Creationist Quackery, Part 150, 001 : Creationists Say Aliens Don't Exist, So Let's Stop Looking!

a reply to: Barcs

I'm not afraid to learn or explore new things, I'm just not going to blindly believe it. If you're saying you've looked into the future and know future science and all the nuances of the multiverse, then I'd say I'd like to see behind the door for myself. Can you arrange this?

Already gave you the key, but you are too intellectually lazy to go there! It is not an easy journey.

The remains of your response is tiresome, your need to WIN overcomes your desire to learn.

Toodle pip old chap!

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs

I'm not afraid to learn or explore new things, I'm just not going to blindly believe it. If you're saying you've looked into the future and know future science and all the nuances of the multiverse, then I'd say I'd like to see behind the door for myself. Can you arrange this?

Already gave you the key, but you are too intellectually lazy to go there! It is not an easy journey.

The remains of your response is tiresome, your need to WIN overcomes your desire to learn.

Toodle pip old chap!

Sorry if you don't like it, but when somebody posts a blatant falsehood about science, I'm going to correct it. Your whole point about theories becoming laws was exactly that. You can look it up yourself. This isn't the first nor will it be the last time you change the facts to suit your agenda. If you have a greater understanding of the universe than I do, why would it involve the need to spread disinfo to support your view? That raises a giant red flag with me about the validity of what you are following.

The fact that you'd post something blatantly wrong about science on more than one occasion means one of two things. Either you are intentionally misleading people to believe you are well versed in science, or genuinely do not understand many of the things you philosophize about and just do it to spread the word to others. I'm still trying to figure out which one it is.

The key is in ancient philosophy based on Pythagoras? You said you've seen behind the door. Is that a metaphor for "I read about somebody's belief system and think it is true"? By all means, show me the door. I'm open minded, but you have to give me more than one man's worldview.

If you have a greater understanding of the universe than I do, why would it involve the need to spread disinfo to support your view?

a reply to: Barcs

I have neither the time nor inclination to become a scientist, the point you miss entirely is I have no problem with the science beyond the conclusions that are being drawn from it.

If you look at anything with pre-drawn conclusions you can alway find a match based on available evidence. If you took the time to discover the principles I have eluded to, you would understand that the only differences between what you believe, and what I believe could only be described as the big picture.

Philosophy has guided science forever, regardless of your claims. The philosophy I understand places everything perfectly.

By all means, show me the door. I'm open minded, but you have to give me more than one man's worldview.

Once you understand that my views are also the views of some very influential people (I am not one) and also ascertain the difference between the left hand path and the right hand path then things will crystallise for you.

Merry Christmas Barcs

a reply to: Phantom423

Ken Ham, Creationist junk bond king, now says that we should stop exploring space for aliens because:

Hey, I'm a Christian and I believe they exist, I just think they are inter-dimensional and not extra-terrestrial, and I think they are demonic.

No different than the conclusions of Drs. Jacques Valle, and J. Alan Hynek. You must understand that there is a huge segment of Christianity that rejects the angel view of Genesis 6. And they have no idea what Daniel meant when he explained the end times and the feet of the statue being part iron and part clay.

"They shall mingle themselves with the seed of man." (the "they" must be something other than the seed of man)

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Out of curiosity, nothing more, what do you mean when you say:

You must understand that there is a huge segment of Christianity that rejects the angel view of Genesis 6.

Is rejection of "the angel view" that "sons of God" means demons and not angels, or something different?

a reply to: iterationzero

I mean they reject the text that says fallen angels took human women and the offspring were the Nephillim. The explain it away by claiming "sons of God" means the lines of Seth.

Demons are not fallen angels, demons are the dead spirits of the Nephillim. The seed of the serpent (satan).

a reply to: NOTurTypical

The angelic view was quite popular until St. Augustine came around. I can understand how בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים (benei ha'elohim) could be taken to mean angels or the descendants of Seth, but I've never seen a translation that suggested that "sons of God" implied "demons".

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The angelic view was quite popular until St. Augustine came around. I can understand how בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים (benei ha'elohim) could be taken to mean angels or the descendants of Seth, but I've never seen a translation that suggested that "sons of God" implied "demons".

Yes, it was changed from the angel view at his time because of ridicule, and bene ha-elohim literally means "sons of God", and in Hebrew in the OT that term is always used for what is translated as "angels". Also in the Book of Enoch. Angel is from the Greek "aggelos". And I never said Genesis 6 had to do with demons, I said fallen angels took wives and the Nephillim were the result. The demons are the disembodied spirits of the Nephillim, or the offspring of the fallen angels and human women (daughters of Eve). Demons and fallen angels aren't the same thing, demons would be the children of the fallen angels and their human wives.

We are not talking about AGW here so it occurs to me that it is off topic, but yes, your statement this is reasonably true, if not precisely accurate. Scientists have reported "many many" observable, indisputable, facts that indicate that Global Warming is occuring. Scientists have also reported "many many" possible explanations for the GW 'cause'. All explanations except one have been eliminated by the observable, indisputable facts. The only cause that fits the facts is the Anthropogenic one. So yes, scientists agree that AGW is the best model that describes the observable facts.

a reply to: rnaa

I didn't bring the AGW in to derail the thread but wanted to as a source of science that has scientist / Journals / and peer review as basic structures of operation. Some times it seems that facts can be misrepresented by scientist and should be caught during peer review .But the system can be corrupted and compromised and become a political tool .We are talking about very large sums of money and some people can become corrupt .Like the justice system can as well at any level .

Science opinion will and can have different philosophical bend's to it .What one scientist's opinion of the facts will follow from his world view .Were talking about opinion here not the facts .We know that it is possible to gather facts to support our opinion while ignoring the facts that could disprove it . I believe that is called cherry picking .That can be done with data as well . So we know that it is possible to present cherry picked data in a way to establish the facts that no body can deny .If you disagree you are said to be unscientific or nonfactual .

Now this is what I have come to believe because of following the discussions of a group of people who actually audit peer reviewed papers. Most of the science goes over my head .Most of the Physics goes over my head .Most of the statistical methods go over my head .What doesn't go over my head is the facts don't line up with the truth . But that is only in the climate science camp but it could also be happening in other camps as well .imo

...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I didn't bring the AGW in to derail the thread but wanted to as a source of science that has scientist / Journals / and peer review as basic structures of operation. Some times it seems that facts can be misrepresented by scientist and should be caught during peer review .But the system can be corrupted and compromised and become a political tool .We are talking about very large sums of money and some people can become corrupt .Like the justice system can as well at any level .

OK. Lets start at the beginning. You are claiming that 'the system can be corrupted' by 'very large sums of money'. This is probably true. There would need to be a few conditions for that to happen though wouldn't you agree?

First, somebody with 'very large sums of money' would have be behind the system corruption - and by 'very large sums of money' we are really talking about very large sums of money aren't we. Like really, really, really large sums of money. Who has that kind of money? Not even the Koch Brothers.

Who benefits by the corruption of the system? I suppose the Koch Brothers might want to have something against which they can fight, but would it really be worth that 'very large sum of money' just to make a personal political point? Other oil companies? Eco-Tourism companies? Who on the planet benefits from such grandiose corruption of the scientific community to foster lies? Who?

How did the conspiracy actually reach the entire scientific community, world wide, without exception, and without somebody blowing the whistle? Think of it: millions of scientists all over the planet, whose very professional existence is to seek truth, convinced to lie and lie consistently to the public and other scientists. Scientists whose most fervent dream would be to win a Nobel Prize, or any prize for that matter by bringing something novel into the knowledge base of the human race. Don't you think a few of them would blow the whistle? And by a few I mean a few million.

Whatever else you think of Science and Scientists, Scientists are human. Facts can be misrepresented by Scientists. Cigarette companies can hire scientists to write papers that put their point of view, but they can't hire every scientist on the planet. Frauds like Andrew Wakefield do exist, and can do a lot of damage before 'real' scientists can demonstrate the fraud (the Wakefield fraud is still not known sufficiently in the public, yet his fraud was documented decades ago, and subsequent research has proven it utterly wrong).

More often, Scientists misinterpret their data. That is why they have other people look at it (peer review). It is embarrassing for a scientist to get it wrong, but it happens; when it is only discovered after a paper is published then it is really embarrassing because the corrections don't necessarily get to everyone who is depending on the original paper. I wouldn't call it 'gleeful' or 'gloating' but scientists certainly do pounce on mistakes in papers by their colleagues, and there are great rivalries among people in the same field. Mistakes don't last long in the public light with out being called out.

You are painting every scientist on earth with the fraudster tag. Every. Single. One. Just because an Andrew Wakefield can commit a scientific fraud DOES NOT mean that every scientist on earth does that. Just because one man commits a murder DOES NOT meant that every man commits murder.

There is nothing opinionated and there should be nothing political about the fact of AGW. Opinion and political thought should be invested in 'what to do about AGW'; not whether it exists or not. IF you want to see a conspiracy of lies about AGW you need to look at the politicians, not the scientists.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Science opinion will and can have different philosophical bend's to it .What one scientist's opinion of the facts will follow from his world view .

Scientists don't have opinions about facts. There is no opinion about the temperature at which water boils. It is a fact. Scientists have opinions about what facts mean in relation other facts, sure; those opinions are called hypotheses.

Hypotheses contain testable assertions that can demonstrate the value or valuelessness of the hypothesis. No opinion can stand by itself, the opinion must be testable. World view and personal philosophy don't come into it if the Scientist is honest.

It is anti-Scientists whose opinions color their 'findings'. Ken Ham could not possibly read a paper of any kind and not interpret it as backing his world view. If he could not twist it to his world view, he would simply 'un-read' it. Millions of scientists, across the planet, from different political, religious, cultural, and environmental backgrounds simply cannot do that all at once in a consistent, coherent manner, no matter how much money is thrown at them.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Now this is what I have come to believe because of following the discussions of a group of people who actually audit peer reviewed papers. Most of the science goes over my head .Most of the Physics goes over my head .Most of the statistical methods go over my head .What doesn't go over my head is the facts don't line up with the truth .

So you are saying that - and I am inventing a silly example here - that you overhear people debating a paper about the boiling point of water that you don't understand. The paper says water boils at 100 degrees centigrade but someone in the group tries boiling water and finds that it boils at 100.2 degrees and votes to reject the paper. Someone else points out that the experiments in the paper were carried out at sea level and the reviewers experiment were carried out in the mountains. The third reviewer says the author should fix the paper before is published. Your takeaway is that the facts don't fit the truth.

However, what is actually happening the point of the peer-review system. The paper wasn't detailed enough, or the author hadn't done enough work to justify his conclusion, whatever. That is the purpose of the peer-review process - to find mistakes before they are published. That doesn't mean that no mistakes get through, but when they do there is hell to pay. Editors lose confidence in the subject matter experts he hires as reviewers, the author loses credibility in the scientific community, nasty letters get written to the journal, sometimes editors get fired. Nobody wants any of that - so they work hard to avoid it.

"First, somebody with 'very large sums of money' would have be behind the system corruption - and by 'very large sums of money' we are really talking aboutvery large sums of money aren't we. Like really, really, really large sums of money. Who has that kind of money? Not even the Koch Brothers."

Rothschilds and Rockefellers Government money in grants and funding to universities . "So far, 181 institutions and local governments representing over USD$50 billion in assets have pledged to divest from fossil fuels. According to a study by Oxford University, the fossil fuel divestment movement is growing faster than any previous divestment campaign in history and presents a far reaching threat to the fossil fuel industry’s bottom-line." 350.org.au... . "Heirs to Standard Oil fortune join campaign that will withdraw a total of $50bn from fossil fuels, including from tar sands funds " www.theguardian.com... We could go into multinational corporations such as drug companies who fund research and have been called out on their bogus studies . We are talking very very very big bucks .They usually have lobbyist to do their bidding to get politicians to make the laws to tell us it's so .

I never claimed there were no exceptions to the corruption side and can say with much confidence that there are genuine, honest people that are in all of the positions .Not all involved in a fraud are frauds but can be duped into it .There are some very elaborate scams that are found out and some that get away with it .

" More often, Scientists misinterpret their data. That is why they have other people look at it (peer review)" That is the way it is suposed to work but like in the AGW the processes were usurped . The data was witheld the computer codes were not given and peer review turned out to be pal review . It is well documented at climateaudit.org...

" Hypotheses contain testable assertions that can demonstrate the value or valuelessness of the hypothesis. No opinion can stand by itself, the opinion must be testable. World view and personal philosophy don't come into it if the Scientist is honest. "

Can you provide me with links to the original hypothesis and the normal line of inquire that says that evolution is a fact .This has nothing to do with the fact that water boils even though you can show that it evolves in a incremental way to the point of boiling .

" So you are saying that - and I am inventing a silly example here - that you overhear people debating a paper about the boiling point of water that you don't understand. The paper says water boils at 100 degrees centigrade but someone in the group tries boiling water and finds that it boils at 100.2 degrees and votes to reject the paper. Someone else points out that the experiments in the paper were carried out at sea level and the reviewers experiment were carried out in the mountains. The third reviewer says the author should fix the paper before is published. Your takeaway is that the facts don't fit the truth. No but I will say that if you do a study on the history of the speed of light you will find that it does not seem to be constant , and it would seem that it is derived at by a decision at the time it is published that varies over time .

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK a reply to: rnaa

As a example I give you this new tidbit .

WUWT reader Peter Gadiel writes:

After reading of the critique of Sabine’s exclusion of the historical data on ocean acidification I emailed him. I thought his response might be of interest to you at WUWT. He says the earlier data is not of “sufficient quality.”

My question to him:

As a taxpayer who is helping to pay your salary I’d like to know why you are refusing to include all the data on ocean acidification that is available.

Sabine’s response:

Chris Sabine – NOAA Federal
12:31 AM (11 hours ago)

As a public servant that must stick to the rigor of the scientific method and only present data that is of sufficient quality to address the question, I am obliged to report the best evaluation of ocean chemistry changes available. This is what you pay me to do and I am working very hard to give you the best value for your tax dollar every day. I hope you are having a good holiday season.

The question that immediately comes to mind is:

Who determined that the directly measured ocean pH data was not of “sufficient quality” and if it wasn’t, why then did NOAA make the data available on their website as part of other ocean data in their World Ocean Database without a caveat?

a reply to: rnaa wattsupwiththat.com... You would think with all of the problems that some models have with actual data to project accurately they might set them aside .Or dont like the results then change the data to fit your model to give you a more consistent graph and make the adjustments as needed . "Data" fact or fiction . Would the imaginary data have legitimate value ? In some cases maybe yes and maybe no .I heard it said that if you torture data long enough you can make it confess to anything .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Rothschilds and Rockefellers Government money in grants and funding to universities . "So far, 181 institutions and local governments representing over USD$50 billion in assets have pledged to divest from fossil fuels. According to a study by Oxford University, the fossil fuel divestment movement is growing faster than any previous divestment campaign in history and presents a far reaching threat to the fossil fuel industry’s bottom-line." 350.org.au... . "Heirs to Standard Oil fortune join campaign that will withdraw a total of $50bn from fossil fuels, including from tar sands funds " www.theguardian.com... We could go into multinational corporations such as drug companies who fund research and have been called out on their bogus studies . We are talking very very very big bucks .They usually have lobbyist to do their bidding to get politicians to make the laws to tell us it's so .

What does any of that have to do with the large sums of money required to bribe millions of scientists ALL OVER THE WORLD not just the USA for a half century (and counting)? Remember that the AGW issue has been in the public eye since the late 1960's at least it is not a new phenomenon; any corruption must have been going on for at least that long.

In exactly what way does getting institutions to divest carbon industry investments benefit the mysterious party behind the AGW worldwide bribery effort? How do the Rockefellers benefit from divesting out of oil (Rockefellers = Standard Oil)?

What do drug companies have to do with AGW and in what way do they benefit from scaring the world about AGW?

What companies benefit from scaring the world about AGW?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Phantom423

Ken Ham, Creationist junk bond king, now says that we should stop exploring space for aliens because:

Hey, I'm a Christian and I believe they exist, I just think they are inter-dimensional and not extra-terrestrial, and I think they are demonic

Aliens by definition are extraterrestrial and are neither inter-dimensional nor supernatural....

This is just the type of quackery mentioned in the OP made all the more hilarious when you attempt to act asthough it's not.

'hey I'm a christian and I believe they exist, but only if I change the definition to fit my belief in a god'...

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I have no objection to what people believe religion or otherwise. It's their choice. My objection is to the corruption of science and disinformation which is tantamount to fraud. Ken Ham is a fraud.

You mentioned Daniel. I was just reading about a new translation which was very interesting. Here's the link:

thechronicleproject.org...

Apparently they discovered a codex to translate the ancient Hebrew more accurately. I read parts of the Genesis translation which was very intriguing - who really wrote this??

"In 2009, The Chronicle Project revealed a discovery of immense proportions. It was called Self Defining Hebrew.
It is not a system created by the project, but the one that the language of ancient Hebrew was built on. With this
discovery, a world of information came to light regarding the Hebrew scriptures, which has the ability to reshape
the very way we look and think about the very beginnings of mankind as a race, and our potential future. Here, are
some of these findings"

a reply to: the2ofusr1

That is the way it is suposed to work but like in the AGW the processes were usurped . The data was witheld the computer codes were not given and peer review turned out to be pal review.

That is simply not true. Not one word of it. This is well documented here and here.

It is well documented at climateaudit.org...

In your search for people who have been corrupted in the area of the AGW 'issue'[, you need look no further than Steve McIntyre. He is owned lock, stock, and barrel by oil company interests. The entire episode of which you speak was an orchestrated smear campaign, not a legitimate research project.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I need to correct you on a few things.

First, the basic structure of science is research. It’s work in the lab, it’s work in the field, it’s work wherever your branch of science takes you. The journals and peer review are there as references to the work. The ultimate test of the work is when it’s repeated by another scientist. That’s called validation. Repeat and validate. Peer review is a process where scientists in the field review the work to be published for technical errors, missing data and they might question or ask for more references. Peer review doesn’t necessarily mean that these scientists repeated the work.

Here’s a recent example of what looks like an outright fraud. How did they discover it? By attempting to repeat her work. They couldn’t do it. So a thorough investigation was launched and ultimately it was determined that the work was a fraud.

www.biopharmadive.com...

Second, scientific research does not have a world view or philosophy. I don’t know where or how people got this notion that scientists march into the lab and begin an experiment that they already have a conclusion about. They may have a hypothesis, but not a conclusion. By contrast, Creationist of Ken Ham’s ilk start with a conclusion and reconstruct the science to validate their conclusion. This is outright fraud. There’s no “cherry picking” in science unless you want to expose yourself to very heavy criticism from your peers (I’m talking about hard science here i.e. chemistry, physics, mathematics – not soft sciences like psychology).

You said:
“Now this is what I have come to believe because of following the discussions of a group of people who actually audit peer reviewed papers. Most of the science goes over my head .Most of the Physics goes over my head .Most of the statistical methods go over my head .What doesn't go over my head is the facts don't line up with the truth. But that is only in the climate science camp but it could also be happening in other camps as well .imo”

I don’t understand how you can know the “truth” and not understand the underlying evidence in the research paper? Can you give an example of a particular research paper where you don’t think it’s the truth?