Aliens and evolution

Aliens and evolution

There are 6309 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.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1780 Aug 23, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got the solar system and the galaxy confused. The search for life. past or present, on the planets and moons of our solar system, is unrelated to the search for intelligent, technologically savvy civilizations orbiting distant stars. SETI and the Drake equation refer to the latter.
Sending probes to local moons and planets is a very different search than scanning the skies for intelligent broadcasts. Probes do chemical assays searching for signs of microbial life. There may be something as complex as a fish swimming in the oceans under the ice of Jupiter's moon Europa, but nobody is scanning the skies looking for its electronic messages.
No, I don't. Everything I mentioned about the local search also applies to the interstellar one. We were talking about the "likelihood" of finding intelligent life not about how far away it might be.

The Drake equation is about establishing odds of finding life, of which there are none until another example, besides ourselves, is found. It's not like we'll ever leave this solar system anyway.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#1781 Aug 23, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>No, I don't. Everything I mentioned about the local search also applies to the interstellar one. We were talking about the "likelihood" of finding intelligent life not about how far away it might be.
The Drake equation is about establishing odds of finding life, of which there are none until another example, besides ourselves, is found. It's not like we'll ever leave this solar system anyway.
At least not based on our current understanding of physics.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#1782 Aug 23, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
With the exception of things which are by definition contradictions, everything must be considered possible.
So, example:
It's impossible for a sphere to be a cube.
I don't want a geometry argument! The definition of a sphere and the definition of a cube are both very specific and contradictory.
If something is a sphere is has properties which can not be present in a cube and vice versa.
But in the case of ambiguous definitions like "god" or "intelligent life", there's nothing specifically contradicting these things.
We can't reasonably say, "The definition of a god is something which does not exist, therefore it's impossible for a god to exist because it violates the definition."
You can ascribe whatever criteria you want to the term "god", but until you find criteria which specifically contradicts "existence", then existence is _possible_.
Unlikely? Yes. EXTREMELY unlikely? Yes. Vanishingly small possibility? Yes. Impossible - no.
Do you have a pig farmer in your family?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#1783 Aug 23, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, actually, both Skippy and Aero are making that exact argument. You aren't, that's fine. They are.
<quoted text>
If by "paraphrase" you mean completely reverse, then yes.
I didn't say it had to have specific criteria to be possible. I said it had to have specific criteria to be IMPOSSIBLE.
Is it impossible for a person to be blue? Well, not if we haven't assigned specific criteria to the word "blue". Therefore the statement "A person can be blue" is possible until you find criteria which is much more specific.
A person could be blue in tint. A person could be emotionally blue. A person could live in a "blue state".
If you want something to be _IMPOSSIBLE_ you have to be VERY specific.
<quoted text>
And since that can never happen, it's a pointless exercise. You can define "god" in terms with which only you agree. The next person defines it in terms which which only they agree. Neither of you is right or wrong because the term "god" is WIDELY APPLICABLE to thousands of different people/places/thing both real and imaginary.
So long as any ONE of those things is possible, then the statement "It is possible for a god to exist" is valid.
Then, according to your claim, you must be a theist.

After all, you do believe that the Pharaohs were gods don't you?

You definitely cannot claim agnosticism nor atheism based on your position.

You see, once you accept the widest, vaguest possible definition then you have effectively shut down any reasoned discussion concerning "gods."

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#1784 Aug 23, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Is it impossible for a person to be blue? Well, not if we haven't assigned specific criteria to the word "blue". Therefore the statement "A person can be blue" is possible until you find criteria which is much more specific.
A person could be blue in tint. A person could be emotionally blue. A person could live in a "blue state".
If you want something to be _IMPOSSIBLE_ you have to be VERY specific.
....
Actually your examples here assume certain definitions for the word "blue" such that determinations can be made.

HOWEVER, until you define the word "X", then YES, it is impossible for a person to be "X".

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#1785 Aug 23, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.

Since my definition of god can be found here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/

It is, by definition, NOT unique.

To aid you, I've provided you with a link the definition of the word "unique" as well.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uni...

If you need help, ask a grown up.
Ok. I'll cede the unique part.

You have an uncommon definition of god, even according to your link. Notice that YOUR chosen definition is third and fourth of four.

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation:\ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

And in ALL of my life, I have not once heard anybody use either of those definitions.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1786 Aug 23, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a pig farmer in your family?
No but a few generations back a family member sold a farm to someone who later raised pigs. Does that help?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#1787 Aug 23, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>So, when asked "Is Bruce Wayne Batman?" Your response is neither of those things exist.

You must be an awful fun date to the movies.

"Hey! This is BS! That's Christian Bale! Why does everyone keep calling him Bruce?! His name is Christian not Bruce! This documentary sucks!"

And you worry about my ability to function in society. LOL
I'm able to separate fantasy from reality.

That's a property of mental health.

The inability to separate fantasy from reality is a sign of mental illness.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#1788 Aug 23, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Care to try and disprove my point? Oh, right, 80 pages in and you've never been able to disprove a single one of my points. Why state now?

Are you HONESTLY telling me that you don't think that people can recognize a fictional character as having a profession.

This is the basis of every movie, TV show, book, campfire story, epic poem, etc.
So I guess next time I'm sick and can't figure out what I've got I should call House.

Would I have to pay him Actors' Guild rates or doctor rates?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1789 Aug 23, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
After all, you do believe that the Pharaohs were gods don't you?
Belief is acceptance in the absence of evidence. I don't "believe" Pharaohs were gods. That's their profession. I don't "believe" that the guy across the street is a fireman, he just is one.
You definitely cannot claim agnosticism nor atheism based on your position.
I don't think anyone should claim true atheism. At best you can say that you don't believe in supernatural powers, or that these gods had capabilities which can not currently be explained through science.

Agnosticism could be claimed if someone didn't know that other religions exist and that they had other gods.
You see, once you accept the widest, vaguest possible definition then you have effectively shut down any reasoned discussion concerning "gods."
"shutting down" reasoned discussion would imply that Skippy started from a point of reasoned discussion and that the conversation has been downgraded from there.

Not the case.

Skippy has yet to achieve anything close to discussion, let alone a level one could deem "reasoned".

We are still at the "If I say something is impossible, it's impossible!" stage with him and can proceed no further.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#1790 Aug 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Boom.
Another irony meter bites the dust.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#1791 Aug 23, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
<quoted text>Do you have a pig farmer in your family?
Nubbin's real name is Fountain.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1792 Aug 23, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually your examples here assume certain definitions for the word "blue" such that determinations can be made.
HOWEVER, until you define the word "X", then YES, it is impossible for a person to be "X".
"X" is not a word in this case. "X" is a variable meant to stand in for any number of various titles, any one of which could be used in the place of X.

I felt that the use of "X" would save time and energy rather than writing out every single possible sentence one after the other.

As for certain definitions of blue, yes, THAT is my point!

You can not determine that something is _IMPOSSIBLE_ unless you get MUCH more specific.

If you accept MULTIPLE definitions for the word "blue", then statements which use the word "blue" are going to inevitably be possible because of all the varied meanings.

Skippy made a broad statement about the word "god", then demanded that we use the dictionary and "look it up". I did.

50 pages later, the conversation has not and can not progress forward. The definition still stands until someone can find a higher source with a better definition than the dictionary.

So far, all people have done is offer their personal opinions about their personal beliefs in gods and the value of other cultures. None of that comes close to being a definition. It's at best opinion, at worst racism.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1793 Aug 23, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. I'll cede the unique part.
You have an uncommon definition of god, even according to your link. Notice that YOUR chosen definition is third and fourth of four.
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation:\ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
And in ALL of my life, I have not once heard anybody use either of those definitions.
Actually, had you bothered to go back and read the thread...

Oh, wait, you know what. I've told you this already. Multiple times.

Go back and read the thread.

Stop being lazy. Stop repeatedly asking questions which have already been answered MULTIPLE times.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#1794 Aug 23, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>No but a few generations back a family member sold a farm to someone who later raised pigs. Does that help?
Was the last name Crick or King?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1795 Aug 23, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm able to separate fantasy from reality.
I don't think you are.

You seem to have a very real problem with the point that Pharaohs ACTUALLY existed. They weren't a fantasy. They were very real. We even have the bodies of several of them on display in various museums.

Real people who really existed in reality.

How does that square with your fantasy?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1796 Aug 23, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
So I guess next time I'm sick and can't figure out what I've got I should call House.
Well, given that House died in the last episode, even in your delusional state, he wouldn't be able to answer the phone.

But more importantly, you are saying that House isn't real _AND_ therefore neither are doctors.

That's CRAZY.

Just because there is a FICTIONAL doctor named "House" doesn't mean that the REAL WORLD doctor named "Dr. Smith" doesn't ACTUALLY exist or ISN'T a real doctor.

Dr. Smith is a real person who has a real profession which is called "doctor". Therefore he is a doctor.

Doctors are real.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1797 Aug 23, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Was the last name Crick or King?
They were Menanites, I doubt either name was correct.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#1798 Aug 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The term 'god' is not a social position like 'president' or 'mayor'. It implies that certain powers exist that the Pharaohs did not have. So, in spite of the beliefs of their followers, they were not gods. Yes, millions of people were wrong. It happens.
But they did exhibit a leadership of gargantuan quality of the ancient Egyptian
people to motivate the construction of mega structures that baffle engineers even thousands of years later. I do not personally give them god status , but give them something , this something being
stupendous charisma and a demigod status . Human but what type human? Extraordinary humans to be exact.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1799 Aug 23, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Another irony meter bites the dust.
And how was his description of Skip inaccurate?

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
Good arguments against Christianity 7 min Richardfs 128
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 55 min Richardfs 16,532
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Chimney1 40,886
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Richardfs 5,606
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr IB DaMann 256,135
News Atheism Destroyed with One Scientific Question 6 hr ATHEOI 16
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 9 hr ChristineM 282
More from around the web