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 (Page 259)

Showing posts 5,161 - 5,180 of6,103
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5233
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I do understand that you're a lunatic that thinks like a pigeon in a chess game. Mad why on Earth would I be mad at you?
I don't get upset over your clownish and comical rambling.
We all know how you like to speculate about futures and future speculation all pigeons do that.
It's funny that you say that, because you spend an awful lot of time trying to insult me rather than actually address the points I made.

So, if you're not mad? Why are you acting like someone who is?

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to give me a single example of future data which would not be speculation?

After all, you asked me to present future data and then complained that it was speculative.

So, pony up. Demonstrate for me and everyone else how you have access to future data that is not speculative.

This ought to be interesting.

Or, you know, just keep tossing around insults because... you're _not_ mad.

LOL

Just take your licking and move on. When you keep coming back you are just going to keep getting beat up.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5234
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be willing for you to present the evidence there was one, as long as it isn't the ridiculous rant that pharaoh was.
Like I said if it isn't falsifiable , it doesn't exist in the physical reality. If it isn't in the physical reality it must be your imagination. Let's hear your case that some god is real , bear in mind I know we can't be 100% positive but if you have nothing it must be nothing.
So you've gone back to claiming that Ramses did actually exist.

I refer you to YOUR post in which you gave a link proving that Ramses was real AND that his body is still available for examination.

So, once again Aura has proven Aura to be lying.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5235
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
As you just said, it's your duty to prove you aren't lying, not my duty to prove you are.
The statement that you are lying stands until you can provide evidence otherwise.
Just playing by your rules.
I didn't say prove it, I asked what you are accusing me of lying about. You see, this is the perfect example of your dishonest word play. One day you will have the courage and self esteem to be capable of handling being called wrong, maybe when you reach puberty.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5236
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ldyluck420 wrote:
<quoted text>
So sorry dude that I am late. You remember how Nuggit loves to use definitions- the burden of proof, etc etc against skippidydodah. I am simply using the dictionary definition of proof against him. He says science only disproves things. You agree. I disagree.
Okay, then provide us with an example of an experiment which could _prove_ something.

I've given several examples of experiments which disprove things.

I have yet to see anyone even ATTEMPT to do the same for proof.
Nothing can be proven 100%? I belive it was proven 100% that the world is round, and there are other planets besides Earth, etc etc. Do you dispute those PROVEN facts?
You are misunderstanding the debate entirely.

Yes, we accept those things are correct.

However, that does not mean that future data might not change our opinion about one or more of the things we currently accept as correct.

For example, we accepted that we knew how much "stuff" there was in the Universe with a high degree of certainty. If you asked someone in 1980, they would say "Oh, yes. It's a fact that there is X amount of material."

Only know we know that what he's talking about represents 4% of the Universe and that 96% of it is dark matter/dark energy.

That little tidbit COMPLETELY rewrites our understanding of what we _KNEW_ was a "proven" fact.

So, just like we were COMPLETELY wrong about the amount of material in the Universe, we MAY be completely wrong about other things.

THAT is why science doesn't "prove" things.
There is no potential for falsification for those simple facts that science has proven... we know because it has been proven that the world is round and that there are other planets... so how can you claim that science only disproves things?
You are asking for speculative data which could falsify those claims, so we'll have to SPECULATE about what that potential data could be.

Do I think that any speculation I can come up with on the fly will be the ACTUAL thing we find out? No. But YOU are asking for speculation, so YOU have to accept that it will be speculative.

We could discover that our understanding of time/space is radically incorrect, and that our perception of the 3rd dimension only makes it appear as though the Earth is round when in fact it is some shape involving the 4th dimension that makes terms like "round" obsolete.

Likewise, we could discover that the other "planets" are all part of some strange "Matrix"-esque projection on a collective virtual reality meant to make us think the Universe is much larger than it is. Thus, with this revelation, almost everything we know about reality is tossed out.

Do I think that EITHER of these things is likely? Nope. But science does not reject the possibility of FUTURE findings changing CURRENT thinking. Therefore, science does not "prove" anything.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5237
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice creationist approach , Since we couldn't see the microscopic 1000 years ago. God must be real , why because I still cant produce evidence there is one.
Aura, seriously. You need to go back and re-read the thread.

You are spinning out of control. You have no idea who is on what side of the debate, or what argument is being proposed by who.

You can't tell if someone is being sarcastic or snippy or genuine.

Get a grip.

Here's a refresher:

Skippy is arguing that he can _SCIENTIFICALLY_ prove that there is no god.

Dude is asking Skippy to provide evidence supporting that claim.

Skippy has countered by claiming that it is Dude's "Burden of Proof" to _disprove_ Skippy's assertion for which Skippy has not provided any evidence.

I have asserted that, since the term "god" merely means "anyone who people worship", there have been plenty of gods which are non-existent and plenty of gods which actually did exist.

Skippy has demanded that I meet his "Burden of Proof" that any of these gods existed.

I did so by pointing out that Ramses existed and that he was worshiped by the people of Egypt.

Skippy then counted with "F*ck you! F*ck you! F*ck you!" for about six months.

Dude kept reminding Skippy that Skippy still has not provided anyone with any sort of evidence about how Skippy plans to _SCIENTIFICALLY_ prove that no gods exist.

You then jumped in to proclaim that Ramses doesn't count as a god because you have a different definition of god than is being used by everyone else.

I asked you what your definition is, and if you could give me an example of a god that fits your definition.

You admitted that your definition doesn't have any examples and negates that 150,000+ existing gods which are referred to as such.

I pointed out that that renders your definition pointless.

You responded by claiming that I am responsible for all of slavery.

There. Now you are up to speed.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5238
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say prove it,
You said:
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a lie until they provide evidence of their assertion, either a lie or their delusion.
So, what you have said is a lie until you provide evidence of your assertion.
I asked what you are accusing me of lying about.
Everything. In particular, that other people are lying.

By your standard, anything you say is a lie until you provide evidence that it's not a lie.

You are saying that others are lying. Where's your evidence?

If you want to cite your own claim as evidence, then you must accept that the same can be said about everything you post.

And we can keep piling on "liar!" until infinity.
You see, this is the perfect example of your dishonest word play. One day you will have the courage and self esteem to be capable of handling being called wrong, maybe when you reach puberty.
I can handle that you call me wrong.
I just ask that you actually POINT TO SOMETHING I SAID that was wrong.

If that request sounds familiar, it's because I've asked you about 40X now to do so.

Your response has been, CATEGORICALLY, "Liar!"

I say Ramses existed. You say "Liar."
I say the dictionary defines words. You say "Liar."
I ask if you mean either of my statements or something else. You say "Liar."

I point out that the only thing you post is either a conversation about my penis or the word "Liar!" and you respond with "You must have a small penis because you're a liar!"

This is why men don't like to have arguments with women. You aren't equipped to participate in rational discussions. You don't even understand that you are doing it wrong.

So, go ahead and tell me again about my penis and call me a liar. It's worked out so well for you for these last 6 months.

OR, you could do one of the two other things I suggested.

POST some evidence to support your claim
OR
LEAVE to demonstrate you don't need to get the last word

Either way, I win.

Of course, I also win if you say something about my penis or call me a liar, so really, you've kind of painted yourself into a corner on this one

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5239
Jan 7, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It's funny that you say that, because you spend an awful lot of time trying to insult me rather than actually address the points I made.
So, if you're not mad? Why are you acting like someone who is?
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to give me a single example of future data which would not be speculation?
After all, you asked me to present future data and then complained that it was speculative.
So, pony up. Demonstrate for me and everyone else how you have access to future data that is not speculative.
This ought to be interesting.
Or, you know, just keep tossing around insults because... you're _not_ mad.
LOL
Just take your licking and move on. When you keep coming back you are just going to keep getting beat up.
Calendar

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5240
Jan 7, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So you've gone back to claiming that Ramses did actually exist.
I refer you to YOUR post in which you gave a link proving that Ramses was real AND that his body is still available for examination.
So, once again Aura has proven Aura to be lying.
Ramses is a god only within a theistic Imperial cult , of people who mistook him to be one. That means to me he isn't or never was one , besides the fact he fails his own qualifications to be one.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5241
Jan 7, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Aura, seriously. You need to go back and re-read the thread.
You are spinning out of control. You have no idea who is on what side of the debate, or what argument is being proposed by who.
You can't tell if someone is being sarcastic or snippy or genuine.
Get a grip.
Here's a refresher:
Skippy is arguing that he can _SCIENTIFICALLY_ prove that there is no god.
Dude is asking Skippy to provide evidence supporting that claim.
Skippy has countered by claiming that it is Dude's "Burden of Proof" to _disprove_ Skippy's assertion for which Skippy has not provided any evidence.
I have asserted that, since the term "god" merely means "anyone who people worship", there have been plenty of gods which are non-existent and plenty of gods which actually did exist.
Skippy has demanded that I meet his "Burden of Proof" that any of these gods existed.
I did so by pointing out that Ramses existed and that he was worshiped by the people of Egypt.
Skippy then counted with "F*ck you! F*ck you! F*ck you!" for about six months.
Dude kept reminding Skippy that Skippy still has not provided anyone with any sort of evidence about how Skippy plans to _SCIENTIFICALLY_ prove that no gods exist.
You then jumped in to proclaim that Ramses doesn't count as a god because you have a different definition of god than is being used by everyone else.
I asked you what your definition is, and if you could give me an example of a god that fits your definition.
You admitted that your definition doesn't have any examples and negates that 150,000+ existing gods which are referred to as such.
I pointed out that that renders your definition pointless.
You responded by claiming that I am responsible for all of slavery.
There. Now you are up to speed.

Again poly and I both have , unfortunately none have ever met this criteria.
Something or someone who exists in the physical reality that is falsifiable but can demonstrate supernatural and/or magical powers. This would not require belief as a qualifier , but offer example as evidence.

AKA:

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5242
Jan 7, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Aura, seriously. You need to go back and re-read the thread.
You are spinning out of control. You have no idea who is on what side of the debate, or what argument is being proposed by who.
You can't tell if someone is being sarcastic or snippy or genuine.
Get a grip.
Here's a refresher:
Skippy is arguing that he can _SCIENTIFICALLY_ prove that there is no god.
Dude is asking Skippy to provide evidence supporting that claim.
Skippy has countered by claiming that it is Dude's "Burden of Proof" to _disprove_ Skippy's assertion for which Skippy has not provided any evidence.
I have asserted that, since the term "god" merely means "anyone who people worship", there have been plenty of gods which are non-existent and plenty of gods which actually did exist.
Skippy has demanded that I meet his "Burden of Proof" that any of these gods existed.
I did so by pointing out that Ramses existed and that he was worshiped by the people of Egypt.
Skippy then counted with "F*ck you! F*ck you! F*ck you!" for about six months.
Dude kept reminding Skippy that Skippy still has not provided anyone with any sort of evidence about how Skippy plans to _SCIENTIFICALLY_ prove that no gods exist.
You then jumped in to proclaim that Ramses doesn't count as a god because you have a different definition of god than is being used by everyone else.
I asked you what your definition is, and if you could give me an example of a god that fits your definition.
You admitted that your definition doesn't have any examples and negates that 150,000+ existing gods which are referred to as such.
I pointed out that that renders your definition pointless.
You responded by claiming that I am responsible for all of slavery.
There. Now you are up to speed.
Shouty ranty illogical piece of sh*t who doesn't understand the burden of proof and how there's no such thing as god.

Go back to your camp of ignorance foul one.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5243
Jan 7, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is no-one could prove bacteria in 1000 AD because bacteria aren't real.
<quoted text>
Since you're a known dishonest liar and hypocrite then obviously it's not their lies that make you sick. The only other thing it could be is simply having a difference of opinion.
Says the known and proven liar who:

1) Doesn't understand the burden of proof.
2) Unable to provide any example of anything both real and falsifiable.

You're Nuggin's third nipple - a useless freak of nature burdened with being attached to a f*cking liar.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5244
Jan 7, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Ramses is a god only within a theistic Imperial cult , of people who mistook him to be one. That means to me he isn't or never was one , besides the fact he fails his own qualifications to be one.
As opposed to which other god?

You keep saying that Ramses doesn't meet the qualifications for godhood.

Okay, give me the qualifications you are using and show that they apply to the other gods on the list you linked.

Otherwise, you are applying a set of criteria to Ramses that you aren't applying to the rest of the things you listed.

So, pick a set of criteria and stick to it.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5245
Jan 7, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Again poly and I both have , unfortunately none have ever met this criteria.
Something or someone who exists in the physical reality that is falsifiable but can demonstrate supernatural and/or magical powers. This would not require belief as a qualifier , but offer example as evidence.
AKA:
You linked a website with 150,000+ deities on it.
Do ANY of them meet this criteria?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5246
Jan 7, 2013
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Shouty ranty illogical piece of sh*t who doesn't understand the burden of proof and how there's no such thing as god.
Go back to your camp of ignorance foul one.
Way to demonstrate my point.

LOL. You lose HARD Skip
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5247
Jan 7, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with your observation.
I think most radical secularists don't understand how much faith plays in their thinking so when faced with contrary information they defame the messenger. Ad hoc accusations aren't science or logic.
And you defamed science education when arguing for Bobby Jindal's stupid (lack of) "critical thinking" laws. QED.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5248
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Cept nugatory , you forgot to throw your own monkey wrench in.
What if?
What if what?

What if there is life on other planets? Or what if there isn't?

Science is open to either possibility.

However everyone knows that aliens don't exist according to the Skippy scientific method.(shrug)

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5249
Jan 7, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You linked a website with 150,000+ deities on it.
Do ANY of them meet this criteria?
The fact remains calling something a name doesn't make it what we call it. Or there would be no mustang cars, because we know a mustang is a horse. We can still call it that even if it isn't really one.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5250
Jan 7, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be willing for you to present the evidence there was one, as long as it isn't the ridiculous rant that pharaoh was.
Like I said if it isn't falsifiable , it doesn't exist in the physical reality. If it isn't in the physical reality it must be your imagination.
Then I was correct about you. You walked straight into Skippydom. In which case bacteria did not exist in physical reality in 1500AD and there is DEFINITELY no such thing as aliens living on the other side of the galaxy.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Let's hear your case that some god is real , bear in mind I know we can't be 100% positive but if you have nothing it must be nothing.
I've never claimed to have positive evidence of such an entity. However you just claimed to have falsified a non-falsifiable concept. In which case I'd like to hear about the scientific test you performed, presumably by making use of the scientific method, which enabled you to falsify the concept.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5251
Jan 7, 2013
 
ldyluck420 wrote:
So sorry dude that I am late. You remember how Nuggit loves to use definitions- the burden of proof, etc etc against skippidydodah. I am simply using the dictionary definition of proof against him. He says science only disproves things. You agree. I disagree. And am using his favorite thing, a definition, just like he loves to do! Nothing can be proven 100%? I belive it was proven 100% that the world is round
http://www.mount-everest.net/images/mt-everes...

Well consider that one falsified. Or maybe we should just go with round-ish, shall we? Just for simplicity.(shrug)
ldyluck420 wrote:
and there are other planets besides Earth, etc etc.
There are currently. As Nuggin just pointed out to you, a few decades ago we thought we could account for most of the mass in the universe. It ain't like that no more.
ldyluck420 wrote:
Do you dispute those PROVEN facts? Think simpler than quantum physics! There is no potential for falsification for those simple facts that science has proven... we know because it has been proven that the world is round and that there are other planets... so how can you claim that science only disproves things?
Quite easy. That's why you decided to just uh, THROW OUT quantum physics in its entirety, just for the sake of convenience. This is despite the fact that the very physics of the universe we exist in the quantum world is an INTEGRAL part of that. Unless you wanna tell me that your computer you're typing on isn't really working. That is the very POINT I made about Newton being replaced by Einstein in turn being replaced by quantum physics.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5252
Jan 7, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice creationist approach , Since we couldn't see the microscopic 1000 years ago. God must be real , why because I still cant produce evidence there is one.
Funny, I thought the creationist approach here was yours. Either misunderstand the argument or deliberately misrepresent it so you can knock down your caricature. And since you've witnessed me arguing AGAINST fundies on numerous threads for months, I'm leaning towards the latter.

Have I ever claimed to have positive evidence?

Well uh, no.

Have I ever claimed it was scientific?

Well uh, no.

Have I ever claimed it had scientific credibility?

Well uh, no.

Of course that should be perfectly OBVIOUS considering the fact I've spent the ENTIRE THREAD pointing out why the concept is NOT scientific, due to it be NON-testable, NON-demonstrable, and NON-FALSIFIABLE. In short, I've been arguing AGAINST it's scientific credibility right from the very beginning.

But since Skippy, and now you, have now BOTH made the POSITIVE claim that it does NOT exist, you are ironically arguing FOR its scientific veracity.

If it does not exist then you must have performed the scientific test that falsified the concept. In which case it is, or at least was scientific.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 5,161 - 5,180 of6,103
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••