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
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5050 Jan 4, 2013
-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

Birkenhead, UK

#5051 Jan 4, 2013
-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

Birkenhead, UK

#5052 Jan 4, 2013
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Einstein superseded the Law of Universal Gravitation.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

Birkenhead, UK

#5053 Jan 4, 2013
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

Birkenhead, UK

#5054 Jan 4, 2013
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

Birkenhead, UK

#5055 Jan 4, 2013
-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

Birkenhead, UK

#5056 Jan 4, 2013
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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5057 Jan 4, 2013
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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5058 Jan 4, 2013
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

Birkenhead, UK

#5059 Jan 4, 2013
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

Birkenhead, UK

#5060 Jan 4, 2013
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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#5061 Jan 4, 2013
-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.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5062 Jan 4, 2013
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.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5063 Jan 4, 2013
-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.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5064 Jan 4, 2013
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.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5065 Jan 4, 2013
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.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5066 Jan 4, 2013
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?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#5067 Jan 4, 2013
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

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5068 Jan 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
What concept? If you mean that whether there is a god or not
then yes it is non falsifiable.
A non testable god is unfalsifiable , a testable god is falsifiable.
I'm covering this before nuggwinkle jumps on it.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5069 Jan 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
More what ifs , we have analyzed a good many extra solar systems and planets. Though from from distance we cant tell everything we can tell they are all different. Not just the planets but the solar systems themselves. As far as we know also ours is a bit unique
in having as many planets as most are turning up binary's.
But the mass and composition is what is turning up different.

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
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 hr ChristineM 5,952
The Perils of Belief 4 hr P_Smith 1
Pastor who gave up God for a year after getting... 4 hr P_Smith 1
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr Richardfs 233,181
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 6 hr Morse 23,268
Evidence for God! 6 hr Morse 373
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 15 hr RayOne 2,621
More from around the web