Aliens and evolution

Aliens and evolution

There are 6101 comments on the Washington Times story from Jun 19, 2012, titled Aliens and evolution. In it, Washington Times reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5702 Feb 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Ethics is more than opinion, sometimes they are law and often, universal moral code. Murder is wrong, genocide is wrong, using involuntary subject and exposing them to harm is wrong; this isn't opinion, this is fact.
"Wrong" is not an objective term. It's subjective. So are laws, so are moral codes.

As such, the entirety of your argument is invalid.

The Nazis felt that what they were doing to their subjects was ethical.

You feel that what our scientists are doing to lab rats is ethical.

Some future generation may look at what scientists have done with bacteria and be appalled.

That doesn't retroactively change the opinions of the scientists doing the work.

Ethics is opinion.
The experimental design speaks for itself; can the experiment be ethically recreated? If no, the experiment is invalid.
So, the Manhattan Project was not science by your standard.
If the animals are harmed without benefit to humans or to humans and animals; PETA is right about animal testing.
So, the Nazi experiments were fine if the results gave us information which helped other humans.

Great.
It depends on each experiment, how many animals were harmed, what degree of harm and what benefit?
So, there is no "universal moral code" of "right and wrong". It's just a matter of how much you get from harming others.

You aren't even on a slippery slope. You are in free fall.
Nuggin repeatedly describes Nazi experiments; he contends the results from those experiments are valid and valuable; but claims that's not 'advocating'. How does that work?
Well, first - there aren't any Nazi's anymore to do the experiments.
Second - since the results are already in and we use those results, there's no need to recreate the experiments.

In fact, it would have been unethical for us to risk the lives of astronauts by NOT using the data the Nazis collected.
I'm rejecting experiments on involuntary subjects unless the subjects are animals, unable to give consent and the benefits outweigh harm.
And that is your _OPINION_.
A person from PETA would disagree with you and that would be her _OPINION_.
Nuggin advocates unethical science; he rejects consent.
Consent is irrelevant to science.
Carbon does not give consent.
A computer does not give consent.
A beaker does not give consent.
Carbon can not give consent; adult human beings can.
So, doing any experiment you want on a human in a coma would be okay, because they can not give consent.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5703 Feb 10, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not waste your time with nuggin.
He's right. I'll beat your ass as badly as I beat Skippy's here.

Skippy was so upset after I whooped him that he went a created an entire thread in which he made up fake arguments from me just to try and beat them.

And he LOST there too.

Learn from his mistakes.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5704 Feb 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
"Wrong" is not an objective term. It's subjective. So are laws, so are moral codes.
As such, the entirety of your argument is invalid.
The Nazis felt that what they were doing to their subjects was ethical.
You feel that what our scientists are doing to lab rats is ethical.
Some future generation may look at what scientists have done with bacteria and be appalled.
That doesn't retroactively change the opinions of the scientists doing the work.
Ethics is opinion.
Nuggin's Nazi experimenters were convicted by international tribunal; ethics is often far more than opinion, it is often embodied in law.

.
Nuggin wrote:
So, the Manhattan Project was not science by your standard.
I never claimed "the Manhattan Project was not science", those are Nuggin's words, not mine. I have no idea how he dreams up such nonsense.

.
Nuggin wrote:
So, the Nazi experiments were fine if the results gave us information which helped other humans.
Great.
I never claimed the above, either. I noted utilitarian ethics weighs cost and benefit.

.
Nuggin wrote:
So, there is no "universal moral code" of "right and wrong". It's just a matter of how much you get from harming others. You aren't even on a slippery slope. You are in free fall.
There are codes of ethics and law. What is Nuggin trying to claim, total moral ignorance?

.
Nuggin wrote:
Well, first - there aren't any Nazi's anymore to do the experiments.
I'm glad to learn, Nuggin's resigned from the party. Now, that's clear.

.
Nuggin wrote:
Second - since the results are already in and we use those results, there's no need to recreate the experiments.
In fact, it would have been unethical for us to risk the lives of astronauts by NOT using the data the Nazis collected.
While many attribute the success of America's astronautics on Robert Goddard and Wernher Von Braun, Nuggin thanks Nazi experiments on Jews. Go figure.

.
Nuggin wrote:
And that is your _OPINION_. A person from PETA would disagree with you and that would be her _OPINION_.
A person from PETA would disagree with me far less than disagree with Nuggin; I understand animal experimentation causes harm. Nuggin would call that an opinion and justify anything because he has no moral code. This is where we differ.

.
Nuggin wrote:
Consent is irrelevant to science.
Carbon does not give consent.
A computer does not give consent.
A beaker does not give consent.
Consent is essential to ethical science. Children can not give consent, adult, fully informed parents can give consent. Many astronauts have consented to vacuum exposure experiments. Consent is not an opinion.

.
Nuggin wrote:
So, doing any experiment you want on a human in a coma would be okay, because they can not give consent.
No, doing an experiment on a conscious consenting person would be OK, Nuggin gets it wrong again.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5705 Feb 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Nuggin's Nazi experimenters were convicted by international tribunal; ethics is often far more than opinion, it is often embodied in law.
You seem to be very confused. "Law" is also opinion.

It is "illegal" in the US to smoke a plant which grows wildly here. It is "legal" to smoke the same plant in Amsterdam.
I never claimed "the Manhattan Project was not science"
You said that if you can't ethically repeat an experiment (detonating a nuclear bomb in the air above New Mexico, for example) then that experiment wasn't science.
I noted utilitarian ethics weighs cost and benefit.
There are codes of ethics and law. What is Nuggin trying to claim, total moral ignorance?
No, I'm pointing out that citing utilitarianism over, say Mosiac law, is a difference of OPINION about which should be the guiding rules for your ethics.

It's unethical, under Mosaic law, to eat lobster.
It's perfectly acceptable under utilitarianism.

That means both are opinion.
A person from PETA would disagree with me far less than disagree with Nuggin; I understand animal experimentation causes harm. Nuggin would call that an opinion and justify anything because he has no moral code. This is where we differ.
No, we differ in that my point has remained unchanged, where as you can't keep to the same talking point even within one post.

PETA's opinion about what is or is not ethical is OPINION. You can agree with it. You can disagree with it.

The same can be said about the Nazi's opinion about what is or is not ethical.

The same can be said about your opinion about what is or is not ethical.

Changing your opinion about what is or is not ethical does not change the actual events which took place in the past or the outcome of those events.

Your mind does not control reality.
Consent is not an opinion.
It absolutely is. Show me consent which is absent from someone's decision making. Bring me a plate of consent.
No, doing an experiment on a conscious consenting person would be OK, Nuggin gets it wrong again.
Nice flipflop. You said that if the thing can not give consent then consent is not needed.

Therefore you can do any experiment you want on a rabbit, but not on a conscious person.

However, a person in a coma can not give consent. Therefore, by YOUR standard of "ability to give consent", you can do anything you want to them and it will be "ethical".

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5706 Feb 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
... You said that if the thing can not give consent then consent is not needed.
No, I never wrote "the thing can not give consent then consent is not needed", those are Nuggin's words, not mine. An unborn baby can not give consent, therefor abortion is wrong because abortion murders the innocent.

.
Nuggin wrote:
Therefore you can do any experiment you want on a rabbit, but not on a conscious person.
Again, something I've never claimed, animal experiments cause harm too. Better, an experiment that doesn't cause harm, the most ethical.

.
Nuggin wrote:
However, a person in a coma can not give consent. Therefore, by YOUR standard of "ability to give consent", you can do anything you want to them and it will be "ethical".
Not my standard, Nuggin's. All humans deserve the dignity and right to informed consent. This is where we differ.

That's why some states require an ultrasound before an abortion, to keep informed consent. You can't consent if you want to stay ignorant and uninformed.
Jumper The Wise

Owensboro, KY

#5707 Feb 10, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>In attempting to insult someone, you should say more about the insultee, than you do yourself. While that intended barb has completely missed any target, it by way of your choice of using it as weapon, has revealed more of who you are, than perhaps you would have intended. It does tell us where your mind is most at home, and that is imbedded in the rectal cavity of some portly country squire. That is fine for you but please get his permission before plumbing his bowels,
I don't know what all that fancy talk is but I think someone has to stand up to bullies like you on these public forums,or the whole point of free speech is worthless.
And by the way...ignorance isn't something that comes tied up in a neat little bow.It takes effort.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5709 Feb 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I never wrote "the thing can not give consent then consent is not needed", those are Nuggin's words, not mine.
In fact your words were: "Carbon can not give consent; adult human beings can."

You said that it's perfectly okay to do experiments on carbon because carbon can not give consent, therefore consent is not needed.

You said it this morning. Scroll up.
An unborn baby can not give consent, therefor abortion is wrong because abortion murders the innocent.
None of that follows logically from your claim.

An unborn chicken can not give consent, therefore eating eggs is wrong because eating eggs murders the innocent.
>Again, something I've never claimed, animal experiments cause harm too. Better, an experiment that doesn't cause harm, the most ethical.
Your position is that an experiment which causes harm is retroactively not an experiment if people later decide that it was unethical.

It's a dumb position, I agree. But it's yours.
All humans deserve the dignity and right to informed consent. This is where we differ.
That's opinion. That opinion is not shared the world over today. It was not shared 50 years ago. It was not shared 150 years ago.

It's a nice position to take, but don't mistake it for reality.
That's why some states require an ultrasound before an abortion, to keep informed consent. You can't consent if you want to stay ignorant and uninformed.
No, states require an ultrasound because they want an excuse to cram something up a woman's vagina. Nothing more.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#5710 Feb 10, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what all that fancy talk is but I think someone has to stand up to bullies like you on these public forums,or the whole point of free speech is worthless.
And by the way...ignorance isn't something that comes tied up in a neat little bow.It takes effort.
I agree

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#5711 Feb 10, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Enslaved is not owned.
It may not be legal but the ownership becomes pretty clear to all parties involved in the transaction.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5712 Feb 10, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>It may not be legal but the ownership becomes pretty clear to all parties involved in the transaction.
Does this mean I can have my way with you now?

:)>
Jumper The Wise

Owensboro, KY

#5713 Feb 10, 2013
Now...if we seeded life on Mars and we as a race became extinct,than it would follow those life forms would assume they evolved on that planet.

The main sorce of life in the universe must be out there somewhere.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5714 Feb 10, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
Now...if we seeded life on Mars and we as a race became extinct,than it would follow those life forms would assume they evolved on that planet.
The main sorce of life in the universe must be out there somewhere.
Those life forms would have evolved on that planet.

Further, if you can accept that the "main source of life" can arise somewhere, then why can't that be here?

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5715 Feb 10, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what all that fancy talk is but I think someone has to stand up to bullies like you on these public forums,or the whole point of free speech is worthless.
And by the way...ignorance isn't something that comes tied up in a neat little bow.It takes effort.
You came into these atheist threads playing at scenarios, that if were realized would have caused our deaths. Now you may consider me the bully, but I have never in any way expressed any desire for a single one of you religitards to die, from any cause. But I will and I do defend myself and others from attack.

The "fancy talk" that you chose not to decipher said that in bringing up the anal penetration of that fat farmer, merely shows us that your mind is where most religitards minds are, and that is some poor corpulant man's ass. It is truly odd how many of you focus on other men's rectums.

I suppose someone somewhere is pleased that you work so hard to maintain your ignorance, but I am not impressed. What pisses me off most about you, is your voluntary stupidity, but then I personally can't imagine a second of my life without striving to know, to learn, to accomplish .... more.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5716 Feb 10, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>It may not be legal but the ownership becomes pretty clear to all parties involved in the transaction.
He who is bought or sold, just may not choose to consider himself owned. Buying or selling does not always convey ownership.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#5717 Feb 10, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>He who is bought or sold, just may not choose to consider himself owned. Buying or selling does not always convey ownership.
That is what I have been trying to tell Givethemliberty. Just because he bought his wife from Filipino Brides doesn't mean he owned her.
Jumper The Wise

Owensboro, KY

#5718 Feb 10, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>You came into these atheist threads playing at scenarios, that if were realized would have caused our deaths. Now you may consider me the bully, but I have never in any way expressed any desire for a single one of you religitards to die, from any cause. But I will and I do defend myself and others from attack.
The "fancy talk" that you chose not to decipher said that in bringing up the anal penetration of that fat farmer, merely shows us that your mind is where most religitards minds are, and that is some poor corpulant man's ass. It is truly odd how many of you focus on other men's rectums.
I suppose someone somewhere is pleased that you work so hard to maintain your ignorance, but I am not impressed. What pisses me off most about you, is your voluntary stupidity, but then I personally can't imagine a second of my life without striving to know, to learn, to accomplish .... more.
Well I find that dealing with people such as yourself reminds me that life isn't happiness and sunshine.
But that's the whole point of these forums.This fantasy we have created here gives us that release we need to deal with others out there in the real world.
You may be a great person,I can't judge you.
I on the other hand am an azz.
I'll admit that.But YOU won't admit your short comings,and that's sad.

Dictated not read.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#5719 Feb 10, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>He who is bought or sold, just may not choose to consider himself owned. Buying or selling does not always convey ownership.
Damn you are thick headed.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5720 Feb 10, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Damn you are thick headed.
I am right, you are wrong.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#5721 Feb 10, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>I am right, you are wrong.
She's thick headed because of her age.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5722 Feb 11, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
You seem to be very confused. "Law" is also opinion. It is "illegal" in the US to smoke a plant which grows wildly here. It is "legal" to smoke the same plant in Amsterdam.
Follow Nuggin's advice, you might end up kicked out of your hotel and deported from Amsterdam. Marijuana and Hashish are illegal in Amsterdam, but they are tolerated to entice tourists. Many hotels, clubs, bars and coffee shops don't tolerate tobacco smoking either. Some do; in Amsterdam the markets rule, not ethics or laws.

I hope you enjoy your stay and be cool, don't be a fool.

.
Nuggin wrote:
You said that if you can't ethically repeat an experiment (detonating a nuclear bomb in the air above New Mexico, for example) then that experiment wasn't science.
I never claimed detonating nuclear bombs in the air couldn't be repeated; it was many times. Later testing improvement included underground nuclear testing and reconciling computer models.

.
Nuggin wrote:
No, I'm pointing out that citing utilitarianism over, say Mosiac law, is a difference of OPINION about which should be the guiding rules for your ethics.
It's unethical, under Mosaic law, to eat lobster.
It's perfectly acceptable under utilitarianism.
That means both are opinion.
Mosaic law applies to practicing Jews; that isn't ethics, its religious dietary law that doesn't apply to gentiles. Jews don't think you are unethical because you eat lobster, PETA thinks that way.

Mosaic law is fine with Christians eating treif, only observant Conservative and Orthodox Jews are required to follow Mosaic dietary laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treif

.
Nuggin wrote:
No, we differ in that my point has remained unchanged, where as you can't keep to the same talking point even within one post.
PETA's opinion about what is or is not ethical is OPINION. You can agree with it. You can disagree with it.
The same can be said about the Nazi's opinion about what is or is not ethical.
The same can be said about your opinion about what is or is not ethical.
Changing your opinion about what is or is not ethical does not change the actual events which took place in the past or the outcome of those events.
The Nazi's, PETA's and Nuggin's view of ethics have one thing in common; they are relative and changeable over time. While the Ten Commandments are thousands of years old, Nuggin might be fascinated by a story he saw on line and find it more relevant to the ethics issue.

.
Nuggin wrote:
Your mind does not control reality.
Yours does?

.
Nuggin wrote:
It absolutely is. Show me consent which is absent from someone's decision making. Bring me a plate of consent.
Life is precious; consent forms include documentation, recordings and on-line agreements. Here's one: http://www.topix.com/topix/terms

.
Nuggin wrote:
Nice flipflop. You said that if the thing can not give consent then consent is not needed.
When is consent and full disclosure required?

There is a difference between a thing, a living being, a sentient living being and an unconscious human being. There are gradations of unethical, immoral and plain evil behavior, especially in the name of science. Consent isn't the only requirement; mitigating harm is an ethical requirement too.

.
Nuggin wrote:
Therefore you can do any experiment you want on a rabbit, but not on a conscious person.
I've never claimed, "you can do any experiment you want on a rabbit", that's Nuggin's sick hobby, not my words or intent. You should be good to your bunny or it will bite you and I'll tell your parents and the Police.

.
Nuggin wrote:
However, a person in a coma can not give consent. Therefore, by YOUR standard of "ability to give consent", you can do anything you want to them and it will be "ethical".
^^^Nuggin doesn't get it; you have a responsibility to help "a person in a coma", not hinder.

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
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 min Uncle Sam 239,439
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min MikeF 19,075
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Eagle 12 7,482
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 6 hr Thinking 2,218
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 7 hr Insults Are Easier 125
News Richard Dawkins insists he's not an angry athei... 10 hr Thinking 2
John 3:16 10 hr Thinking 2
More from around the web