Anyone watching the History channel's new show about ancient aliens?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gossettc68 on May 9, 2010 at 9:55pm

Thats great Jim, So your saying that you believe in another theory with no solid evidence....You believe in the " Religion of evolution " because that's all it is.

And as a matter of fact...There is more " Evidence " around that we've been put here over evolution...Period. We are talking about ancient cultures 4-6k years old that are doing the same stuff yet thousands of miles apart not even knowing that these seperate groups even exist....it's incredible and there happens to be theories about it

So you are " BLINDLY " following the " Theory " of evolution....You know what this sounds like? Sounds like 2 stupid religious groups fighting over who is right.

Now don't get me wrong...I like the idea of evolution, Hell...I like the idea of ancient aliens. But I sure as hell don't " Believe " in any of it.

The idea of ancient aliens is about as provable as the idea of evolution...At this particular time it is still called " Theory of Evolution"

So you insult people and call people idiots when you yourself happens to be doing the exact same thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nick altman on May 9, 2010 at 10:30pm

You are clearly ignorant of the details and processes described by the theory of evolution and an ignorant fool to make such bold assertions about it. Evolution is just a theory or idea that people believe in? Educated people accept evolution because of the vast abundance of evidence one finds for it beating you over the head with a stick. So much evidence that it is a fact now, a fact of science.

"But is still called a theory, ha-yuk-yuk-yuk"

Yes, a theory that has been challenged and constantly reaffirmed for over 100 years. You have no idea what a scientific theory is, as opposed to a hypothesis or theory in every day english, and you just demonstrated that. It is not the same thing.

From wikipedia:

"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law"

DNA would not work without evolution, genetics, biology, geology, it all is woven together and interconnected in ways that only evolution can offer an insight towards. There are too many correlations and corroborations for it not to be clearly happening.

You are under a serious misconception to think people simply choose to "believe" in evolution and natural selection, do yourself a favor and research it a little bit. Of course, this seems to be tied up into the entire notion you have concocted for your life and what it means to you, so I expect you're going to close your mind, feel attacked, and do nothing but cling defensively to your pre established notions about this special life where everyone gets to have their own special little subjective truths.

There is a mountain of irrefutable evidence now for the theory of evolution, if you got your information from sources outside of hearsay, media and pop culture, you'd realize that.

Permalink Reply by Gossettc68 on May 10, 2010 at 1:01am

Ignorant? I think not.
Closed minded? Your a idiot, read my above post.
Your actually citing information from wikipedia? Here, Let me go make some changes to it...wow

Not once did I discount your precious theory of evolution. Not once did I say I did not agree with it. Unfortunatly we the human species cannot prove ( I sure wish we could ) that we are 100% a product of evolution.

Yes, Evolution has plowed the road with a wide variety of applications. Applications which have lead us to discover and open up a wide variety of the study of different sciences.

Here is the problem chief yuk yuk. It is because of evolution that scientists are exploring outside sources for the discovery of the origins of man.

This is what creationists feed off of, the lack of knowledge. You see, using what we know about evolution there is such a huge distinctive gap between primates and humans that we are still scratching our heads trying to figure out the " missing link ". Since evolution has not completely answered this for us, it would make sense for some to continue to explore other ideas/theories.

Man, I don't think you read my above post...Jim DePaulo announced that he is a athiest, then turned around and said he " believed " in evolution whilst at the same time calling people idiots for even thinking that E.Ts might be involved with the origins of human life...Your calling me closed minded and ignorant?


Soooo...I'll end this with we can agree to disagree...I don't understand what exactly we'll be disagreeing on but I'll leave it at that.

If you must, Challenge my scientific knowledge of evolution, We can discuss a wide variety of topics including but not limited to;

1 Adaptation
2 Co-evolution
3 Co-operation
4 Speciation
5 Extinction
6. Origin of life
7 Common descent
8 Mutation
9 Sex and recombination
10 Population genetics
11 Gene flow

And many others

Permalink Reply by Gossettc68 on May 10, 2010 at 12:23pm

Oh, And seems how you get your information from wikipedia...

The term theoretical ( Wikipedia )

The term theoretical

The term theoretical is sometimes informally used in place of hypothetical to describe a result that is predicted, but has not yet been adequately tested by observation or experiment. A hypothesis is the application of a theory or theories to new conditions which has yet to be tested while a theory is a prediction based on the results of previous observations or experiments. It is not, however, uncommon for a theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed or proven incorrect by experiment. By inference, a prediction proved incorrect by experiment demonstrates the hypothesis is invalid. This either means the theory is incorrect, or the experimental conjecture was wrong and the theory did not predict the hypothesis.

Permalink Reply by nick altman on May 10, 2010 at 3:28pm

The way you pull the old "lol wikipedia" card for your argument just shows the reactionary nature of your reasoning. You're not even sure what your own point is, it's clear, so you've decided to attack the arguer rather than the argument. Of course wikipedia can be altered by anyone, this doesn't do anything for your point. Look at the reason I referenced it, and the info I cited. Is that info wrong? No. It explains exactly why your use of the word theory was misapplied. But you ignore this and then you go and cite the alternative definitions of the word theory, which I already cited and explained the differences. It does not change the fact of why we officially call the idea of evolution the Theory of Evolution. You attacked the semantics, another fallback argument with no actual basis towards the original point. You really have nothing to say beyond I'm right and you're wrong, so I will apoligize for communicating with you and bid you have a fine life.

Also, while I realize attacking someone for misspelling a word is petty, if you're going to call someone an idiot, do your best to spell it correctly, unless you're trying to go for some sense of irony.

Permalink Reply by Gossettc68 on May 11, 2010 at 1:11am

Quote " You really have nothing to say beyond I'm right and you're wrong, so I will apoligize for communicating with you and bid you have a fine life." End quote.

I cannot believe your actually throwing something as petty as a misspelled word in my face...So you can keep your sarcastic "apoligy" for yourself.

At this point your just making statements to cite a argument when my original postings had nothing to do with you nor did it require you to come to the aid of said person in question. Why you did this in the first place, I will never know. I did notice that your attacking my use/understanding of the word " theory " and in the same hand your dodging the nature of a entire wall of text that I spat towards your direction.

Tis okay chief yuk yuk...I will admit that you play the game well and I can tell your a " Experienced " internet tough guy. But to be honest with you I'd rather not argue or fight with you over the definitions of the word " Theory "

It would be much more entertaining to our audience if we discussed and fought over something a bit more tangible....Like maybe the applications that the theory of evolution has pushed us to study like say for example...The study of the " Theories of Ancient Aliens" etc.

Look, I am not saying you are wrong at all. Evolution itself is true, is easily testable, and is also kind of DUH at the end of the day.

Evolution as the source of human life is the area of contest, as well as current life-forms.(because it's impossible to prove since we don't have time machines).

However it's very proven that at the very least at this point in time creatures can and do evolve(fruit flies are the main test subjects).

My argument is not about the theory of evolution, my argument is about the theory of evolution AND the human species.

Permalink Reply by nick altman on May 11, 2010 at 11:26am

"Attacking" your spelling was not what I was doing, I was pointing out the irony and humor in calling someone an idiot and spelling "you're" incorrectly. A bit of ribbing really, which I felt was in good nature. You must admit it was there, just as my use of "apopilize" was further a source of amusement, which it's clear you could not resist pointing out. I think the biggest irony is that you are claiming I am a bully for attacking your spelling, when you were openly insulting me as an idiot in the example I was citing.

As for why I am even getting involved, I saw a person using the word "believe" in regards to the theory of evolution. That was most likely a figure of speech, I doubt he follows the theory "blindly" or out of anything more than an educated assumption. I suppose I make a gamble by speaking for him there. You made a gamble by choosing his wording to attack his point. You then, I assumed, made the statement that everyone who subscribes to the theory of evolution was just choosing to believe it, and you compared it to choosing a religious belief, as if nothing but examining the data would lead one to the conclusion of it's validity. That bothered me, that is why I replied to you.

You seemed also to be pointing out that it is only a theory, as in a hypothesis, precisely because of the wording once again, because theory appears in the name "theory of evolution". Something people who argue against evolution do often. "It's only a theory" I would think someone well versed in the theory understood the fallacy in that position.

I thought it prudent to point out that when scientists use the word theory in that circumstance, it has a higher sort of meaning than mere hypothesis or every day theory. Because there is more than one application for the word. This is often pointed out as well, I make no precedent or split no hairs doing so.

If that was not what you were arguing, then I shall admit to smoking crack, and "apoligize".

I went over the line by calling you an ignorant fool for boldly claiming the scientific community is based on faith alone.
But I think you've more than demonstrated you're not above crossing that line yourself, so this position you take of the innocent being bullied by the hostile is a bit melodramatic.

Permalink Reply by Gossettc68 on May 11, 2010 at 12:33pm

You are 100% correct and I do apologize. I should have been a bit clearer on my initial statements and the context in which I intended to use. And I think at this point we most certainly can agree on that.

I think that both of us can put down the crack pipe for now. And yes I did catch the sarcastic nature of your previous post. Unfortunately it's a bit rough to read someone’s “words “on the internet. Hence why I threw out the experienced internet tough guy statement....mealy just being funny.

Still a bit miffed though as to why an atheist would attack other forum members and call them idiots for exploring outside resources on the subject of human creation, seems slightly hypocritical if you ask me.

Permalink Reply by feralboy12 on April 29, 2010 at 10:44pm

The last person that got Elvis' DNA married Michael Jackson. Be careful what you wish for.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Nicole on April 29, 2010 at 10:46pm

I'd hopefully raise my probe-baby well enough he/she doesn't marry someone embarassing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by feralboy12 on April 29, 2010 at 11:02pm

As for Jesus' DNA, I'm wondering how that works being the son of god and all.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Nicole on April 29, 2010 at 11:11pm

I still can't figure out how immaculate conception could lead to a boy at all. >.X If we assumed it was somehow parthenogenesis, only females could be created.

And hey, if advanced aliens can't access Jesus' DNA, then no one can.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page