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
5,001 - 5,020 of 6,103 Comments Last updated May 20, 2013

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5070
Jan 4, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

No shit Sherlock I never said it was absolute , but with a few things they will never be overturned. Like Newtons laws of motion.
They can be revised but not overturned. They are 99.5% confidence
and that's proof beyond reasonable doubt.

g = 9.80665 m/s2 is never going to change.
1 ly is never going to change.
Its speed 186,282 miles per second is never going to change.
This could be revised if we are able to measure it farther down in decimal places but they are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5071
Jan 4, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Gravity
That's not an experiment. That's just a word.

Outline an experiment which would PROVE definitively that gravity is the only force acting on an object.

Remember, to do so, you must exclude ALL other forces (both known and UNKNOWN).

Can you do that?

No. You can't. Because there could be an _UNKNOWN_ force that you can not detect.

That is why you can't "prove" something. You can only support it based on the information available at the time leaving room for new information to change the assumptions in the future.

THAT is the entire point of science. THAT is why science changes over time.

THAT is why you are wrong.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5072
Jan 4, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> A non testable god is unfalsifiable , a testable god is falsifiable.
I'm covering this before nuggwinkle jumps on it.
The only "test" for a god is "do people believe this is a god".

So, if I claim that the bottle of glue on my desk is a god, you can test it by asking: "Does it have believers in it."

No.

Okay, then it's not a god.

Meanwhile, Thor, on the other hand, did have believers. Therefore Thor is a god. Specifically, the Norse god of thunder.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5073
Jan 4, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No shit Sherlock I never said it was absolute
Yes. You did.

That's the entire point of this debate.

PROOF means _ABSOLUTE_. Never changing. EVER. No matter how much new information comes in.

That's the argument that Dude and I are having with Kitty. That's what you jumped into claiming we were wrong.

If you are now conceding (again!) that debate, then fine.

Simply apologize, admit you were wrong and beg for forgiveness.

Otherwise, I have to assume you are just doing the "Aura is on both sides of every issue" thing again.
They are 99.5% confidence
and that's proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof is proof. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is not proof. It's assumption.

Proof is 100% all the time, never changing, forever.
1 + 1 will ALWAYS equal 2 in base 10. There is a proof demonstrating that.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5074
Jan 4, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The only "test" for a god is "do people believe this is a god".
So, if I claim that the bottle of glue on my desk is a god, you can test it by asking: "Does it have believers in it."
No.
Okay, then it's not a god.
Meanwhile, Thor, on the other hand, did have believers. Therefore Thor is a god. Specifically, the Norse god of thunder.
That's where you're wrong. Belief is untestable , people are , you attempt to make the physical reality unfalsifiable saying that. You cannot and never will make the testable untestable. Thor is untestable , also not real. the unreal is untestable because it doesn't exist in the physical.

This is where you are using the fallacy to hide your pharaoh behind. The fact gods are untestable makes them beyond contest.
You believe because men called pharaoh a god this makes him beyond contest.

EPIC FAILURE!

Pharaoh existed and therefore IS testable , and does fail the tests. Belief cannot shield the physical from test.
This is where you lose nuggin and badly.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5075
Jan 4, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. You did.
That's the entire point of this debate.
PROOF means _ABSOLUTE_. Never changing. EVER. No matter how much new information comes in.
That's the argument that Dude and I are having with Kitty. That's what you jumped into claiming we were wrong.
If you are now conceding (again!) that debate, then fine.
Simply apologize, admit you were wrong and beg for forgiveness.
Otherwise, I have to assume you are just doing the "Aura is on both sides of every issue" thing again.
<quoted text>
Proof is proof. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is not proof. It's assumption.
Proof is 100% all the time, never changing, forever.
1 + 1 will ALWAYS equal 2 in base 10. There is a proof demonstrating that.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the best that can be obtained , and it is good enough for courts and calendars and the world at large. It doesn't have to be absolute
it only has to be beyond being proven wrong now.

That's how the world works nugget.

Since: Jan 13

Prien, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5076
Jan 4, 2013
 

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5077
Jan 4, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That's where you're wrong. Belief is untestable , people are , you attempt to make the physical reality unfalsifiable saying that. You cannot and never will make the testable untestable. Thor is untestable , also not real. the unreal is untestable because it doesn't exist in the physical.
Once again, you are failing to grasp the issue.

It does not matter that Thor is not a physical entity. Non-real entities can still be labelled and classified.

Bilbo, Frodo and Samwise were/are not real entities. They are, however "Hobbits". Hobbits, in this case, being defined as: "Characters from the Tolkien universe who are belong to a race characterized by their short stature, hairy feet and love of comfort."

You don't need to be able to scientifically test Bilbo Baggins to be able to identify him as a character from those books.

Similarly, you don't need to be able to scientifically test Thor to be able to describe him as the Norse god of thunder.

Labels can and do exist and are applicable to things which exist only theoretically.

Obama is the president ONLY IN THEORY. He's not _actually_ a "president" because there is no such thing as a "president". It's a title, a profession. It's not a object.

You can't scientifically test that Obama is president. You can simply evaluate the fact that more of the world agrees with that title and that he fits the requirements outlined in the definition.

THAT is the entire problem you are having with this debate.

You need to grasp the difference between a label and a physical entity. They are not the same thing.
This is where you are using the fallacy to hide your pharaoh behind. The fact gods are untestable makes them beyond contest.
You believe because men called pharaoh a god this makes him beyond contest.
EPIC FAILURE!
No. I am correctly pointing out that the criteria for the label/profession of "god" is "people believe this entity has supernatural powers and requires worship."

Did people believe that Zeus had supernatural powers and required worship? Yes. Therefore Zeus is a god.

Did people believe that the Pharaoh had supernatural powers and required worship? Yes. Therefore the Pharaoh was a god.

Labels have criteria. If the criteria is met, then the label applies. If it's not met, then it doesn't.

You want to try and assign a different set of criteria to the label.

I asked you to present me with a list of gods which adequately fit your different criteria. You admitted that there were none.

Then your criteria doesn't work.

You can not redefine a word so that it applies to nothing. That's a pointless exercise.
Pharaoh existed and therefore IS testable , and does fail the tests.
The test is: Did people believe he had supernatural powers and required worship?

Do you have evidence that people did not believe one or both of those things?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5078
Jan 4, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not an experiment. That's just a word.
Outline an experiment which would PROVE definitively that gravity is the only force acting on an object.
Remember, to do so, you must exclude ALL other forces (both known and UNKNOWN).
Can you do that?
No. You can't. Because there could be an _UNKNOWN_ force that you can not detect.
That is why you can't "prove" something. You can only support it based on the information available at the time leaving room for new information to change the assumptions in the future.
THAT is the entire point of science. THAT is why science changes over time.
THAT is why you are wrong.
Now you are putting words into my post, you say "it's only one word" and then add a whole bunch of stuff to it. Thank you for proving all my assertions about you, even the ones I have yet to publicly announce. Makes my job a lot easier.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5079
Jan 4, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the best that can be obtained , and it is good enough for courts and calendars and the world at large. It doesn't have to be absolute
it only has to be beyond being proven wrong now.
That's how the world works nugget.
So, you are admitting you were wrong when you jumped into the debate. Good.

Now, you need to understand that "reasonable doubt" is a bullsh1t term used by the courts and has no place in science.

Even you must admit that we have executed MANY innocent people who've been convicted of crimes do to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

Reasonable doubt is NOT proof. It's just opinion. It may be informed opinion. It may NOT be informed opinion.

Proof is PROOF. It's 100%. It's forever.

That's why proof is limited to mathematics.
That's why science does not PROVE things.

Science can DISPROVE things. It can DEMONSTRATE things. It can compile evidence FOR things.

But it can never PROVE anything.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5080
Jan 4, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you are admitting you were wrong when you jumped into the debate. Good.
Now, you need to understand that "reasonable doubt" is a bullsh1t term used by the courts and has no place in science.
Even you must admit that we have executed MANY innocent people who've been convicted of crimes do to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
Reasonable doubt is NOT proof. It's just opinion. It may be informed opinion. It may NOT be informed opinion.
Proof is PROOF. It's 100%. It's forever.
That's why proof is limited to mathematics.
That's why science does not PROVE things.
Science can DISPROVE things. It can DEMONSTRATE things. It can compile evidence FOR things.
But it can never PROVE anything.
The part where it is proven flew over your head, Yes I admit it's not perfect but it is real.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5082
Jan 4, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you are failing to grasp the issue.
It does not matter that Thor is not a physical entity. Non-real entities can still be labelled and classified.
Bilbo, Frodo and Samwise were/are not real entities. They are, however "Hobbits". Hobbits, in this case, being defined as: "Characters from the Tolkien universe who are belong to a race characterized by their short stature, hairy feet and love of comfort."
You don't need to be able to scientifically test Bilbo Baggins to be able to identify him as a character from those books.
Similarly, you don't need to be able to scientifically test Thor to be able to describe him as the Norse god of thunder.
Labels can and do exist and are applicable to things which exist only theoretically.
Obama is the president ONLY IN THEORY. He's not _actually_ a "president" because there is no such thing as a "president". It's a title, a profession. It's not a object.
You can't scientifically test that Obama is president. You can simply evaluate the fact that more of the world agrees with that title and that he fits the requirements outlined in the definition.
THAT is the entire problem you are having with this debate.
You need to grasp the difference between a label and a physical entity. They are not the same thing.
<quoted text>
No. I am correctly pointing out that the criteria for the label/profession of "god" is "people believe this entity has supernatural powers and requires worship."
Did people believe that Zeus had supernatural powers and required worship? Yes. Therefore Zeus is a god.
Did people believe that the Pharaoh had supernatural powers and required worship? Yes. Therefore the Pharaoh was a god.
Labels have criteria. If the criteria is met, then the label applies. If it's not met, then it doesn't.
You want to try and assign a different set of criteria to the label.
I asked you to present me with a list of gods which adequately fit your different criteria. You admitted that there were none.
Then your criteria doesn't work.
You can not redefine a word so that it applies to nothing. That's a pointless exercise.
<quoted text>
The test is: Did people believe he had supernatural powers and required worship?
Do you have evidence that people did not believe one or both of those things?

More logical fallacy nugget, "The President" is a position in a corporation that actually does exist.
We call that corporation The United States , they exist 50 of them. The Capitol and Head of this Corporation is in Washington DC
It exists , the Job Exists , Obama is now filling that position,
it is his job he exists. But he isn't required to make the sun rise.

Pharaoh is subject to the same criteria.
But when we get to the last line..
He is required to make the sun rise.

FAIL@!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5083
Jan 4, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
... doubt is NOT proof. It's just opinion. It may be informed opinion. It may NOT be informed opinion.
Proof is PROOF. It's 100%. It's forever.
That's why proof is limited to mathematics.
That's why science does not PROVE things.
Science can DISPROVE things. It can DEMONSTRATE things. It can compile evidence FOR things.
But it can never PROVE anything.
Sorry, but only a godbot would ever make this assertion.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5084
Jan 4, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The part where it is proven flew over your head, Yes I admit it's not perfect but it is real.
Then you admit your were wrong.

Good. We're on the same page.

Now tell Kitty that she's wrong and we can put this part of the argument behind us.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5086
Jan 4, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
More logical fallacy nugget, "The President" is a position in a corporation that actually does exist.
The position is a theoretical. It's not a real thing.

You can not present me with a picture of a "position". Nor can you present me with a picture of a "president".

You can show me a PERSON who IS President.

That's a person to whom you have ascribed the LABEL "president" because that person fits the criteria.

There is a difference between a label and an entity.
It exists , the Job Exists
Can you provide a picture of the "job"? Or is the "job" a theoretical based on the society in which it is being "created"?

If you wiped the minds of every human being, would the "job" still exist? Or does it only exist in our collective opinion?
it is his job he exists. But he isn't required to make the sun rise.
Pharaoh is subject to the same criteria.
But when we get to the last line..
He is required to make the sun rise.
FAIL@!
Show me a dictionary definition of "god" that includes the phrase "required to make the sun rise" and you win.

Or show me a time in which the sun failed to rise as a result of the Pharaoh failing to make it happen and you win.

Or show me any other god which has achieved something similar thus validating your new criteria for the label and you win.

I'm giving you three VERY BIG outs.

Go for it.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5087
Jan 4, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but only a godbot would ever make this assertion.
Then you are a godbot, because THAT is your assertion and we have been arguing against it.

And when we present science as it REALLY is, you called us liars.

So, which is it?

Are you some sort of Creationist nutjob? Or are you going to admit you were wrong with your assertion that science proves things?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5088
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are putting words into my post, you say "it's only one word" and then add a whole bunch of stuff to it. Thank you for proving all my assertions about you, even the ones I have yet to publicly announce. Makes my job a lot easier.
Translation:

I'm just a girl. I can't actually argue this like an educated person. Let me win or you are sexist.

Yawn. Get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5089
Jan 4, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It can DEMONSTRATE things. It can compile evidence FOR things.
But it can never PROVE anything.
LOL Nuggit, you just gave the definition for the word "prove": to demonstrate (which you so kindly capitalized) and to demonstrate by evidence. Good job!!! LMAO thanks for PROVING yourself wrong so I didn't have to!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5090
Jan 4, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you are a godbot, because THAT is your assertion and we have been arguing against it.
And when we present science as it REALLY is, you called us liars.
So, which is it?
Are you some sort of Creationist nutjob? Or are you going to admit you were wrong with your assertion that science proves things?
Actually, I was referring to your wording, and your random capitalization, which is the same as yelling, betrays that you have nothing. I called you a liar, because you are misrepresenting the facts, and that is what lying is. If you cannot come to terms with being called a liar, then stop lying.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5091
Jan 4, 2013
 
ldyluck420 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL Nuggit, you just gave the definition for the word "prove": to demonstrate (which you so kindly capitalized) and to demonstrate by evidence. Good job!!! LMAO thanks for PROVING yourself wrong so I didn't have to!
So, if I assert that the Celtics win every basketball game and provide evidence of them winning 20 games, does that _prove_ my assertion?

No. Because there are games that the Celtics have not won.

Simply providing evidence for something does not "prove" it. Proof is a higher standard than mere support.

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.

Other Recent Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr River Tam 225,655
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr mannnu81 21,463
Hollywood Actor Reveals What He Thinks Is 'Weir... 2 hr religionisillness 104
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr religionisillness 365
The Ultimate Evidence of God 2 hr religionisillness 44
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' 2 hr religionisillness 84
If Christianity were true... 2 hr religionisillness 151

Search the Atheism Forum:
•••