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 Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5253 Jan 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.

Bacteria did in fact exist then , microscopes did not.
No I'm not in skippydom or anything but physical reality . As to aliens that is another subject altogether. There could be aliens , but is there aliens that have the possibility of interacting with Earth?

Bacteria existed before all other lifeforms , that is known.
The ability see them did not , but our ability to see now has gotten to the sub atomic. You are in fact going into the "what if".

There were physical signs of bacteria in 1500.
There is no physical sign of your premise.
Bacteria existed in 1500 if you drank harmful bacteria infested water you got sick. It had a physical aspect that was testable and identifiable.

You present something that is not identifiable or can not even show me any physical effect of it. That means it *really doesn't exist in reality.

Alien life is testable , we can eventually go find out if it is there. We may have even found indications in the physical reality that it exists. Even if inconclusive at this point it is testable.
We also are testing this right now on mars.

Now present me a physical aspect of your premise that has some physical indication that is testable. Otherwise you are into pure conjecture and fantasy.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5254 Jan 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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)
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
It is more perfectly round than a baseball.
Though not perfectly round.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5255 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.
Again you assert that if there is no evidence then it does not exist, period. So please describe in detail the objective repeatable scientific test you performed using the scientific method that falsified a non-falsifiable concept.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5256 Jan 7, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Of the two of us, I have not lied. We know this since you have not been able to demonstrate it. On the other hand we can demonstrate your lies in extremely short order.

Now the friendly greetings out the way, back to business:

Both your points are flawed. Now try again with an argument I have not already addressed yet.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5257 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
Labels are arbitrary. The four legged mustang is a mustang because we called it a mustang. The four wheeled mustang is a mustang because we called it a mustang.

Maybe one day we'll call a horse 'Porsche'.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5258 Jan 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Labels are arbitrary. The four legged mustang is a mustang because we called it a mustang. The four wheeled mustang is a mustang because we called it a mustang.
Maybe one day we'll call a horse 'Porsche'.
Now you are being intellectually dishonest.
You know exactly what I mean.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5259 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Bacteria did in fact exist then , microscopes did not.
Yes. That's the _entire_ point.

At that time, bacteria was real. However bacteria was unfalsifiable because we lacked the technology to detect it.

People were unaware of and unable to detect something which actually existed and was the cause of major illness, decomposition, digestion, etc etc etc

Therefore, it is possible for something to exist and be undetectable. It has happened in the past. It is happening in the present. It will happen in the future.

It's the nature of our limited frame of reference.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5260 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Bacteria did in fact exist then, microscopes did not.
But there was no evidence. According to the Skippy scientific method if there is no evidence then it does not exist, period.
Aura Mytha wrote:
No I'm not in skippydom or anything but physical reality . As to aliens that is another subject altogether.
Is it? We don't have evidence of Klingons. We don't have evidence of God. According to the Skippy scientific method if there is no evidence then it does not exist, period.
Aura Mytha wrote:
There could be aliens , but is there aliens that have the possibility of interacting with Earth?
Possible, even if the possibility is slim. But according to the Skippy scientific method if there is no evidence then it does not exist, period.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Bacteria existed before all other lifeforms , that is known.
Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing is it not?

(aside, I thought I was gonna use that line on Skip 12 months ago, but he wasn't smart enough to click)
Aura Mytha wrote:
The ability see them did not , but our ability to see now has gotten to the sub atomic. You are in fact going into the "what if".
Yes I am. Because I say that "what if" that concepts we accept as standard today may be radically changed, if not completely falsified at a later date? Possible, even if the possibility is slim. But according to the Skippy scientific method if there is no evidence then this cannot happen, period.
Aura Mytha wrote:
There were physical signs of bacteria in 1500.
Oh? What if I go back further in time? Or what if the evidence was always there but we simply lacked the ability to recognise it?
Aura Mytha wrote:
There is no physical sign of your premise.
What if the evidence was always there but we simply lacked the ability to recognise it?
Aura Mytha wrote:
Bacteria existed in 1500 if you drank harmful bacteria infested water you got sick. It had a physical aspect that was testable and identifiable.
If that was the case they would have been identified.
Aura Mytha wrote:
You present something that is not identifiable or can not even show me any physical effect of it. That means it *really doesn't exist in reality.
Then aliens do not exist as I cannot present anything for that case either.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Alien life is testable , we can eventually go find out if it is there. We may have even found indications in the physical reality that it exists. Even if inconclusive at this point it is testable. We also are testing this right now on mars.
Correction: It is POTENTIALLY testable. But other than Mars and the moon, we still have an entire universe we haven't been able to reach yet.

Now, what about the possibility of a multiverse? That gets a little harder, especially as all info about such is apparently either wiped out or reaches an impasse at the point of singularity. But according to the Skippy scientific method if there is no evidence then it does not exist, period.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Now present me a physical aspect of your premise that has some physical indication that is testable.
Never claimed to have it. However both Skippy AND yourself claimed to have FALSIFIED it.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Otherwise you are into pure conjecture and fantasy.
Conjecture? Yes. Fantasy? Not necessarily. That's your assumption, not science's.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5261 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
This statement makes no sense.

How could a dead body use a telephone and why would you insist on having sex with a horse?

If you want to be literal with your words, you need to be much more precise with your choices.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5262 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It is more perfectly round than a baseball.
Though not perfectly round.
Sure. That's fine if you're a cosmic giant.

But down here on Earth we Earthlings tend to consider conquering Everest as being something of an achievement.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5263 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Now you are being intellectually dishonest.
You know exactly what I mean.
No. We clearly don't.

You are saying that a dead person telephoned you to have sex with a horse.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

If you accept only one specific definition as the "proper" definition for each word, then you must be sure that you are using the correct word each and every time.

So, no "remains" no "calling" no "know"ing.

Use the proper words or don't hold others to a standard you yourself can't maintain.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5264 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Now you are being intellectually dishonest.
You know exactly what I mean.
Not being dishonest. Yeah, I know what you mean. However this is at the crux of your dispute with Nuggin. Labels. That's why Skippy lost the argument even when he DEMANDED everyone stuck to dictionary definitions. And this is why Nuggin is deconstructing your posts line by line and then you resort to insults.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5265 Jan 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
And you defamed science education when arguing for Bobby Jindal's stupid (lack of) "critical thinking" laws. QED.
I've never defamed science; I respect science just as I respect faith. I challenge you to provide a quote of my supposed 'defamed science education'.

There's nothing wrong with teaching children to question what they are taught; no subject is outside the bounds of critical thought.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5266 Jan 7, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. That's the _entire_ point.
At that time, bacteria was real. However bacteria was unfalsifiable because we lacked the technology to detect it.
People were unaware of and unable to detect something which actually existed and was the cause of major illness, decomposition, digestion, etc etc etc
Therefore, it is possible for something to exist and be undetectable. It has happened in the past. It is happening in the present. It will happen in the future.
It's the nature of our limited frame of reference.

No bacteria was never unfalsifiable, there were always an indicator
of bacterias presence despite our inability to recognize it as what it was. Decomposition is one , this would lead to botulism in food and we saw this physical aspect in reality. Testing or the ability magnify the microscopic showed us why botulism was caused by bacteria.

When you talk about gods the idea came to explain storms lightening hurricanes death all manor of events at the time we could not explain. About all of these things need no god to explain cause, but superstition lingers , so that in every place you can hide a god as explanation you will find one.

But the problem is you have run out of places now to show an effect that is caused by a god. In fact about the last one is creation , are you guys creationist? Do you believe in myth?
Ok I know you nor I can rule it out entirely , you stand on extremely thin ice in your attempt to say there could be gods.
While I also cannot rule it out entirely your support of mythology is comical. You also weaken the position of science when you say it never proves anything. While that may be true it is also misleading the people who do not really understand the scientific method. The ones who think theory's grow up and become a fact will not benefit from your assertion.

Also science say's if you lower the temperature of relatively clean water at sea level to lower than 32 degrees F it will freeze to solid. Would you consider this proven , or is it up for debate also? Fact is maybe I should say science defines things not proves it , but the freezing point of water to me is already proven.

So would you agree science has defined a few things very clearly?

If you accept it has defined it and it properties well known then maybe it's not proven but all examples have been covered the likeliness of something else going to happen is slim indeed.



ldyluck420

Florence, MA

#5267 Jan 7, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
SO you would rather put my examples as this: science has DISPROVED the fact that people once thought the world was flat and that people once thought we were alone in our universe? I think that this entire argument is just a matter of wording. You are too hung up on the way things are presented. Let us play your Merriam Webster definition game.

Definition of PROVE:

1 to learn or find out by experience
2 to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of
3 to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic)

Nowhere in your definition does it say you must account for future data that may or may not disprove the experiment, theory, etc.

Therefore, science has proven that the world is round.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5268 Jan 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not being dishonest. Yeah, I know what you mean. However this is at the crux of your dispute with Nuggin. Labels. That's why Skippy lost the argument even when he DEMANDED everyone stuck to dictionary definitions. And this is why Nuggin is deconstructing your posts line by line and then you resort to insults.
No you run around in circles , yes pharaoh was a god in an Imperial cult. I do not recognize Imperial cult leaders as gods.
Neither do you , do you want to argue about a year or two?
No magic no supernatural no divinity = no god
solly la bout cha luk because me no speek engrish.
Or tink pha row more bigge than qua chang king chinaman
he no god eve er
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5270 Jan 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never defamed science; I respect science just as I respect faith. I challenge you to provide a quote of my supposed 'defamed science education'.
It's called your support of IDC apologetics in public school science classes.
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with teaching children to question what they are taught; no subject is outside the bounds of critical thought.
Well some of the more right-right wingers might disagree there. I wouldn't. But you were happy to ignore religious apologetics under the excuse of "critical thinking".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5271 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
No bacteria was never unfalsifiable, there were always an indicator
of bacterias presence despite our inability to recognize it as what it was. Decomposition is one , this would lead to botulism in food and we saw this physical aspect in reality. Testing or the ability magnify the microscopic showed us why botulism was caused by bacteria.
Like I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Aura Mytha wrote:
When you talk about gods the idea came to explain storms lightening hurricanes death all manor of events at the time we could not explain. About all of these things need no god to explain cause, but superstition lingers , so that in every place you can hide a god as explanation you will find one.
But the problem is you have run out of places now to show an effect that is caused by a god. In fact about the last one is creation , are you guys creationist? Do you believe in myth?
Ok I know you nor I can rule it out entirely , you stand on extremely thin ice in your attempt to say there could be gods.
While I also cannot rule it out entirely your support of mythology is comical.
And I find your continual requirement of straw-man is comical.
Aura Mytha wrote:
You also weaken the position of science when you say it never proves anything. While that may be true it is also misleading the people who do not really understand the scientific method. The ones who think theory's grow up and become a fact will not benefit from your assertion.
And you don't understand the scientific method. As you've been arguing like someone who thinks theories grow up to be facts.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Also science say's if you lower the temperature of relatively clean water at sea level to lower than 32 degrees F it will freeze to solid. Would you consider this proven , or is it up for debate also? Fact is maybe I should say science defines things not proves it , but the freezing point of water to me is already proven.
Yes, it's up for debate. Change altitude and increase/decrease air pressure and we find that the temps water boils and freezes at are a little different.
Aura Mytha wrote:
So would you agree science has defined a few things very clearly?
If you accept it has defined it and it properties well known then maybe it's not proven but all examples have been covered the likeliness of something else going to happen is slim indeed.
And we've always pointed that out. And that's when you say "Ah, fk it, it's proven."
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5272 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No you run around in circles , yes pharaoh was a god in an Imperial cult. I do not recognize Imperial cult leaders as gods.
Neither do you , do you want to argue about a year or two?
No magic no supernatural no divinity = no god
solly la bout cha luk because me no speek engrish.
Or tink pha row more bigge than qua chang king chinaman
he no god eve er
Whether you personally recognized them is irrelevant. Every proposed god also always had others who did not personally recognize them. I speak English as I pointed out you walked straight into Skippydom. You then choose to walk out with the caveats "slim" or "pretty much proven".

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5273 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No bacteria was never unfalsifiable, there were always an indicator
of bacterias presence despite our inability to recognize it as what it was.
So, what you are saying is that something which we currently don't know exists might exist if we have witnessed some sort of evidence even though we might not know now that it was evidence for what we don't yet know exists.

And this disproves the claim that there could be new information in the future that changes current opinions how...?

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 44 min oneear69 22,419
Can atheists pray? Gretta Vosper on Andrew W.K.... 50 min Patrick 9
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Patrick 227,870
After brutal persecution, Albania 'reopened' to... 1 hr Barbarian 4
Hollywood Actor Reveals What He Thinks Is 'Weir... 1 hr Patrick 141
Our world came from nothing? 3 hr Patrick n Angela 492
Indiana Governor Mike Pence Stands Up to Atheis... 4 hr nOgOd 1
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••