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

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: the2ofusr1

The dinosaur/footprint evidence occurred in only one place in Texas. Some say it was a hoax. The largest depository of dinosaur remains are in Western Canada. Argentina also has a large graveyard of dinosaur fossil bones. None of these finds has ever yielded a human footprint that can be associated with the time of the living creatures. Whatever caused the find in Texas, it hasn't been seen elsewhere - so I would go with the hoax theory until someone finds the same footprints elsewhere.

On the climate controversy, as I said before, I don't follow it. It's political, quasi scientific, hard to identify credible "evidence". So I'm not commenting on that.

I think it had to have been the perfect storm of conditions, a human and a dinosaur running on the same mud within minutes of each other right before it was covered and preserved.

A simple fact that upsets the evolution theory's time line

a reply to: Phantom423

On the climate controversy, as I said before, I don't follow it. It's political,

The facts are neither controversial nor political. WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT is political.

quasi scientific, hard to identify credible "evidence". So I'm not commenting on that.

Attempts to characterize the climate data as 'quasi-scientific' are the politicallly motivated propaganda you seem to be shunning. If you are truly opposed to such 'politically' motivated shenanigans then you would be commenting powerfully in opposition.

Character assassination of scientists is not a credible response to facts. Shooting the messenger has never produced good results. Remaining silent in the face of lies and obstruction is cowardice, and when that silence threatens the well being of your family (in the broadest sense) it is downright immoral.

I am curious why you even bother to comment on ATS at all? It exists for the express purpose of commenting on quasi-scientific; psuedo-scientific; even purposely anti-scientific topics with no credible "evidence" at all.

Again I remind you of the ATS motto: Deny Ignorance.

a reply to: Phantom423

The dinosaur/footprint evidence occurred in only one place in Texas. Some say it was a hoax.

No. EVERYONE (yes even Creationists themselves) says it was a hoax, or at the very best a willful misunderstanding of the facts brought on by wishful thinking.

And there have been several claims, in several places. Paluxy Texas is just the most recent famous one.

Collection of dinosaur/man tracks claims

Creationist Claim CC101: Paluxy River Footprints

... 2. Creationists often failed to exercise scientific rigor and due caution in their early Paluxy field work and promotions. Subsequently many also mischaracterized or minimized the mainstream work and analyses which prompted creationist reevaluations of the evidence (Schadewald, 1986; Kuban, 1986c). However, most no longer use the Paluxy tracks among their arguments, and major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG have advised that the Paluxy tracks not be cited as evidence against evolution. Continuing "man track" claims by a few individuals such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton have not stood up to close scrutiny (Kuban, 1989).

Notice that this stuff has been debunked by 'mainstream' Creationists for over 20 years. Way to stay current.

" Character assassination of scientists is not a credible response to facts. Shooting the messenger has never produced good results. Remaining silent in the face of lies and obstruction is cowardice, and when that silence threatens the well being of your family (in the broadest sense) it is downright immoral. "

Here is where the problem lies in the debate that really irks me . What you claim is especially true of the pro-side of evolution .Most comments start of and contain name calling and saying well that person is not a real scientist ,or they didn't use the proper scientific method . What "if" a regular Joe just happened to find something but in the process he didn't follow all the rules of science .Would what he found in any way be considered a Hoax ? Science is like a court room ,where a judge can let a guilty party go because the prosecution did not follow the rules to the letter . case dismissed . Or if some one is innocent but has a less then the best lawyer is found guilty for a crime they were actually innocent of .

Using today's tools and methods would disqualify most past scientific papers based solely on less then best principals and rigor. Someone like me has no chance in a debate . The scientist becomes judge and jury and can disqualify any info I could bring to the conversation ,because it's not scientific . Some Scientist make claims of the same sort of things within the institute .They say .if you don't tow the line you are marginalized, ridiculed , and may have to find work else where because your opinions do not line up with ours . While claiming the virtues of the institute of science they recognize at the same time that they do make errors with the actual science a opinion that they are correct . The mere fact that they use circular logic when it comes to the earths dates and the fossil record speaks volumes . But that seems to be the way they want it .You are right even when you are wrong .That is the thing about AGwarming meme .They say it's colder because it's warmer . complete nonsense . Today they measure temps in 1/100drs of a degree ,yesterday it was 1/10th and before that 1/2 that would get rounded up or down . Now they claim to be able to adjust those past temps to what ever they like ,or need to . Isn't that a convenient method to have in your tool bag . Seems that climate science can slice and dice different data sets and do what ever they want and still call it the scientific method . a reply to: rnaa

a reply to: Phantom423

I hate to jump in, and this may have already been posted and I haven't read that far yet, but apparently radioactive decay does seem to be somewhat(read: very tiny) variable.
Purdue University

A team of scientists from Purdue and Stanford universities has found that the decay of radioactive isotopes fluctuates in synch with the rotation of the sun's core.

The fluctuations appear to be very small but could lead to predictive tools for solar flares and may have an impact on medical radiation treatments.

This adds to evidence of swings in decay rates in response to solar activity and the distance between the Earth and the sun that Purdue researchers Ephraim Fischbach, a professor of physics, and Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer, have been gathering for the last four years. The Purdue team previously reported observing a drop in the rate of decay that began a day and half before and peaked during the December 2006 solar flare and an annual fluctuation that appeared to be based on the Earth's orbit of, and changing distance from, the sun, Jenkins said.

That article was posted way back in 2010 and I don't know of any new research that has come about since then. I don't even know if they are reputable scientists in relevant fields. What I do know however, is that science is always changing to fit new, more precise, data into our overall worldview. Something religion just can't stand.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Ah, the persecution gambit.

Yes, we can attack the character of someone in their professional capacity if they posit themselves as a scientist but behave in a manner unbefitting of a scientist, eschewing intellectual honesty, objectivity and academic standards in order to push a religious agenda.

We care about facts, not wishful thinking and cherry picking/willful distortion of data to fit a preconceived religious conclusion. If someone wishes to be taken seriously as a scientist yet consistently fails to follow the scientific method then their character as a scientist is fair game for attack. And rightly so.

You are not interested in the intellectually honest pursuit of knowledge. You are more than happy to pick and choose the bits of the scientific method and data you feel support your religious beliefs but will dismiss out of hand any scientific data that contradicts them. You want the credibility of having your beliefs certified by science but are not prepared to live and die by the data. You can't have it both ways: either you acknowledge that the science does not support your position and accept that it is one of religious faith or you follow the data to the conclusions it illuminates, regardless of whether you find them philosophically and emotionally discomforting. Science isn't a pick and mix.

Pick and choose data you say ? Religious you say ? I will admit that both religion and science has theory .Like science ,religions have their own lesser versions . (soft science) ..could it be that the answers to questions may have to be answered by soft means instead of the higher means . Science has many fields of study and many theory's .If science was so empirical ,there would be no need for the differing theory's . But like religion ,that is the priced that is paid . Some scientist blindly follow or have followed without question the evolution meme .I can say the same thing about religion as well ...I guess being convinced one way or the other is the best trail to take but a lot of people on both sides of the camps are just too lazy to put the mental processes needed to do so .They both would sooner choose the easy way out and just believe . But seeing it comes down to either believing or being convinced one way or another ,it's a personal choice . Hey you don't suppose that maybe science has it's own religious followers do you ? Not all religions are created equal and in science we see the same thing but it's a different rhetoric used . Science uses facts .facts about theory's not proven .If proven then there would be no need to have alternative theory's to cling to . The debate actually is not possible even among scientist because they have differing theory's to answer differing questions . Big Bang's pick one . Black hole's pick one . Maybe science should determine which one they will use and stick to because with so many outs in a conversation it becomes a useless conversation with no conclusion . No conclusion means no empirical fact and you are left to believe what you want or like . Welcome to reality . a reply to: GetHyped

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Your problem is that you see that each system is intrinsically flawed as if that makes them somehow even. It doesn't. No system is perfect, and no human is perfect. So that is a moot point to make.

The FACT is that science is based on the BEST information we have over long periods of objective study. Religion is based on a guess, and most times (all times) when that guess is put to the test, it is wrong. Look at how many passages in the bible have to be called "metaphorical" because science has shown that if they were literal, they'd be wrong. For example: Pretty much all of the creation story has to be called metaphorical since the time line in it doesn't align with the actual time line of the universe (the earth wasn't created then the stars created for instance).

It's always science moving forward with new information and then religion moving backwards by changing the meaning of existing information so that it can stay relevant with the new information from science.

a reply to: thov420

Hi - Thanks for the article. ESR is not a radioactive decay method. ESR (electron spin resonance) is a technique that looks at unpaired electrons. It's a spectroscopic method which can be applied to various areas of research.


en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: rnaa

I have enough research projects on my plate at the moment. I'm not particularly interested in climate change so I'm not going to spend a lot of time digging into the research.
And I would remind you that the topic of this thread is not climate change - it's Ken Ham and his cult.
You should start a thread on climate change if it's that important to you.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

"The mere fact that they use circular logic when it comes to the earths dates and the fossil record speaks volumes ."

Could you please provide an example of "circular logic" in a scientific publication? I haven't seen one lately.

Thanks.

Yesterdays scientific textbooks were changed to today's scientific textbooks and my guess about scientific textbooks will be changed in the future .Now that is just a guess on my part but I will chose to believe it will be so . The bible uses s all forms of literature and is not for the faint of heart or for unbelievers .that is a fact ... a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: Phantom423

I guess i must've skimmed over where ESR was brought up in the thread, I certainly don't know a whole lot(anything really lol) about it, regardless I only brought up that link to show that scientists, even recently, don't know everything and are perfectly fine adjusting their hypothesis'/theories to fit the data available, vs. keeping up the dogma they were taught earlier.

One of the best things about humanity is our ability to think critically and adapt to change (I guess that's two things but whatever).

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Should science textbooks only list the original 5 elements because that's what they knew to be true? Or should science adapt and change as new info comes in? Of course over time science is going to change as our technology gets better, it's the way science works. Without it, we would still think spirits caused illness and natural disasters.

Nope ,but will say that the evidence for circular reasoning is well documented with pictures from museums where they date the rocks by the fossils found in them and date the fossils by the rock they were found in .That is a fact you can choose to believe but is part of the history that evolution has used .I guess some real smart fella decided to create a form of Cognitive dissonance and Joe public wouldn't or couldn't figure it out . Politicians and educational systems have been doing this for years .It creates a grunt pleb force that can be played what ever way the piper chooses . This seems to work well in all levels of education by the way . Maybe that is why the differing theory's about the same subject in science exists . Oh and academics seem to be able to function very well with this condition until they get called out . a reply to: Phantom423

Yes science has had it's share of hocus pocus beliefs haven't they .Same thing with religion as well and it to has developed better understanding methods .Make no mistake ,I do have hope for science as well as religion .It is the truth that both should search to understand and recognize that it's the false beliefs that hold each group back .Maybe the two can come together some day to look into some of the subjects that cross in what can be determined .One of the major blocks is of course the metaphysical .Maybe that is the only way the quantum world can be understood .don't know . a reply to: thov420

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Forgive me If I'm wrong, but you seem to classify science as a belief system. Science is the accumulation of facts to better understand our place in the universe. With new facts, science changes on a fundamental basis, whereas religion just changes how they interpret their religious books to fit the facts.

I understand why you might feel that way since 90+% of people aren't scientists and don't understand most of the stuff in those scientific journals. I don't either and being skeptical, at least in my mind, displays a healthy curiosity of the world around you. But dismissing known good science in favor of your preferred world view is short-sighted.

Trust me, I'm not saying these things to ridicule or debase you or your beliefs at all. I too believe someday science and spirituality will converge and humanity will be better off for it, but for that to happen, either new technology needs to be developed or current tech needs to be used in new and novel ways. Neither of which is accomplished by burying your (metaphorical your) head in a 2000+ year old book.

a reply to: Phantom423

Could you please provide an example of "circular logic" in a scientific publication? I haven't seen one lately.

How do scientists date fossils? A: By the layer of rock they are found in.

How do scientist date the rock layers? A: By what fossils they contain.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Good one! The 360 degree circle.