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

“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

Location hidden

#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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5723 Feb 11, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
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.
Consent is not needed from an inert object but is required from human subjects. Animal testing falls in between.

Nuggin has trouble understanding where consent is needed and why. I'll try to help all I can; every citizen must help sociopaths, or die among the mob.

.
Nuggin wrote:
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.
If you believe eating eggs is wrong, it's not because an unborn chicken can not give consent.

I don't believe eating eggs is murder, because chickens aren't human, they can't be murdered. Only humans can be murdered, chickens are slaughtered. Eggs, whole grains, meat and vegetables aren't human beings; cannibalism is wrong. If you ate something you murdered, you'd be a cannibal.

Words have definitions for a reason; some day Nuggin will learn too.

.
Nuggin wrote:
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.
I've never claimed "an experiment which causes harm is retroactively not an experiment", under any circumstances. Those are Nuggin's words, not mine. Some things were done to cause harm and labeled 'experiments'; those aren't science, they are crimes in the guise of science.

.
Nuggin wrote:
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.
Law, ethics, religion and custom often agree; I'd take that opinion over Nuggin's any day!

.
Nuggin wrote:
No, states require an ultrasound because they want an excuse to cram something up a woman's vagina. Nothing more.
^^^Perfect example of Nuggin's depth.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5724 Feb 11, 2013
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
She's thick headed because of her age.
F*ck off you creationist piece of sh*t.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#5725 Feb 11, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>F*ck off you creationist piece of sh*t.
Somebody is not getting laid. Lol!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5726 Feb 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, Nazi human experimentation isn't science because if science is perverted from ethical behavior it becomes pseudoscience. The purpose of the "Nazi experiments" was to kill people, not to improve understanding or test theory.
If the purpose was just to kill people then simply gassing them or shooting them would have been sufficient.

As it is, they conducted scientific experiments on them instead. Just like we do on rats.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5727 Feb 11, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
shut the f*ck up you stupid piece of sh*t.
Or else what? You'll say f*ck sh*t some more?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5728 Feb 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Nuggin doesn't get it; you have a responsibility to help "a person in a coma", not hinder.
Um, unless it happens to be for an abortion procedure to save a rape victim's life. In which case it's don't ask for tax money of charitable Christians and especially not from Brian G, but maybe they could go beg to atheists instead.

So actually it's kinda ironic Brian G attempting to portray Nuggin as someone who felt Nazi experimentation was justified, especially when he made it clear from the get-go that he didn't.

It's gonna be one of them dangerous days for irony meters today methinks...

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5729 Feb 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I never claimed detonating nuclear bombs in the air couldn't be repeated
Your claim was that if it were unethical to repeat an experiment today, then that experiment retroactively wasn't science and therefore did not provide data.

So, since it is not ethical to detonate a nuclear bomb above ground for testing purposes, then we've never done it and have no information about what would happen.
Mosaic law applies to practicing Jews; that isn't ethics, its religious dietary law that doesn't apply to gentiles.
Because one group BELIEVES it applies and the other doesn't BELIEVE it applies.

OPINION.
>The Nazi's, PETA's and Nuggin's view of ethics have one thing in common; they are relative and changeable over time.
ALL ethics are relative and change over time. You have yet to provide a single example of an ethical position which is universally true in all situations for all cultures for all time.

It doesn't exist. It can't exist. Ethics are derived FROM culture, they do not dictate it.
While the Ten Commandments are thousands of years old
And almost none of them are represented in our laws. Our culture does not obey the 10 commandments.
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.
Which is just you admitting that you were wrong and that it's OPINION.

In _YOUR_ opinion, it's okay to kill an animal for food, clothing or scientific study.

In SOMEONE ELSE's opinion, it's NOT okay to kill an animal for food, clothing or scientific study.

Your opinion is based on the fact that you believe that animal life is less important than your comfort.

Their opinion is based on the belief that all life is precious.

OPINION.
Consent isn't the only requirement; mitigating harm is an ethical requirement too.
Determining how much harm is allowable is OPINION.
I've never claimed, "you can do any experiment you want on a rabbit"
I asked why it was okay for you to spray chemicals in a rabbit's eyes. You said because the rabbit can not give consent, therefore you can experiment on it freely and it's not unethical.

IT's not my fault that you can't figure out your own position.
Nuggin doesn't get it; you have a responsibility to help "a person in a coma", not hinder.
No, you don't get it. Your OPINION about what is or is not ethical doesn't stand up to even simple questions that's because it's not based on any sort of reality. It's based on your general FEELING of what you want to be acceptable or not.

That FEELING is your OPINION and it changes over time.

And your OPINION on the ethics of something does not change WHAT THAT THING IS.

You aren't important enough to influence reality, especially not retroactively.

Science is science whether or not you like it.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5730 Feb 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Consent is not needed from an inert object but is required from human subjects. Animal testing falls in between.
You seem to have forgotten your position in this debate. There can be no "in between" if ethics is a REAL set of universal rules which have always existed and will always govern everything in every culture both forward and backward in time.

There should be NO question which is not clearly answerable on the Cosmic Chart of Ethics which is printed on the bottom of every stone.

If you can't answer the question clearly and decisively, then you are admitting that there is gray area. In which case, you've lost the debate. It's OPINION.
Nuggin has trouble understanding where consent is needed and why. I'll try to help all I can; every citizen must help sociopaths, or die among the mob.
Actually, Brian, you are having trouble understanding that your OPINION on consent is different than the OPINION of someone from 500 years ago or from 500 years from now.

Your OPINION is not the governing force in the Universe.
If you believe eating eggs is wrong, it's not because an unborn chicken can not give consent.
I don't believe eating eggs is murder, because chickens aren't human, they can't be murdered.
Therefore we have a difference of __________
I'll give you a hint, it starts with "Opinion" and ends with "You f*@King dipsh1t."
I've never claimed "an experiment which causes harm is retroactively not an experiment", under any circumstances. Those are Nuggin's words, not mine.
Actually, no. that's EXACTLY what you claimed.

This whole debate started because you believe that experiments done in Germany in the 30s and 40s weren't science because you CURRENTLY have a difference of _opinion_ with the scientists at the time who were doing them.

Your ethics do not RETROACTIVELY make an experiment fail to return data.

Just like future people who believe that animal testing is wrong will not RETROACTIVELY undo any scientific research done today on animals.

Ethics are imaginary rules made up by people to justify their actions. They are based entirely on the culture at the time and what someone wants to do.

You have decided that it's ethical to do whatever you damn well please to an animal because that leads to a comfortable life for you.

There's no higher reasoning there.

You don't think a chicken is equal.
Southerners didn't think that blacks were equal.
Nazis didn't think that Jews were equal.

It's all opinion. Nothing more.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#5731 Feb 11, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>I am right, you are wrong.
You don't know much about the sex slave trade, otherwise you might shut your flapping ass up. If you had any sense that is, and we both know you don't, troll.
Jumper The Wise

Owensboro, KY

#5732 Feb 11, 2013
I wonder why the sex slave trade is so popular?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5733 Feb 11, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
...So, since it is not ethical to detonate a nuclear bomb above ground for testing purposes, then we've never done it and have no information about what would happen...
Nuggin, you can have your own opinion but you don't get to have your own facts.

Good bye.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5734 Feb 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Nuggin, you can have your own opinion but you don't get to have your own facts.
Good bye.
And another irony meter goes boom.

Dipsh1t, you are the one trying to argue that your opinion retroactively changes facts.

I'm merely pointing out that your ethics are nothing more than your opinion and that other people in other places at other times have had different sets of ethics.

The _FACT_ that that is the case does not change the actions of those people any more than the _FACT_ that ethics will change in the future will not retroactively cancel any scientific work which is done today.

You are the one who made the outrageous claim and couldn't back it up.

If you want to slink off to lick your wounds, great. Come back when you want another beating, there are several of us ready and willing to help you out.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5735 Feb 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Or else what? You'll say f*ck sh*t some more?(shrug)
Be quiet, Nuggin's left testicle.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5736 Feb 11, 2013
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Somebody is not getting laid. Lol!
I'm sorry to hear that, but you don't seem too displeased, when you want to volunteer other useless information please use another forum, but thanks for being honest for once, creationist.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#5737 Feb 11, 2013
Until November 1962, the vast majority of the U.S. tests were above-ground; after the acceptance of the Partial Test Ban Treaty all testing was regulated underground, in order to prevent the dispersion of nuclear fallout.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#5738 Feb 11, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sorry to hear that, but you don't seem too displeased, when you want to volunteer other useless information please use another forum, but thanks for being honest for once, creationist.
So you agree with my claim about you? Wow! That was easy. No problem, here's what you do. First call Givethemliberty's wife and you'll be set.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5739 Feb 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If the purpose was just to kill people then simply gassing them or shooting them would have been sufficient.
As it is, they conducted scientific experiments on them instead. Just like we do on rats.
especially the Japanese who tested biological substances on thousands of pow's , effectively the first human trials of biological warfare. The Nazis did the same with a few different venues and avenues of discovery. they tried to hide the research some by dumping the paperwork in an old quarry that filled with water, but much of it was recovered. At Nuremberg much of this was open to motions of discovery, and sealed till open by the freedom of information act , years later the public at large was informed of the grisly experimentation performed by those less than admirable Nazi scientists.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5740 Feb 11, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
Until November 1962, the vast majority of the U.S. tests were above-ground; after the acceptance of the Partial Test Ban Treaty all testing was regulated underground, in order to prevent the dispersion of nuclear fallout.
No, no. According to Brian G, since the above ground tests and now unethical, they can not be counted as having been science and any information we gained from them must be forgotten.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 3 min Richardfs 2,393
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min Eagle 12 232,930
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 26 min _Bad Company 157
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 37 min _Bad Company 23,204
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 13 hr Thinking 3
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 23 hr Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... Sun Thinking 3
More from around the web