Do you accept the theory of evolution?

Do you accept the theory of evolution?

  • Yes (Post your reasons below)

  • No (Post your reasons below)

  • Not sure

  • Yes (Post your reasons below)

  • No (Post your reasons below)

  • Not sure


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Second, most atheists present God with a challenge out of arrogance. "Show me some tricks and I'll believe in you". God doesn't need anyone's belief. And if you were the all-powerful creator of the universe, would you humble yourself to some insignificant weasel demanding you placate them?

Seems to me, the Bible is infused with injunctions, by god, to believe and worship him. For example, the first couple of commandments appear to demand those very things.

And the term “tricks” rather mocks the entirely reasonable request for proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – that’s not a radical concept. If someone encouraged you sell off your possessions because the world is about to end, it would be prudent of you to ask for a “few tricks” first (just in case a delusion - or fraud - is involved :cwink:).
 
Assume, right? Thanks.

Because we don't know whether aliens (I'm talking about greys and similar species that have reportedly visited Earth and not aliens in general) even exist or not, secondly they are reported to do feats that completely break laws of science. However that's not considered supernatural, its "science"? Really? Even though you've never seen them and they do things that (as far as we know) can't be done in the physical universe (although theoretical physicist can feel free to speculate).

So why are aliens not considered supernatural? Assumptions aside. And how are you not a religious person (by your standards) if someone believes in something that they haven't seen and reportedly does things that can't/haven't been explained by science?

Because, aliens (unless we delve into the religious kind), don't use magic. They presumably use science. Science we don't entirely comprehend yet. But that's still different from magic.

Our current scientific understanding of the universe allows for aliens to exist. And it's not a stretch to think that there may be species out there more advanced than us. We have foresight. That is not the same as gods, and ghosts, who have no (known) scientific basis.

I you read the good UFO reports (the ones with credible witnesses, radar data, etc) you can see that there are things operating in our airspace, that we did not build, doing things we can't (or couldn't, in older cases). Once you come to that reality, there are only a limited number of explanations. Or to quote Doyle, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth. Hence, the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

But in that case no. We can theorize with science, what we're dealing with. You can't do that with supernatural things like ghosts, and gods.
 
If you cannot measure it you do not have proof.

There are ways of measuring that have nothing to do with facts and figures.

What does your brain do as it functions? It makes ideas!

Not some people's brains :cwink:

It also keeps our bodies working. Heart pumping, blood flowing. God winds us up and sets us running.

God, as creator, created all conditions. In a world in which evil can be committed, he must have made the conditions for evil to be committed.

But we chose to do evil. A man may manufacture a gun, put I chose to shoot someone.

The children were not evil, they were insolent, like most children:

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up, baldhead,” they shouted, “go up, baldhead!” 24 The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces.


And I got the story wrong, it was 2 bears, 42 children, not 2 children, 42 pieces.

Honestly I think the story was more parable. But the children were of a culture that was ultimately destructive. Perhaps God, knowing their futures saw them growing to be tormentors and murderers. Kinda like the way people ask what you'd do if you found Hitler as a child.

However, I don't make use of stories like this, just as I'd mentioned about not subscribing to the story of Job. I understand it's perceived value (Faith in God even in crisis) but it also devalues the lives of Job's family, which I don't believe God would do.

Again, it's all about choice. If I found Hitler as a child I'd remove him from the environment in which he developed his destructive ideology.


:woot:

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. We can do this all day.

It makes perfect sense, you refuse to understand it.

Kind of like you with belief in God?

Other way around. Life began in water.

Then why can't all creatures survive underwater- and on land?

extinction occurs over the course of a 2-5 generations. Adaptation takes longer (the adaptation of regressing elephant tusks has taken around 7-10, I believe) and speciation takes several hundred.

Exactly- so all species should be dead before adaptation occurs. Only via the design of an intelligent mind could the species be able to thrive in their natural environments.

I said that in a general sense. By "you" I just meant a human, so if no humans breed, they go extinct.

I have bred. I'm saying that breeding isn't our primary function. It's an important, but not our primary one. Hell, over-breeding is leading to our destruction. Along with damaging the environment and not doing enough to share resources.

Religion is defined as the belief in a greater or supernatural power. You believe in a monotheistic God. You have a religion, just not a defined one.

No it isn't. Religion is ritual and sometimes it revolves around worship of a god, sometimes not. And God is not supernatural. He created nature. Science is obviously your religion. I believe in God. I don't engage in rituals.

Just FYI, the reason why I breathe is to stay alive. And my heart continues to beat because I have neither a worn out coronary muscle, neither a faulty SAN.

As I'd said above, God created the conditions for you to be able to breathe and for your heart to beat.

Moments later you say "More theories. Not proof." Because you do not understand what the word theory means.

A theory is a guess. Hopefully an educated guess, but a guess. I've seen the back-and-forth in this thread about what a theory is, and it's still a guess. It sure as hell isn't proven fact. Then it would be a proven fact.

You can't answer any questions I ask.

I can, you just can't grasp the answers. You clearly don't want to.

It doesn't matter, something quantifiable evidence is objective, so the results will be the same for everyone. What equipment did you use? A voltmeter? Ammeter? Telescope, if so where? I'd very much like to see this quantifiable evidence.



Unless of course, you're lying.

Like I'd need to lie to you...

My mother and father created me personally.

God got the ball rolling and we took it up from there.

I can't speak for everyone, but France is the agricultural powerhouse in Europe.

And he created Europe, among other things.

I usually go to my doctor, not priest, if I'm honest.

I don't go to priests either. I go to God.

Since, you're so obsessed with your needing a "why", why did God create us?

Obviously because he has a sense of humor.

No, you don't have to accept either. But instead, what you have done, is taken from one theory (evolution) and one hypothesis (magic) and tried to mesh them together.

God's power isn't anymore magical than your vacuum particles that appear from nothing. Actual the particles are more about magic.

There is no after. What part of that do you no understand?

There is always an after. Today came after yesterday, tomorrow comes after today. After the Earth comes space. If you're saying there's a point at which space ends something has to come after.


Well, you're wrong with that. Here's why:

If the universe is infinite, it must have an infinite number of stars. Therefore, everywhere you look in any direction, you would see a star, so the night sky would be just as bright as daylight.

Are you sure you're not just making this up as you go? No, there does not have to be an infinite number of stars for the universe to be infinite. It's like saying the every body of water has to have fish to cover every cubic foot.

At the same time, there may indeed be an infinite number of stars. Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. There are light conditions that render objects invisible to the naked eye.

The Laws of Thermodynamics. With a universe of infinite age, it would either be at the minimum temperature of -273°C or at the Absolute Hot temperature (which escapes me).

Says you :woot:

Quasars and radio galaxies are only found a long way away in the distant past. In an infinite, steady state universe, they'd be found everywhere.

I'm not saying the universe is "steady state". Galaxies, solar systems die and are created. So in areas where they are not found, they may have been destroyed or have yet to be born.

The universe is accelerating outwards in all directions. If the universe is infinite, infinite expansion would have already taken place and there would be no existence at all.

Clearly we have a miscommunication. You are saying the universe is the objects. I'm saying the universe includes the space the objects are expanding into. I'm also saying that the universe is infinite in that there was never a pont at which something didn't exist. Things may die, but there always has and always will be something existing. Even if it's just God.

The Cosmic Microwave Background is the first piece of light detectable in the universe, with only darkness before it. In an infinite universe, this would not be possible.

And the Lord said "Let there be light". That means at one point, there wasn't any.

There is no before.Why can you not understand that? The word before, relies on cause and effect, cause and effect relies on time. With no time, there is no cause and effect, with no cause and effect, there is no before.

Time exists in a realm where nothing is happening, no cause or effect. As others of your belief system have said in this thread, there cannot have been a point when nothing existed.

I don't mean to shock you here. But I'm not one of the smartest people on the planet. So working on the Big Bang model is not my job. All I know, is that it is referred to as a singularity.

So you accept it on faith. Now we're getting somewhere.

But it wasn't nothing. It was everything, everywhere and everywhen, squashed into a single point that is infinitely small.

But according to you, the universe is finite- so nothing can be infinitely small. And YOU SAID it came from nothing- not something infinitely small. So you're changing your story, now?

Wait, wait wait. It took time, to build time, but not the time that the universe exists on, which is still finite, but on an omniversal time? So, you are now putting forward the many worlds theory?

:D This is fun. It will get us nowhere, but you are a funny guy.

People don't study science because it is easy, they do it because it is correct.

Same reason for belief in God.

There is proof of former, none for the latter.

There's enough proof for me.

Most stellar black holes are formed from type 1A supernovae. I'd say this one was too, because it is hypothetical.

Hypothetical- and thus, according to you, magical.

See, now you're getting it. When trying to describe the universe, it's really. Freakin'. Hard

So is explaining God. But within our hearts, he makes it pretty easy.

The surface of a black hole the event horizon is two dimensional. The actual physical form of the black hole, the singularity has no dimensions.

"Let there be light..." Which one makes less sense? ;)

Nope, it's called a hypothesis. If it is shown to be wrong, it's thrown away. That's what science does.

So you can come up with endless hypotheses and just keep throwing them away. But belief in God has to make it plain immediately? So, if theoretical physics and evolution don't explain everything in your lifetime, it's cool if you die not knowing the answers. But unless God displays every answer in front of you, then he must not exist. Right?

Again, what you're doing is profoundly misunderstanding words. Evolution only applies to biology, being a biological scientific theory. The formation of the earth is to do with physics.

But biology must exist outside of the realm of Earth, correct? So while physics was at work, so too must biology, and thus evolution must have been at work as well.

Oh, you have photographic evidence of God? Where can we go to take our picture with him.

Now you're you're just joshin' me.

Oh, so you were lying earlier when you said you had proof.

Why would I lie to you? I gain nothing from you believing me. I have proof. You just don't understand it.

But God is perfect. God, by his description in the Torah, Bible and Qur'an. So he doen't care if anyone dies because he already has a perfect existence.

And in his perfection, he loves us and wants us to be happy. He just knows that we have to work to be truly happy. If it's merely given to us, as with Adam and Eve, we won't appreciate it.

Again, no proof, but I'll ask you these questions, please answer them in the Atheism thread:

What was you're spirit doing in 1243 BC?
Is your spirit everything you are now?
How do you prevent boredom from taking hold with a mind designed only for finite experiences?

Will do.

It gives the entirety of the story it is trying to tell. Do you berate book of Ezekiel for not telling of how God made light?

No. But you do.

No, instead you have to believe the words of book that is heavily plagiarised of other myths has little historical accuracy and that everything was made by magic in six days six thousand years ago by an overlord who is neither seen nor heard in modern times. Much better.

I've said repeatedly that I don't believe or follow everything in the bible. So you've got that wrong. Since God's power is nature itself, he didn't create anything magically. So you're off on that too. Maybe, just as you assert the 2 dimensions and no dimensions of black holes- a day for God is not the same as a revolution of the Earth. Maybe the 6,000 years thing is like other things in the bible, wrong. Or maybe since Satan has dominion of this world, he re-made it so it doesn't work the way the bible suggests. Lots of possiblities.

I'm sorry, but why gasp? Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share the same God.

For a lot of people Islam is an evil faith. Anyway I was joking.

One has the benefit of evidence.

Yeah. Belief in God.

I've lived perfectly well without him, as do currently about 1 billion other people.

I doubt that, since no life is perfect. But it could be better by connecting with God. But again, your choice.
 
Because, aliens (unless we delve into the religious kind), don't use magic. They presumably use science. Science we don't entirely comprehend yet. But that's still different from magic.

Our current scientific understanding of the universe allows for aliens to exist. And it's not a stretch to think that there may be species out there more advanced than us. We have foresight. That is not the same as gods, and ghosts, who have no (known) scientific basis.

I you read the good UFO reports (the ones with credible witnesses, radar data, etc) you can see that there are things operating in our airspace, that we did not build, doing things we can't (or couldn't, in older cases). Once you come to that reality, there are only a limited number of explanations. Or to quote Doyle, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth. Hence, the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

But in that case no. We can theorize with science, what we're dealing with. You can't do that with supernatural things like ghosts, and gods.
Lets get something straight,there is NO such physical thing as magic. If it exists then it can be explained through a scientific means. The problem is you believe in UFOs when it is not a fact that they even exist but then you dismiss things like ghosts and Gods as 'magic' too when it is not a fact that they even exist either. You are picking and choosing what is magic and what is not, what is supernatural and what is not, and ultimately what counts as a religion and what doesn't instead of standing firm on your criteria. Don't you think that is hypocritical? How can you say abnormal UFO phenomena are not supernatural since they can be explained by science (its just that we haven't figured that science out yet) but you can't extend that same courtesy to ghost and gods? What makes you think those two cannot be explained by science in the future?
 
Lets get something straight,there is NO such physical thing as magic. If it exists then it can be explained through a scientific means. The problem is you believe in UFOs when it is not a fact that they even exist but then you dismiss things like ghosts and Gods as 'magic' too when it is not a fact that they even exist either. You are picking and choosing what is magic and what is not, what is supernatural and what is not, and ultimately what counts as a religion and what doesn't instead of standing firm on your criteria. Don't you think that is hypocritical? How can you say abnormal UFO phenomena are not supernatural since they can be explained by science (its just that we haven't figured that science out yet) but you can't extend that same courtesy to ghost and gods? What makes you think those two cannot be explained by science in the future?

Because, there is no credible evidence for ghosts and gods. Bring me some hard data. I agree, there is no such thing as magic. Those two are magic.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that ghosts are some kind of real, extra-dimensional entities. That's fine, but you need some evidence for that. We have none. Because there isn't any. Science doesn't have cause for ghosts, it does for aliens.

Not to mention that most people who believe in ghosts, believe they are magical in nature, and not based in any science. Except possibly the intelligent design people, but they can't comprehend basic science, so it's a moot point.
 
Last edited:
I accept evolution is the means. The "how" if you will. Only God knows the "why". But God gave us the intelligence to see exactly HOW he works. Science and "religion" go hand in hand, they're like brothers who butt heads all the time. I have no qualms with science or scientific research, and I applaud scientists for pursuing their fascinations with the mechanics of our world and universe. But I know what I believe at my core, and I won't back down from it. I'll never force it down anyone's throat, but I'll never back down from it.
 
The problem is you believe in UFOs when it is not a fact that they even exist but then you dismiss things like ghosts and Gods as 'magic' too when it is not a fact that they even exist either.
The existence of UFOs is a fact. Remember what those letters stand for... "Unidentified Flying Object." It does not mean that they are alien spaceships. That they are caused or piloted by aliens is not a fact, but their existence is indisputable. There is documented evidence for it, the most reliable being cases where the thing was seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses AND there is video evidence of it, as in the case of the Phoenix lights.
 
The existence of UFOs is a fact. Remember what those letters stand for... "Unidentified Flying Object." It does not mean that they are alien spaceships. That they are caused or piloted by aliens is not a fact, but their existence is indisputable. There is documented evidence for it, the most reliable being cases where the thing was seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses AND there is video evidence of it, as in the case of the Phoenix lights.

There's quite a few good cases for the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis.

The incident over Tehran, Iran in 1976. Which involved hundreds of witnesses, and fighter jets. So striking that the Iranian Air Force (this was before the 1979 revolution) even said that it was not of "terrestrial origin".

The incident over Phoenix isn't a bad one. The governor even came out and said he thought it was an extraterrestrial craft, due to its size. An Ivy League educated air force pilot no less. Him and a few thousand people saw it. But officially, they were military "flares".

A few governments have acknowledged that some UFO's may be of extraterrestrial origin. But they do emphasize the "may be".

But the best cases are rather boring ones, which involve being tracked by multiple radars, with visual confirmation on the ground and in the air. The 1952 incident over Washington DC is another very good one.

We are talking about the 5% though. 95% of UFO's turn out to be mundane misidentified objects.
 
Last edited:
On the subject of why God doesn't reveal himself, I'll say this:

First, if he did there'd be no free will. It's similar to walking into a bank when the full SWAT Team is standing with weapons aimed and trying to pull a stick-up. You know you have no chance, so you wouldn't even try.

Second, most atheists present God with a challenge out of arrogance. "Show me some tricks and I'll believe in you". God doesn't need anyone's belief. And if you were the all-powerful creator of the universe, would you humble yourself to some insignificant weasel demanding you placate them?

On the other hand, if you go before God with humility and an open heart and mind, he will reveal himself to you. Maybe not in the way you'd like, but he will. It's certainly been the case in my life.

Watch this video please.

Watch from about 7:15, on why faith is NOT a virtue.

[YT]DAuFJKQh83Y[/YT]

Also read this post please.


I can't take testimonies of personal experiences as proof of god seriously and this is why.

Let's say hypothetically there is a person with schizophrenia, telling me that god has touched their life, that god has been with them, that god has revealed himself to them. How can I tell if the man with schizophrenia is telling the truth or if he is just delusional? How can I tell his claims apart from someone else who claims to talk to god?

If claims aren't falsifiable, if they're not demonstrable, then one story of personal experience is as good as another. The man with schizophrenia claiming he can talk to Elvis has the same legitimacy as the man who claims he can talk to god.

If god has no demonstrable, measurable, or quantifiable traits - I cannot tell god apart from nothing.

If people are interested in discussing that kind of stuff in more detail, we ought to move it to the atheism thread.

If a guy with schizophrenia claims that Elvis has revealed himself to him, that if I just wish real hard that Elvis will reveal himself to me too... I can't tell that apart, from what YOU are saying... because you are giving us absolutely nothing to differentiate your claims of personal experience apart from delusion.

That's not arrogance. That's just good reasoning. You try to use good reasoning (or at least I'd like to think so) for every aspect of your life. EXCEPT for the most important question of all. You don't stop for the car that isn't there.

Dragon said:
However, I don't make use of stories like this, just as I'd mentioned about not subscribing to the story of Job. I understand it's perceived value (Faith in God even in crisis) but it also devalues the lives of Job's family, which I don't believe God would do.

You have NOTHING, no knowledge at all from which to work from, to claim to know anything about the character of god.

But you keep on doing it. You keep on asserting knowledge claims for something that you can't demonstrate.

And God is not supernatural. He created nature.

How can you know that?

God created the conditions for you to be able to breathe and for your heart to beat.

You know an awful lot about a being who's existence you can't demonstrate to anyone other than to yourself. It's ridiculous. We have no reason to believe anything that you're claiming.
 
Last edited:
I have to say, if evolution is some god's plan, it's a pretty crummy plan.

Exactly. The amount of things that can kill us far outweigh the good things. Our eyes are ridiculously limited. We can't smell deadly gases or radiation until the damage is done. We eat, talk, and breathe out of the same whole in our body which means choking will always be a killer to our species. Hell dolphins and whales are better evolved mammals than us in that regard. Only 3% universe is habitatal. Unless we find another habital planet that won't change. That planet will have bacteria and viruses we aren't immune too so that will also kill us. We have to constantly eat unlike cold blooded animals that eat once every few days to weeks. Our children have congenital problems. Fetuses suffer from diseases. We spend 1/3 of our lives in a comatose state due to sleep and other similar functions. This goes on and on.

If this is the work of a god it must not be an interactive god. We are more a science experiment by this evidence.
 
Exactly. The amount of things that can kill us far outweigh the good things. Our eyes are ridiculously limited. We can't smell deadly gases or radiation until the damage is done. We eat, talk, and breathe out of the same whole in our body which means choking will always be a killer to our species. Hell dolphins and whales are better evolved mammals than us in that regard. Only 3% universe is habitatal. Unless we find another habital planet that won't change. That planet will have bacteria and viruses we aren't immune too so that will also kill us. We have to constantly eat unlike cold blooded animals that eat once every few days to weeks. Our children have congenital problems. Fetuses suffer from diseases. We spend 1/3 of our lives in a comatose state due to sleep and other similar functions. This goes on and on.

If this is the work of a god it must not be an interactive god. We are more a science experiment by this evidence.

Or God is just a huge sadist. Which would explain everything.
 
Lol god created evolution just go one step further and there would be no god.
 
Exactly. The amount of things that can kill us far outweigh the good things. Our eyes are ridiculously limited. We can't smell deadly gases or radiation until the damage is done. We eat, talk, and breathe out of the same whole in our body which means choking will always be a killer to our species. Hell dolphins and whales are better evolved mammals than us in that regard. Only 3% universe is habitatal. Unless we find another habital planet that won't change. That planet will have bacteria and viruses we aren't immune too so that will also kill us. We have to constantly eat unlike cold blooded animals that eat once every few days to weeks. Our children have congenital problems. Fetuses suffer from diseases. We spend 1/3 of our lives in a comatose state due to sleep and other similar functions. This goes on and on.

If this is the work of a god it must not be an interactive god. We are more a science experiment by this evidence.

Or...we aren't done evolving. We have been on this planet much less in comparison to more adapt creatures like sharks. Sharks have remained relatively the same for a long time because they got it right long ago. Us eating and breathing from the mouth doesn't disprove the existence of a deity. Then again we are at the top of the food chain despite bodily flaws. So that's all rather moot.
 
I get the sense that most people don't understand evolution. There is no end product.

Also, while it's nice that God has "allowed" us to survive his many attempts at killing us, what about other intelligent extinct species? The Neanderthals want a do-over.
 
Because, there is no credible evidence for ghosts and gods. Bring me some hard data. I agree, there is no such thing as magic. Those two are magic.
Why should I bring you hard data? I'm not making an argument for the existence of either. However, you're the one who is dismissing both as "magic" because of lack of scientific support when UFO phenomena lack scientific support themselves. If you're going to do this, you should be the one providing hard data. You should show me the scientific support for telepathy, telekinesis, unusual flight trajectories, etc. These are all supernatural phenomena that are reported through alien visitations and UFO sightings. Tell me how that isn't "magic" besides saying "we just don't understand it yet". Where is the 'credible evidence' supporting telepathy, telekinesis, inter-dimensional space travel, or the unusual flight trajectories filmed in UFO footage?

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that ghosts are some kind of real, extra-dimensional entities. That's fine, but you need some evidence for that. We have none. Because there isn't any. Science doesn't have cause for ghosts, it does for aliens.
Again, I'm not arguing to prove ghosts exist. I'm really trying hard to understand the logic you're using here. I'm not arguing against the existence of aliens either (I believe in aliens). I'm questioning the kind of alien we are discussing. The greys (as many people call them) or similar species and not even necessarily their state of existence but rather the strange things they are reportedly able to do as I have mentioned above. Explain the phenomena (and not their state of existence, since I am well aware that there is more than enough proof supporting alien lifeforms) and tell me how that isn't by definition classified as supernatural?

Not to mention that most people who believe in ghosts, believe they are magical in nature, and not based in any science. Except possibly the intelligent design people, but they can't comprehend basic science, so it's a moot point.
I don't see how 'most peoples' opinion even matter in this discussion?

The existence of UFOs is a fact. Remember what those letters stand for... "Unidentified Flying Object." It does not mean that they are alien spaceships. That they are caused or piloted by aliens is not a fact, but their existence is indisputable. There is documented evidence for it, the most reliable being cases where the thing was seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses AND there is video evidence of it, as in the case of the Phoenix lights.
Okay, really I'm not trying to get into semantics. We were clearly talking about UFOs piloted by Alien species and not just random unidentified flying objects.
 
Why should I bring you hard data? I'm not making an argument for the existence of either. However, you're the one who is dismissing both as "magic" because of lack of scientific support when UFO phenomena lack scientific support themselves. If you're going to do this, you should be the one providing hard data. You should show me the scientific support for telepathy, telekinesis, unusual flight trajectories, etc. These are all supernatural phenomena that are reported through alien visitations and UFO sightings. Tell me how isn't "magic" besides saying "we just don't understand it yet". Where is the 'credible evidence' supporting telepathy, telekinesis, inter-dimensional space travel, or the unusual flight trajectories filmed in UFO footage?

Again, I'm not arguing to prove ghosts exist. I'm really trying hard to understand the logic you're using here. I'm not arguing against the existence of aliens either (I believe in aliens). I'm questioning the kind of alien we are discussing. The greys (as many people call them) or similar species and not even necessarily their state of existence but rather the strange things they are reportedly able to do as I have mentioned above. Explain the phenomena (and not their state of existence, since I am well aware that there is more than enough proof supporting alien lifeforms) and tell me how that isn't by definition classified as supernatural?

I don't see how 'most peoples' opinion even matter in this discussion?

Okay, really I'm not trying to get into semantics. We were clearly talking about UFOs piloted by Alien species and not just random unidentified flying objects.

It's not magic if we assume that UFO's are alien spacecraft, which function using technology. I really don't know how to make that any clearer. Technology by definition (even if we can't yet fully comprehend it) is based in science, making it the antithesis of magic (and religion).

As for telepathy, and telekinesis, I don't take that into account when talking about UFO's. I only took interest in the less... supernatural claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc.

Now, if an alien steps out of a flying saucer wearing a wizard hat, and carrying a wand, then you got me.
 
I voted "no" just to even things out.

just kidding
 
Or...we aren't done evolving. We have been on this planet much less in comparison to more adapt creatures like sharks. Sharks have remained relatively the same for a long time because they got it right long ago. Us eating and breathing from the mouth doesn't disprove the existence of a deity. Then again we are at the top of the food chain despite bodily flaws. So that's all rather moot.

Oh I have no doubt we are not done evolving, but that is moot. An all powerful being that allows us to remain in an unfinished flawed state resulting in millions of deaths over time is either careless or we are a science experiment.
 
Last edited:
It's not magic if we assume that UFO's are alien spacecraft, which function using technology. I really don't know how to make that any clearer.Technology by definition (even if we can't yet fully comprehend it) is based in science, making it the antithesis of magic (and religion).
And I don't know how to make my message clearer lol. All I'm asking you to do is to prove the bolded. Tell me about this advance technology that breaks the laws of physics? You can't because
a.) We don't know if this advanced alien civilization with immensely superior technology actually exist outside of non-scientific anecdotal evidence
b.) We haven't gotten are hands around this technology.

Everything you are saying is pure speculation. And now you have a bunch of weird **** happening and you are purely speculating that its "advanced alien technologies!". There is nothing remotely scientific about that. You call it "advance alien technologies" other people call it "God", big whoop, there is no difference here.

As for telepathy, and telekinesis, I don't take that into account when talking about UFO's. I only took interest in the less... supernatural claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc.
Claims of little grey men traveling in vehicles moving in a fashion that has yet to be explained by the laws of physics is a pretty extraordinary claim imo.

Now, if an alien steps out of a flying saucer wearing a wizard hat, and carrying a wand, then you got me.
Personally, I feel that just saying "Oh its advanced alien technology" is just as LAZY(or not, depending on your viewpoint) as saying "its was Gawd!!!" or "Its Magic!!1!!". Especially since you don't have any hard scientific evidence explaining these strange phenomena have even occurred. You really can apply both statements to a lot of unusual supernatural phenomena.
 
And I don't know how to make my message clearer lol. All I'm asking you to do is to prove the bolded. Tell me about this advance technology that breaks the laws of physics? You can't because
a.) We don't know if this advanced alien civilization with immensely superior technology actually exist outside of non-scientific anecdotal evidence
b.) We haven't gotten are hands around this technology.

Everything you are saying is pure speculation. And now you have a bunch of weird **** happening and you are purely speculating that its "advanced alien technologies!". There is nothing remotely scientific about that. You call it "advance alien technologies" other people call it "God", big whoop, there is no difference here.

Claims of little grey men traveling in vehicles moving in a fashion that has yet to be explained by the laws of physics is a pretty extraordinary claim imo.

Personally, I feel that just saying "Oh its advanced alien technology" is just as LAZY(or not, depending on your viewpoint) as saying "its was Gawd!!!" or "Its Magic!!1!!". Especially since you don't have any hard scientific evidence explaining these strange phenomena have even occurred. You really can apply both statements to a lot of unusual supernatural phenomena.

There is a fundamental difference. Let me phrase it this way, where did Gawd come from? Well, religious people generally tell us that he's always been. He has magical qualities. Aliens do not (if they do, then they become gods, and it becomes a religious thing, like Raelism). They like us, evolved on some planet. And going with the extraterrestrial UFO theory, presumably, over thousands of years, they developed technology that we see today. Technology we will probably have one day.

Now is that speculation? Of course. But that's what science tells us to expect.

As for evidence, I don't know what more you want. You've got the accounts of hundreds of pilots, military, private and commercial. Public officials. Ground traces, radar confirmation. Skeptics will be skeptics until you show them a crashed flying saucer and some alien bodies. Of course, if we had those lying around, we wouldn't have the conversation to begin with.

Which is especially strange, when most of humanity believes in deities without a shred of proof. Get me Apollo and his chariot on multiple radar systems, with independent visual confirmation on the ground and in the air a dozen times, and I'd consider paying his temple a visit.
 
Oh I have no doubt we are not done evolving, but that is moot. An all powerful being that allows us to remain in an unfinished flawed state resulting in millions of deaths over time is either careless or we are a science experiment.

I don't think it proves or disproves anything in relation to a deity.

Something for religious fanatics to ponder on is this; What if we haven't reached yet God's image? Meaning, according to the Bible, we were shaped in God's image. What if we aren't done being shaped and God is an 8 foot tall, grey thing with gills? You cannot argue that humans now are no different than 2000 years ago during the times of Jesus. We are losing our wisdom teeth, we are becoming taller, we are living longer, races/ethnicities are disappearing since geographic barriers are now non existant, etc.
 
As long as beings such as Q can exist in Star Trek who are we to say that intelligent beings on that magnitude don't exist?
 
Well, to quote Arthur C. Clarke (twice in one thread), when we go into deep space, "we will find apes or angels, but not men." Given how rapidly we advanced from the stone age to the space age, and beyond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,079,620
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"