can have them tranlated into virtually any language, but they all say the same thing - rambling arrogant illogical idiot who couldn't win an argument with a tree.

Could you for once demonstrate your claims by making a counter-argument?

Well uh, no.(shrug)

So if his stuff is really as bad as you claim you should have no problem addressing it then.

But you can't.

You can't with mine either.

In fact, you don't even try with creationists either.

That's quite informative.

[The Dude]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Yes Yes and Yes but the information is still valid , as well the methods behind them.
But you are adding a wild card by throwing in a "what if".
Science disregards things there is no evidence of , like gods and
what could possibly be to focuses on what we know is to be.
It serves no purpose to speculate on what new discoveries will be made and unless it's a prediction of an hypothesis it's a complete waste of time.
Sorta like the virtual Russell's teapot.

Ah, are we getting somewhere? So you now agree that the concept is not falsified because the concept is non-falsifiable? That HAS been the very point since the beginning. And Skippy disagrees with it.

[Aura Mytha]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, did you just say that belief alone negates the possibility? Does that then validate that belief alone is a requirement for Godhood?

No we are basing this finding on numerical possibility , by odds and a known value. To overthrow that figure we would have to find at least one planet that was nearly identical to another. Something we haven't done yet.
Excluding asteroids.

[Aura Mytha]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, are we getting somewhere? So you now agree that the concept is not falsified because the concept is non-falsifiable? That HAS been the very point since the beginning. And Skippy disagrees with it.

What concept? If you mean that whether there is a god or not
then yes it is non falsifiable.

[The Dude]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> No we are basing this finding on numerical possibility , by odds and a known value. To overthrow that figure we would have to find at least one planet that was nearly identical to another. Something we haven't done yet.
Excluding asteroids.

... and we haven't even explored 1% of the universe yet. Of course the way I responded was based on what you said, therefore was not unreasonable.

[The Dude]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
What concept? If you mean that whether there is a god or not
then yes it is non falsifiable.

Ah, jolly good stuff.

[KittenKoder]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL science can't prove things!! hahahahahaha what a load of f*cking nonsense.

He still hasn't figured out which end the horse goes.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Yes Yes and Yes but the information is still valid , as well the methods behind them.
But you are adding a wild card by throwing in a "what if".
Science disregards things there is no evidence of , like gods and
what could possibly be to focuses on what we know is to be.
It serves no purpose to speculate on what new discoveries will be made and unless it's a prediction of an hypothesis it's a complete waste of time.
Sorta like the virtual Russell's teapot.

Sigh.

Aura, stop. Listen. Seriously.

Your argument is that science knows something RIGHT NOW and that that is PROOF FOREVER that that thing is the way it is.

That's WRONG.

You asked for an example using evolution as the subject.

Since we're talking about FUTURE information which MIGHT change our understanding, I am forced to _SPECULATE_ about what that information MIGHT be.

Yes, it's a "what if". That's EXACT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR!

You don't get to complain that I present you with a "what if" scenario in a discussion about FUTURE information potentially changing our understanding of something.

That's the ENTIRE discussion.

Your claim is wrong. Period.

Future information (whatever it may be) can and will change our scientific understanding of things which today are believed to be well understood.

Is it going to happen to EVERYTHING we understand? No.
Can we predict which things will or won't change? Not really.

All we, as scientists, can do is say thing:
"Our understanding is incomplete. What we know now works and seems to be correct. We could be proven wrong, and if so, we'll have to change our understanding to better include the new information."

When you claim something is "proven", you are saying "This is how it is, now and FOREVER. No new information, no matter how good, no matter how Earth shattering. No matter how revolutionary. NO new information will ever change our current understanding."

That's not science. That's religion.

[Nuggin]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Science can prove that you posted illogical rants and rambling accusations.
It's proven because your posts are written on a harddisk somewhere in the cloud, and we can access your posts by searching.
They are all time stamped. We can have them tranlated into virtually any language, but they all say the same thing - rambling arrogant illogical idiot who couldn't win an argument with a tree.

Yawn.

Seriously, Skippy. I stopped reading a while ago.

Something like 500 replies in which you've never raised a single point.

Even for someone like you that's pretty lame.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> No we are basing this finding on numerical possibility , by odds and a known value. To overthrow that figure we would have to find at least one planet that was nearly identical to another. Something we haven't done yet.
Excluding asteroids.

Tell me, Aura. What percentage of the Universe's planets and planetoids have we explored completely?

Hint: We haven't explored Earth completely yet.

You can't rule out future information simply because you don't know it yet. Information will come in the future which will change our understanding of science. That's a fact.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
What concept? If you mean that whether there is a god or not
then yes it is non falsifiable.

Then you have been on the wrong side of this debate for nearly a year.

[Nuggin]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
He still hasn't figured out which end the horse goes.

And I'm still waiting for you to outline an experiment which will prove something.

Go on, use your own thoughts, you own words.

Give it a shot. For once.

Or do you need me to do it for you, since I'm the man and you just want to sit back and complain that I'm mean for not doing all my work and all of yours?

[KittenKoder]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
And I'm still waiting for you to outline an experiment which will prove something.
Go on, use your own thoughts, you own words.
Give it a shot. For once.
Or do you need me to do it for you, since I'm the man and you just want to sit back and complain that I'm mean for not doing all my work and all of yours?

Gravity