Aliens and evolution

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup.
Them ET's are sneaky lil bastards! Leave it up to them to develop "camera inhibitors".

Bigfoot and aliens both have anti photonic stealth inducer capes , they got them from gawd. The elves make them and hobbits wear them too , that's why you cant see them. Invisible cloaks are a hot item
at intergalactic flea markets. Erich von Daniken will sell you one though if you ask him.

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
SWOOSH!
Good one, Nuggin!

See, you show up late, read the first post and totally get it right off the bat.

Meanwhile, nearly a week later, "Skeptic" is still trying to convince me that man never landed on the Moon.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
GET TO THE CHOPPAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Weren't those Vic Morrow's last words?

Amused wrote:

<quoted text>
Weren't those Vic Morrow's last words?

Ouch. Vic Morrow jokes.........

How do we know Vic Morrow had dandruff?
He left his head and shoulders in the bushes.

Vic Morrow. May he rest in pieces.

Vic Morrow. Lost his mind at the end.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Speak for yourself, I was talking about Skeptic. While you might not be, Skippy *is* a fundamentalist atheist.
Ironic, I know.

Are you him? Then you have no idea, and as it stands, guess what, you have no idea.

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Theists don't have to lie either. But its ALL they do.

Hi,Skeptic.

Reason Personified wrote:

<quoted text>LOL! You do underestimate me!
B!tchy? No, that isn't in my range of possibilities. It is also a word, I do not even use, nor approve of.
Luckily you are not my child, you would get your mouth washed out with soap.
And yeah, I am that old fashioned.

old fashioned?Perhaps,puritanical.

Hedonist wrote:

Have you ever noticed that the incident of UFO sightings is inversely proportional to the availability of camera phones?

I think the master god of the ufos put alien camera phones on the earth to deceive us into thinking that there aren't any ufo's and that's why we can't photograph ufos with camera phones...

......who's with me...?

Reason Personified wrote:

<quoted text>Are you him? Then you have no idea, and as it stands, guess what, you have no idea.

Oh, but Skippy speaks for himself. Which is why we do have a pretty good idea. Just ask Mike, Nuggin and Chimney. Skip's daft.(shrug)

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the master god of the ufos put alien camera phones on the earth to deceive us into thinking that there aren't any ufo's and that's why we can't photograph ufos with camera phones...
......who's with me...?

Speaking of which, this review of NatGeo's new UFO show is pretty funny:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showt...

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Speak for yourself, I was talking about Skeptic. While you might not be, Skippy *is* a fundamentalist atheist.
Ironic, I know.

How many fundies do you know call themselves idiots in their own sigs?

In your band of sad agnostic atheists who attempt to represent atheism, could at any moment flip out and believe in one of those cults. And then you'll be writing interviews and blogs about how you found the light and how atheists drove you away from god.

You sit on the fence in order to feel superior to a debate you haven't fully explored...you call agnosticism a belief when its a actually a transitory state...

It's not fundamentalist to request physical evidence.

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
See, you show up late, read the first post and totally get it right off the bat.
Meanwhile, nearly a week later, "Skeptic" is still trying to convince me that man never landed on the Moon.

It's sad that you feel the need to invent and spread bullsh*t about me.

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
How many fundies do you know call themselves idiots in their own sigs?

Oh I'm sorry, was your sig important?

-Skeptic- wrote:

In your band of sad agnostic atheists who attempt to represent atheism,

Uh, hold on thar Skippy. I couldn't care less about atheism. Never have. I've never argued for it, not interested in representing it. It's not a requirement for dismantling fundie claims using science.

But then, that's the point, isn't it? You're here to promote atheism by bashing theism. Whereas others are here to counter creationist claims from fundies with science. A subtle, but distinct difference.

-Skeptic- wrote:

could at any moment flip out and believe in one of those cults.

Why yes, we could.

But ONLY if objective verifiable scientific evidence were presented.

You on the other hand have already decided that it definitely does not exist.

-Skeptic- wrote:

And then you'll be writing interviews and blogs about how you found the light and how atheists drove you away from god.

Then obviously you don't know us very well.

Of course as an evil atheist Darwinist evolutionist I could also say that you're Godless Jesus-hating Satan worshipping gayhomo liberal socialist Commie Nazi who eats babies and will probably kill us all at any moment just like Stalin.

But that would be a big fat straw-man too.

-Skeptic- wrote:

You sit on the fence in order to feel superior to a debate you haven't fully explored...you call agnosticism a belief when its a actually a transitory state...

If that's the case then I'm quite happy sitting in a 'transitory state'. But again, with you it's atheism, agnosticism and theism. My arguments don't require any of these because they are unnecessary to a scientific debate. Therefore I am only ever led to those subjects by others.

But the fact is that by definition science IS agnostic, as it requires falsifiability. It is perfectly open to the possibility of Gods, fairies, leprechauns, wizards, witches, whatever one cares to throw at it. Its only requirement is that any proposal be amenable to the scientific method.

-Skeptic- wrote:

It's not fundamentalist to request physical evidence.

But it IS fundamentalist to make a POSITIVE statement without performing a single scientific test. In 1500 AD bacteria are non-existent, according to "Skippy's scientific method". Since a lack of evidence was all that was needed to positively claim the non-existence of (whatever).

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
It's sad that you feel the need to invent and spread bullsh*t about me.

Of course you can decide you're always right and never wrong from the get go, faithfully following the "Skippy scientific method" like a good little fundie.

Whereas the skeptics among us could go back and read through a mere 6 pages and find out where you messed up.

-Skeptic- wrote:

It's not fundamentalist to request physical evidence.

You deny the moon landing, you don't get to complain about evidence.

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
It's sad that you feel the need to invent and spread bullsh*t about me.

No "invention". You claimed that I was making up the fact that we landed on the moon to somehow make myself sound more impressive.

Your post is still there.

If you would now like to admit that you were wrong to ever question me, then I'll gladly stop pointing out that you are a moon landing denialist.

Somehow I doubt that will happen.

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
No "invention". You claimed that I was making up the fact that we landed on the moon to somehow make myself sound more impressive.
Your post is still there.
If you would now like to admit that you were wrong to ever question me, then I'll gladly stop pointing out that you are a moon landing denialist.
Somehow I doubt that will happen.

I think he just like to argue, like Poly and humble bee. LoL

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
I think he just like to argue, like Poly and humble bee. LoL

Skeptic? Probably. But nobody's worse than Arrogant Brother. He probably argues with fence posts during power failures.

Poly, on the other hand, can't tolerate willful ignorance. An admirable trait. And he's always will to explain almost anything to anyone. Also admirable.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
But in scientific discussions, words that have scientific definitions should be used appropriately.
<quoted text>
They tend to deny things when people aren't using terminology correctly or following the scientific method.
<quoted text>
Since nothing can be demonstrated except that someone saw something which was "Unidentified" (that's what the U stands for in UFO) there is nothing to deny. Eyewitness reports are unreliable, radar blips can be caused by a flock of birds, stories can often be exagerrated by idiots wanting attention or superstitious people who simply saw a funky light and assumed it was a visit from the lizard-men of Rigel XII here to conduct breeding experiments between humans, aliens and various farmyard animals.
If we are to simply take people at their word as you do, EVERY story becomes just as valid, including all those about ghosts, fairies, leprechauns, vampires, werewolves, zombies, hidden government microchips in your cheerios, the Mighty Zeus or Quetzelcoatl. In the meantime, I'll wait for undisputable *objective* scientific evidence of intelligent extra-terrestrials visiting the Terran Solar system. Until then, I'm with Eric Idle.

I completely disagree with you. There should never come a point when every story is seen as equally valid. Nevertheless, people are denying these things on an almost scary level; I understand that eyewitnesses can be considered unreliable under certain conditions, but not all. The eyewitness reports of pilots, military personnel and police tend to be very reliable indeed.

I'm not saying the scientific community should take anyone at face value. That's not scientific. But it's not scientific to avoid investigation, either. I don't know what problem they have with radar readings or implants removed from human bodies, but there comes a time when a portion of reality is being denied unjustly. Governments don't generally threaten their citizens without good reason.

One of the biggest problems in this debate is the fact that so many hoaxers have gotten away with so much over the years. They've ruined everything. Now people who really should be taken seriously are afraid to even mention what they've seen. Well, I am a perfectly rational person. I suffer from no delusions. I know what I saw.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh I'm sorry, was your sig important?

*Sigh* here we go again…

<quoted text>

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh, hold on thar Skippy. I couldn't care less about atheism. Never have. I've never argued for it, not interested in representing it.

Which is why you misrepresent it when you attempt to argue with theists. By not understanding atheism, you;re not doing atheism any favours. But I don't expect you to understand, you're content feeling superior as an agnostic (the typical "who cares about the details anyway" attitude)

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
But then, that's the point, isn't it? You're here to promote atheism by bashing theism. Whereas others are here to counter creationist claims from fundies with science. A subtle, but distinct difference.

See, this is exactly what I mean by misrepresentation. When you see someone asking for evidence, you see that as bashing theism. Once again, it's because you are a lazy thinker and don;t understand atheism.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Why yes, we could.
But ONLY if objective verifiable scientific evidence were presented.
You on the other hand have already decided that it definitely does not exist.

If it exists you need to present it. Until then, it doesn't exist. That's not the reason why it doesn't exist however. The reason it doesn't exist is that things with physically impossible characteristics can be proven to not exist in our physical world.

Again, these are two points which you probably won't understand, but you'll attempt to hide this fact by dishonestly brushing it away as you have done before.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Then obviously you don't know us very well.
Of course as an evil atheist Darwinist evolutionist I could also say that you're Godless Jesus-hating Satan worshipping gayhomo liberal socialist Commie Nazi who eats babies and will probably kill us all at any moment just like Stalin.
But that would be a big fat straw-man too.

It's not a fat straw man, its a complete baseless lie. And the fact that you think you can say that is another reason why I say you don't fully understand atheism and so have no business representing it here.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
If that's the case then I'm quite happy sitting in a 'transitory state'. But again, with you it's atheism, agnosticism and theism. My arguments don't require any of these because they are unnecessary to a scientific debate. Therefore I am only ever led to those subjects by others.

What you fail to realise is that most scientists are atheists because they've done the study. You are content with not studying, merely refuting unscientific arguments (which happen to be ALL OF THEM)

Why? Because science describes physical reality at the end of the day, so an argument for science is an argument for atheism, an evidence - based view of physical reality.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
But the fact is that by definition science IS agnostic, as it requires falsifiability. It is perfectly open to the possibility of Gods, fairies, leprechauns, wizards, witches, whatever one cares to throw at it. Its only requirement is that any proposal be amenable to the scientific method.

The funny thing is that I challenged both you an Chimney to present me with something that is both (a) real and (b) falsfiable, but you quickly turned your tail and ran away!

Nice one.