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 79)

Showing posts 1,561 - 1,580 of6,103
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Level 2

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1576
Aug 21, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
"Exact same words"? You haven't found anything close to what you claimed he said.
There is a UNIVERSE of difference between "Dr. King's legacy helped me get here today" and "I am the living embodiment of Jesus".
Ding! Thank you! Welcome to the team.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1577
Aug 21, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Now you're dragging us back into the Pharaohs argument.

Pharaohs were gods. You may reject that concept, but the people who worshiped them didn't.

Whether or not someone/something is a god is not up to a popular vote, it's not up to you individually. It's up to the believers in that particular religion.

You don't get to determine the validity of other peoples' religions.

It's fine for you to say that you don't BELIEVE in them, but you can not retroactively strike them from existence. You don't have that power no matter who calls you a god.
Ok.

They were not gods in any sense that I recognize as gods.

You're welcome to your own definitions, but you may find communication difficult, as evidenced here.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1578
Aug 21, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Like an infinite donut, I knew you'd come 'round.
Not too round, though.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1579
Aug 21, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>The problem here is that you looked up "God" not "god".

Try comparing the definitions of "Turkey" and "turkey" and tell me which is more accurate.
Um, I can't find a source that differentiates between capitalized and non capitalized.

Care to offer one?

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1580
Aug 21, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>According to you, they are deluded. According to them, you are deluded.

That's a wash.
No.

They really ARE deluded.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1581
Aug 21, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, and so do I.

Please tell me you aren't going to go off the Skippy deep end and start making statements like "you invented lizards" or "the moon landing never happened".
Care to link to those.

I'd like to see the context.

Not that I don't trust you...

<psssst-that was a lie>

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1582
Aug 21, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Well, lucky for you you are on the right thread. Go back and start at the beginning.
Sorry. I'm not THAT interested.

I'll just assume you're equivocating, since that seems to be your specialty.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Level 1

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1585
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I dunno.
Top Cat's way greater than Felix.
Fritz the Cat had 'em both beat.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1586
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
That is what the term "lesser god" means. Lesser gods are considered subordinate to other gods in the same pantheon. Did you not know that when you called me disrespectful?
I did know that. The impression I was getting from you was this:
"Zeus is a lesser god compared to the Christian God because Zeus didn't make the Universe he just lives in it, while the Christian God made the Universe."

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1587
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok.
They were not gods in any sense that I recognize as gods.
You're welcome to your own definitions, but you may find communication difficult, as evidenced here.
So, let me see if I can sum up your argument here.

"I am an atheist in that I don't believe that what I define as gods actually exist, and for the record my definition of gods is 'things which don't actually exist'."

That's a pretty useless argument.

I'm an "a-texas-ist in that I don't believe that what I define as Texas actually exists, and for the record me definition of Texas is 'a place that doesn't actually exist'."

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1588
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to link to those.
I'd like to see the context.
Not that I don't trust you...
<psssst-that was a lie>
Sorry, I've linked it, given page numbers, given post numbers, etc at least a dozen times.

If you are too lazy to go back and find them, I'm not going to do the work for you.

There are an INFINITE number of potential accounts you could create on this forum. You could spend the next 20 years creating new accounts and demanding that I once again provide the NEW account with the links I already gave.

I'm not interested playing that game.

If you want in on the discussion, educate yourself. If you are unwilling to do so, then sit this one out.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1589
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of lies, how about a link to the things you claim skeptic said.
Speaking of lies, didn't you just post above this one that you weren't interested?

If you want in, do the work. Otherwise, log back onto your normal account Skippy, you aren't fooling anyone.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Level 2

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1590
Aug 21, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I blame anybody for fallacies that they know are fallacies. Even though I am glad to do it, and just did, why would I have to define god for anybody in order to not criticize him or her for telling me what my definition is? Is that what you meant?
<quoted text>
They might not be recognizable as footprints, just designs. The whole shebang could be intelligently designed. Even if so, I don't see any evidence yet for that hypothesis.
I can imagine a creator god that doesn't want to be found. That's really the only rational supernaturalistic hypothesis possible. If a creator god made this world, he went out of his way to appear invisible. He made our chromosomes look like fused ape chromosomes, and carefully seeded our DNA with nested hierarchies of ERVs, right after planting and stratifying all those fossils, and writing that god awful bible.
But you needn't worry about that possibility, because that god is asking you to leave him alone, and I respect that.
So, is there a god? I don't know.
But I do know that if there is one, it doesn't want to be found, that it hasn't been found, that it might exist and never be found, that it has no requirements or commandments for me, and that all religions are false.
This the practical question: do I sleep in on Sundays or tithe to build churches and support priests? Do I obey priests and holy books or not? Do I kneel and pray, or not?
That's easy. And that really is the end of practical theological speculation for me.
Does that sound reasonable?
It does, and it was fun to read, too. I guess my real point is that searching for ideas about gods that one does not worship or believe in just to "prove" atheists "wrong" is a dishonest exercise in semantic trickery, not a real argument. As such, the whole pharaoh argument is bullshit and a ridiculous waste of time and effort. Nuggin just threw it out to make us chase our tails refuting it. In doing that, he proved himself to be an immature waste of bandwidth, and I've ceased even reading his posts and many that respond to him. Life is too short, and there are too many ideas that are actually worth thinking about.

Yours, on the other hand, are always worth reading, well thought out and often clever and funny.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Level 2

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1591
Aug 21, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I like the idea of "agency" (sentience, reason, will, potency) as a defining property. This eliminates the "laws of nature" argument which always seemed disingenuous.
"Creator of the universe" is also an interesting property. "Creator" and "agency" are also the minimums for Deists, if I understand Deism correctly.
"Creator" also would imply that this entity must exist outside of (or beyond) the universe as we know it, which changes the definition of "universe" from "the entire cosmos" to "the entire cosmos, except god", which puts the argument for god in the premise. It also makes the unfounded premise that outside of the universe is a meaningful concept.
You and Nightserf both agree that "supernatural" is a defining property, which itself is an interesting property to consider. Something that exists "supernaturally" would be something that could never be explained by natural processes, mechanics, or causes. Would this deity be the only thing allowed to exist outside of nature, or would there be a larger set of things? If "god" is the only thing allowed, then the word "supernatural" becomes a code word for "god" and the argument again is circular.
One of my points, actually, is that nothing has been shown to exist outside of nature. The supernatural aspect is one of the reasons to disbelieve that any entity, simply with an effort of will, can affect the natural world appreciably.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1592
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NightSerf wrote:
I guess my real point is that searching for ideas about gods that one does not worship or believe in just to "prove" atheists "wrong" is a dishonest exercise in semantic trickery, not a real argument. As such, the whole pharaoh argument is bullshit and a ridiculous waste of time and effort. Nuggin just threw it out to make us chase our tails refuting it.
Once again, you COMPLETELY don't understand the point of the thread.

I don't want YOU to chase your tails. I don't want YOU to try and refute it. I don't give a crap about YOUR point of view on this.

This is an argument with Skippy and his insistence that the rest of us can not provide the "burden of proof" to prove that his statement that it is _IMPOSSIBLE_ for any god to exist.

It was Skippy's 20+ pages of "look it up in the dictionary" that led to the specific definitions and the fact that pharaohs fit those definitions.

It's Skippy's inability to refute that point that carries the debate forward.

It's called accountability. I am holding Skippy accountable to his claims.

Your posts are irrelevant in regards to that.

Next time you want to butt in on a conversation, I suggest you actually read the posts (now 4-5 of them) where the people stop and explain to you specifically the point of the conversation.

Ignoring the topic at hand and then complaining that we refuse to play with you is childish.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1593
Aug 21, 2012
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. It's hard to be much farther off.
Gods are figments of the imagination. Gods are in no sense real.
No gods were ever real entities.
They were real cons that fooled people and took advantage of them. They still try , though a few of us see right through them.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1594
Aug 21, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Does this help us with our god problem, and whether such a creature can, must, or cannot be called natural, supernatural, either or neither?
Well, that is a situation where there is no causal link, yet I could easily say that the other universes exist and are NOT supernatural. Again, it looks like the definition of supernatural is problematic.
Supernatural seems to imply more than would be implied by a word like extranatural. An equal universe might be called extranatural to distinguish it from a higher order existence that is awake and can create universes.
I tend to agree, but I'm not completely clear how to make the distinction. What about a larger multiverse? Is that supernatural, natural, extranatural, hypernatural?
This is very difficult stuff.
You are undoubtedly aware of Penrose's claim for a huge circular scar in the CMB, which he posits may be a remnant of a previous cycle of an eternally banging-crunching. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010...
Yes, although the claim is currently controversial. Let's see what further evidence says.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1595
Aug 21, 2012
 
According to a Viking, Thor was very real.
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The Viking would be deluded.
I'm not convinced that Thor was not actually a real person who's deeds lived in song as inspiration to others who travel the road of life. Though he admittedly took on mythical status as his story was retold.
But the Vikings could have become confused in tales of ancestor worship. Which is very prevalent in their thinking. Thor may well have been a very brave man who's legend lives on in mythical proportions.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1596
Aug 21, 2012
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinion doesn't mean shyte.
Of course it does , as does yours. Though it could be dismissed in a skinny. But surely a response clues us in that it does. As does yours^^

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1597
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't really envision projections as anything other than natural. I'm thinking of the Flatlanders. They're in a natural universe, are they not?
I would tend to think so. But, are *we* supernatural from their perspective? To me, it seems like a misuse of the term.
Our universe is thought to have unseen dimensions, at least at the smallest scale. They would be part of nature to me if they are physically and causally connected to our four dimensions of experience. We would never suspect their existence otherwise, I think. Don't we infer them by examining four dimensional spacetime and its contents? If so, they impact on our reality, and probably don't deserve to be called supernatural.
But part of the difficulty is that the classical notion of supernaturality does allow for interactions with this universe. Again,a huge definitional problem. I would also think of a system that interacts with our universe as being 'natural', but am open to a different definition if one could be found.
Is this just mental masturbation, or are we discussing something more than that?
Well, the concept of a multiverse that has universes such as ours splitting off is pretty common these days. The exact laws of physics for that multiverse (and its existence) are entirely speculative at this point, but there are claims that any quantum theory of gravity has to allow such. Of course, the existence of agents in the larger multiverse (as opposed to other universes) is another step entirely. And having agents that could actively create universes is yet another.

I'm a mathematician. Mental masturbation is my specialty.:)

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,561 - 1,580 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••