Aliens and evolution

[KittenKoder]

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.

[Nuggin]

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.

[Nuggin]

KittenKoder wrote:

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.

In what way have a misrepresented the fact? Give specific examples.

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
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.

No nugget , it was a qualifier for him , not a requirement to be a god.
But a requirement for "him" to be a god. Because that is what "he"
And the cult he was in claimed to be able to do.
So was his divinity.
You made the claim now "you" prove he was a god by showing us he met his own qualifiers.

Divinity and supernatural powers.
They are the two things that made him a god and without them.

Just another mother further.

[The Dude]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but only a godbot would ever make this assertion.

On the contrary, this is what we tell Godbots. They also misunderstand the meaning of 'proof'. I've lost count of how many times I've pointed this out to fundies I'm quite surprised that neither you nor Aura have noticed it at least once.

[The Dude]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

You're a bad bad man...

[The Dude]

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!

Oh joy, another one 12 months late to the party. "Demonstrate" is NOT the same as "prove". Science REQUIRES the potential for falsification, therefore NOTHING in science can be "proven" 100%. We can DEMONSTRATE evolution. But we cannot PROVE it 100%. The reason being there is ALWAYS a margin for error.

Same thing with gravity. That's why Newton's so-called "law" was replaced by Einstein's relativity. Which in turn is being replaced by quantum physics. Scientists hope to one day come up with a complete working theory of quantum gravity (which would also still remain falsifiable). But notice that in each case they concepts that went before were refined, because they were NOT completely correct.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
No nugget , it was a qualifier for him , not a requirement to be a god.
But a requirement for "him" to be a god. Because that is what "he"
And the cult he was in claimed to be able to do.
So was his divinity.
You made the claim now "you" prove he was a god by showing us he met his own qualifiers.
Divinity and supernatural powers.
They are the two things that made him a god and without them.
Just another mother further.

Aura, we've had this exact conversation about 20 times now.

You claim that the word "god" refers only to individuals which have supernatural powers and divinity.

I claim that it refers to any individual (or object or place) that people BELIEVE has supernatural powers and requires worship.

You referenced a website called godchecker or something.

How many of the gods listed on that website fit YOUR criteria?
How many of the gods listed fit MY criteria?

Can you name any gods NOT listed on that website which fit your criteria?

Can you show me a textbook or dictionary which uses your criteria?

Can you demonstrate one way in which your criteria better describes those things commonly referred to by the term "god"?

No. Your version fails at every turn. You can't point to a single example in which your criteria fits.

So, how about you stop trying to re-define the terminology and stick to the definitions which are already being used by EVERYONE.

[Aura Mytha]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh joy, another one 12 months late to the party. "Demonstrate" is NOT the same as "prove". Science REQUIRES the potential for falsification, therefore NOTHING in science can be "proven" 100%. We can DEMONSTRATE evolution. But we cannot PROVE it 100%. The reason being there is ALWAYS a margin for error.
Same thing with gravity. That's why Newton's so-called "law" was replaced by Einstein's relativity. Which in turn is being replaced by quantum physics. Scientists hope to one day come up with a complete working theory of quantum gravity (which would also still remain falsifiable). But notice that in each case they concepts that went before were refined, because they were NOT completely correct.

This very very formal but also in your statement you proclaim doubt as it were a qualifier. You would never make the team with such conviction and iron in your reason.

We all know nothing is ever 100% certain , The criretia is that you be 100% certain. Without that "you can only present"
a certain kind of doubt.
Believe me I do know when I'm right, not by conviction but rather by the convergence of evidence.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> This very very formal but also in your statement you proclaim doubt as it were a qualifier. You would never make the team with such conviction and iron in your reason.
We all know nothing is ever 100% certain , The criretia is that you be 100% certain. Without that "you can only present"
a certain kind of doubt.
Believe me I do know when I'm right, not by conviction but rather by the convergence of evidence.

Okay, time to own up to some stuff.

I went back about 20 pages and read what you were saying. You started off on our side of this debate which is:

Science disproves things, it can never prove something with 100% certainty because that would mean that no future data could ever change it.

That's not science.

You were right there with me and Dude at the beginning.

Then, somewhere in the middle, we got our lines crossed. Either you came to Skippy's defense when he claimed he could "scientifically prove God (big G) doesn't exist" or you jump in to defend Kitty when she claimed that "science can't disprove anything".

Once you started saying that I was wrong, I assumed you had changed your position.

As it turns out, you were saying "you are wrong" but agreeing with me in EXACTLY what I was saying.

Basically, you just think I'm wrong, even when you know I'm right and are saying the exact same thing that I'm saying.

So, let's stop having this part of this pointless argument.

You, Dude and I all agree that Kitty and Skippy are wrong about how science works.

They won't ever change their minds because they don't have even half a one between the two of them.

Let's get back to what we were originally talking about:

You want to redefine the word "god" to mean something different than it means. I don't think you can do that unless you can cite an example in which the new definition works.

[The Dude]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> This very very formal but also in your statement you proclaim doubt as it were a qualifier. You would never make the team with such conviction and iron in your reason.
We all know nothing is ever 100% certain , The criretia is that you be 100% certain. Without that "you can only present"
a certain kind of doubt.
Believe me I do know when I'm right, not by conviction but rather by the convergence of evidence.

Then I am also right, not by conviction but rather by the convergence of evidence. Which still doesn't change the fact that if it ain't 100% it ain't "proven". Which is why "proof" is left for math and alcohol. We could go back a couple of centuries with Newton's great ideas about gravity and you'd still be claiming it's been "proven". Even though you had no knowledge of relativity and quantum physics yet.

You can complain we're just being overly picky in our word usage if you wanna, but I'm just as specific when arguing against fundies. And it's because the fundies are plain and simply wrong.

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay, time to own up to some stuff.
I went back about 20 pages and read what you were saying. You started off on our side of this debate which is:
Science disproves things, it can never prove something with 100% certainty because that would mean that no future data could ever change it.
That's not science.
You were right there with me and Dude at the beginning.
Then, somewhere in the middle, we got our lines crossed. Either you came to Skippy's defense when he claimed he could "scientifically prove God (big G) doesn't exist" or you jump in to defend Kitty when she claimed that "science can't disprove anything".
Once you started saying that I was wrong, I assumed you had changed your position.
As it turns out, you were saying "you are wrong" but agreeing with me in EXACTLY what I was saying.
Basically, you just think I'm wrong, even when you know I'm right and are saying the exact same thing that I'm saying.
So, let's stop having this part of this pointless argument.
You, Dude and I all agree that Kitty and Skippy are wrong about how science works.
They won't ever change their minds because they don't have even half a one between the two of them.
Let's get back to what we were originally talking about:
You want to redefine the word "god" to mean something different than it means. I don't think you can do that unless you can cite an example in which the new definition works.

Kitten isn't wrong , nor are you except thinking pharaohs were"real" gods.

What you epic fail at understanding is that science moves along and never absolutely proved anything , except a trail of wins along the way.

Meaning it proved everything TODAY, but tomorrow it was overturned and new understanding ensued. So it does prove many things unfortunately it then proves them wrong.

[Aura Mytha]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Then I am also right, not by conviction but rather by the convergence of evidence. Which still doesn't change the fact that if it ain't 100% it ain't "proven". Which is why "proof" is left for math and alcohol. We could go back a couple of centuries with Newton's great ideas about gravity and you'd still be claiming it's been "proven". Even though you had no knowledge of relativity and quantum physics yet.
You can complain we're just being overly picky in our word usage if you wanna, but I'm just as specific when arguing against fundies. And it's because the fundies are plain and simply wrong.

Newton has never been wrong , understand someone only found a better way to calculate it .

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Kitten isn't wrong , nor are you except thinking pharaohs were"real" gods.
What you epic fail at understanding is that science moves along and never absolutely proved anything , except a trail of wins along the way.
Meaning it proved everything TODAY, but tomorrow it was overturned and new understanding ensued. So it does prove many things unfortunately it then proves them wrong.

Kitty's statement is that science can not disprove anything, that it only proves things.

Your position, like mine, is that science can disprove things and does so regularly. It also can not prove things with 100% certainty because that's not what science does.

So, by "you're wrong" you mean "I agree with you".

Saying that something could be overturned tomorrow is saying that it is not proven today.

If something is proven, it is forever settled and will never change.

Mathematical proofs do not get overturned.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Newton has never been wrong , understand someone only found a better way to calculate it .

Newtonian Physics is based on a concept of the universe.

Sort of like how LeMark was "close" with his version of evolution.

That doesn't make him right.

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Kitty's statement is that science can not disprove anything, that it only proves things.
Your position, like mine, is that science can disprove things and does so regularly. It also can not prove things with 100% certainty because that's not what science does.
So, by "you're wrong" you mean "I agree with you".
Saying that something could be overturned tomorrow is saying that it is not proven today.
If something is proven, it is forever settled and will never change.
Mathematical proofs do not get overturned.

That isn't what she said.

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Newtonian Physics is based on a concept of the universe.
Sort of like how LeMark was "close" with his version of evolution.
That doesn't make him right.

Einstein topped Newton with GR and superseded The Theory of Universal Gravitation when he showed GR predicted the motion of Mercury with a greater degree of precision by 43" (arc seconds) per century"
It is no comparison Newton still stands and his calculations are still used as they are close enough to send a rocket to Pluto using Saturn as a slingshot. The problem is Einstein isn't quite right either with every prediction. That doesn't mean either of them is wrong , it means gravity is not fully understood. Newton wasn't falsified ,43/3600 of a degree is more precision but we still
grapple between GR and gravity as a force.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Einstein topped Newton with GR and superseded The Theory of Universal Gravitation when he showed GR predicted the motion of Mercury with a greater degree of precision by 43" (arc seconds) per century"
It is no comparison Newton still stands and his calculations are still used as they are close enough to send a rocket to Pluto using Saturn as a slingshot. The problem is Einstein isn't quite right either with every prediction. That doesn't mean either of them is wrong , it means gravity is not fully understood. Newton wasn't falsified ,43/3600 of a degree is more precision but we still
grapple between GR and gravity as a force.

The point is that their observations are used to create a model which explains the Universe.

That model makes certain assumptions about how things work.

Newtonian Physics may be accurate enough for you to hit a baseball, but it's not how the Universe actually is. His model is wrong.

It LOOKS right. For a long time people THOUGHT it was right. But it's not.

Just like LeMark _sounds_ right when he said "Giraffes stretch to reach the branches, then their children are born with longer necks."

If you didn't know any better, didn't understand DNA, mutation etc. You would think "that makes sense and it pretty accurately explains the fossil record".

Yet, LeMark wasn't "proven". He just seemed right until he was DISPROVEN.

[KittenKoder]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> That isn't what she said.

I'm sure he's only mistaken ... I mean, he can't be this dishonest, can he?

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
The point is that their observations are used to create a model which explains the Universe.
That model makes certain assumptions about how things work.
Newtonian Physics may be accurate enough for you to hit a baseball, but it's not how the Universe actually is. His model is wrong.
It LOOKS right. For a long time people THOUGHT it was right. But it's not.
Just like LeMark _sounds_ right when he said "Giraffes stretch to reach the branches, then their children are born with longer necks."
If you didn't know any better, didn't understand DNA, mutation etc. You would think "that makes sense and it pretty accurately explains the fossil record".
Yet, LeMark wasn't "proven". He just seemed right until he was DISPROVEN.

I'm guessing you didn't know Lamarck was right.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/...