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

Wow ,back up ahead wow . Are you suggesting that it was a scientist to build the first wheeled cart ? Or the first canoe or hatchet .I didn't see you mention engineer's .I never said science is completely useless .It does have it's limits and scope .It does have have some of the short comings as well .You make it seem as though it is perfect and can't make mistakes and never needs correcting but that is not the case . Evolution is a theory within the scientific community that has many shortcomings that come to light with new discoveries .

Making claims of extinction of species that turn up in the record today .We have not turned over all the rocks or searched all of the debts yet .What would happen to the theory of evolution if they found a dinosaur living today ? Wold it stop being a dinosaur ? Think of the kids for peet sake . a reply to: Phantom423

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Wow ,back up ahead wow . Are you suggesting that it was a scientist to build the first wheeled cart ? Or the first canoe or hatchet .I didn't see you mention engineer's .I never said science is completely useless .It does have it's limits and scope .It does have have some of the short comings as well .You make it seem as though it is perfect and can't make mistakes and never needs correcting but that is not the case . Evolution is a theory within the scientific community that has many shortcomings that come to light with new discoveries .

And you are acting like, just because it is flawed therefore you can write off the whole theory. At the end of the day, evolution is the leading theory with the most evidence backing it.

Making claims of extinction of species that turn up in the record today .We have not turned over all the rocks or searched all of the debts yet .What would happen to the theory of evolution if they found a dinosaur living today ? Wold it stop being a dinosaur ? Think of the kids for peet sake . a reply to: Phantom423

Actually no, that wouldn't disprove evolution at all. Technically, dinosaurs still exist as birds anyways.

I separate theory and facts . Facts do not make the theory unless they fit into it .Some of the facts that are not allowed into the theory are left out .If you only chose your data then you are cherry picking . If you do not look for evidence that would disprove your claims then you are not following the rules to scientific truth .As was shown in a previous vid about the existence of soft tissue .1 .it could disprove the theory . 2 it was not a welcomed line of inquire despite the $20,000 grant to pay to have it done . Like Micheal Manns response to Steve McIntyre request for his data and codes to check his scientific work ,Manns response was " no because you will only find flaws in it . So much for peer review or pal review . Do you see the logic in this method of discovery for empirical facts ? Do you see that being a skeptic might be a safe mind set to eliminate the possibility to believing a lie ? Some will believe what ever they are told but I don't . Possibilities and probabilities are many .Just as it has been shown with the Halos that there was a possible explanation for them and there was no process used to say definitively it was empirical , so to is the tests on the soft tissue or the lack there of to completely ignore them give you empirical evidence contrary to the theory of evolution . You see , the guy was afraid that it would give more fuel to the creationist rather then a fact be known about the tissue . a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
I separate theory and facts . Facts do not make the theory unless they fit into it .Some of the facts that are not allowed into the theory are left out .If you only chose your data then you are cherry picking . If you do not look for evidence that would disprove your claims then you are not following the rules to scientific truth .

Yes, that is called a confirmation bias and is what religion is inherently guilty of.

As was shown in a previous vid about the existence of soft tissue .1 .it could disprove the theory . 2 it was not a welcomed line of inquire despite the $20,000 grant to pay to have it done . Like Micheal Manns response to Steve McIntyre request for his data and codes to check his scientific work ,Manns response was " no because you will only find flaws in it . So much for peer review or pal review .

Nothing was shown with that video. The soft tissue claim doesn't disprove evolution. You just don't understand the issues on why it was dismissed. Also, neither of those two people are scientists working in evolutionary theory. So why does either of their opinions matter as far as this discussion goes?

Do you see the logic in this method of discovery for empirical facts ? Do you see that being a skeptic might be a safe mind set to eliminate the possibility to believing a lie ?

Scientists ARE skeptics. That is how science works. That is why pseudo sciences are dismissed. They present a conclusion while disregarding any argument that could disprove it. Science therefore dismisses those arguments out of skepticism. Evolution has MANY skeptical eyes looking at it. Do you know how famous a scientist would be if he could figure out a definitive way to disprove Evolution? His name would be among the greats like Einstein or Newton.

Some will believe what ever they are told but I don't . Possibilities and probabilities are many .Just as it has been shown with the Halos that there was a possible explanation for them and there was no process used to say definitively it was empirical , so to is the tests on the soft tissue or the lack there of to completely ignore them give you empirical evidence contrary to the theory of evolution . You see , the guy was afraid that it would give more fuel to the creationist rather then a fact be known about the tissue . a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except it DOESN'T do that at all.
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.

The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rex unearthed in Montana.

The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.

Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.

The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.

"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.

The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

Iron lady

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. [Paleo-Art: Illustrations Bring Dinosaurs to Life]

You are pushing old, debunked Creationist claims.

Once again I find a parody where free speech between skeptics and science clash into the real world where theory would like to rule the day . " The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around. Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. –Brendan O’Neill, Spiked, 6 October 2006 " wattsupwiththat.com... Just swap some of the names and creationist could fit in this as well . a reply to: Krazysh0t Oh and I would say the decision to not have the tissue tested was a political one and not a scientific one .

Scientists ARE skeptics. That is how science works. That is why pseudo sciences are dismissed. They present a conclusion while disregarding any argument that could disprove it. Science therefore dismisses those arguments out of skepticism. Evolution has MANY skeptical eyes looking at it. Do you know how famous a scientist would be if he could figure out a definitive way to disprove Evolution? His name would be among the greats like Einstein or Newton.

a reply to: Krazysh0t I wonder how the null hypothesis might work against what you just said ? " In statistical inference on observational data, the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false." en.wikipedia.org... I mean if you have a theory that can not be proven false then it might not be legitimate .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

All theories are falsifiable. Your point is absurd. I have never nor has anyone else ever pushed the idea that evolution can't be disproven. You are arguing a strawman here.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1


Once again I find a parody where free speech between skeptics and science clash into the real world where theory would like to rule the day . " The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around. Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. –Brendan O’Neill, Spiked, 6 October 2006 " wattsupwiththat.com... Just swap some of the names and creationist could fit in this as well . a reply to: Krazysh0t Oh and I would say the decision to not have the tissue tested was a political one and not a scientific one .

I haven't made a single point about climate change deniers. Though I cannot speak for social shamming of climate change deniers. I wasn't aware however of the government silencing climate change deniers. Since you posit that this is a free speech issue, would you care to explain how the government has enacted legislation to prevent climate change deniers from speaking? Since after all, THAT is what makes an issue a free speech issue.

It would help if you knew exactly WHAT a free speech issue is and isn't before you start slinging that accusation around. Social shamming, ISN'T a free speech issue. It is in FACT an exercise of free speech use actually. Also, where is this rhetoric about killing climate change deniers coming from? You appear to be creating a straw man here.

And the crux of all this? None of it is relevant to the discussion at hand. The government doesn't science. It creates laws. The government, any government, has a LONG history of ignoring or distorting science in favor of whatever it wants to do. What government does and doesn't do in regards to science is irrelevant. At the end of the day, scientific theories stand on the evidence that has been discovered and put forth to paint the picture the theory paints.

Hmm . Lets see , you said "Scientists ARE skeptics. That is how science works. That is why pseudo sciences are dismissed. They present a conclusion while disregarding any argument that could disprove it. Science therefore dismisses those arguments out of skepticism. Evolution has MANY skeptical eyes looking at it. Do you know how famous a scientist would be if he could figure out a definitive way to disprove Evolution? His name would be among the greats like Einstein or Newton. " So like God ,Evolution cant be proved . interesting ..... you then say ..." All theories are falsifiable. Your point is absurd. I have never nor has anyone else ever pushed the idea that evolution can't be disproven. " ..interesting ... "I haven't made a single point about climate change deniers. Though I cannot speak for social shamming of climate change deniers. I wasn't aware however of the government silencing climate change deniers. Since you posit that this is a free speech issue, would you care to explain how the government has enacted legislation to prevent climate change deniers from speaking? Since after all, THAT is what makes an issue a free speech issue. " Well it may not be the Govt. directly it might be a self sensor with the MSM and within the scientific institute .Surely you can not dismiss out of hand the testimonies of witness who were well respected in the scientific community . They may not be championing evolution or creation but they found that the theory of AGW infringed on their free speech that went against the theory . just a fact,.. I know .. a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
So like God ,Evolution cant be proved . interesting .....

If you say so. I never said that anything was definitively proven, but ok. Though to compare not being able to prove god with not being able to prove evolution is laughable. Evolution actually has evidence supporting it. God has zero evidence supporting it. The best argument one can make for the existence of god is, "Well you can't DISPROVE god."

Well it may not be the Govt. directly it might be a self sensor with the MSM and within the scientific institute .Surely you can not dismiss out of hand the testimonies of witness who were well respected in the scientific community . They may not be championing evolution or creation but they found that the theory of AGW infringed on their free speech that went against the theory . just a fact,.. I know .. a reply to: Krazysh0t

No that has ZERO to do with free speech.

Here is the first amendment in the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Free speech ONLY applies to what the government is doing towards speech. The scientific community censoring someone (though that is bullspittle, but whatever) has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. You are making a false equivalence and strawman argument here. STOP. Go relearn what it means to violate freedom of speech then revisit this argument.

By the way, AGW is a VERY politicized debate with people from both sides of the partisan isle ignoring valid science to promote their agenda, but again, the opinions of the government or any politician for that matter is irrelevant. All that matters is the evidence that speaks for itself.

I found evidence that tells me there is a God ..... You have two thoughts I would like you to consider ....1 " Do you know how famous a scientist would be if he could figure out a definitive way to disprove Evolution? " Do you know how important that is to establish ? Because you also said ..." All theories are falsifiable." Now, you tell me how the theory of evolution is falsifiable . You just may go down in history being the one more famous then Newton or Einstein . or not .. a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
I found evidence that tells me there is a God .....

Have you? Where is it? Is it objective evidence or subjective evidence? Why didn't you post it?

You have two thoughts I would like you to consider ....1 " Do you know how famous a scientist would be if he could figure out a definitive way to disprove Evolution? "

He'd be a superstar among academia. I already pointed that out.

Do you know how important that is to establish ? Because you also said ..." All theories are falsifiable." Now, you tell me how the theory of evolution is falsifiable . You just may go down in history being the one more famous then Newton or Einstein . or not .. a reply to: Krazysh0t

In order to falsify evolution, you would have to disprove ALL evidence that says it is real and happening. Since all new evidence goes towards proving evolution, this would be incredibly tough.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

In order to falsify evolution, you would have to disprove ALL evidence that says it is real and happening.

Fallacy of equivocation. There is zero evidence that abiogenesis happened. It's neither observable, nor repeatable, that by definition isn't science.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well for one abiogenesis is a hypothesis not a theory. And for two it isn't related to the theory of evolution. So what is your point here?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Do you know how important that is to establish ? Because you also said ..." All theories are falsifiable." Now, you tell me how the theory of evolution is falsifiable .

I think you're confusing "falsifiable" and "falsified". All theories are falsifiable, which is just a different way of saying testable. Many way that evolution can be tested and potentially falsified have been proposed... Haldane's pre-Cambrian rabbits is just one of the more famous examples.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well for one abiogenesis is a hypothesis not a theory. And for two it isn't related to the theory of evolution. So what is your point here?

My point is that when Christians reject "Evolution" we are rejecting abiogenesis as a means to explain life on Earth. We don't challenge the idea that there are variations withing the species. We don't reject stellar evolution for example. It's a debate whether life was created by an intelligent source, or life just appeared on it's own due to chemical reactions.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well for one abiogenesis is a hypothesis not a theory. And for two it isn't related to the theory of evolution. So what is your point here?

My point is that when Christians reject "Evolution" we are rejecting abiogenesis as a means to explain life on Earth. We don't challenge the idea that there are variations withing the species. We don't reject stellar evolution for example. It's a debate whether life was created by an intelligent source, or life just appeared on it's own due to chemical reactions.

Actually, I've debated with Christians who reject all of these things. But regardless, abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution, so Christians who reject evolution because of abiogenesis are misinformed and ignorant of the sciences they are condemning. Abiogenesis is just a hypothesis and isn't even close to entering the theory stage of science yet, so any problems you have with it are moot, especially when concerning evolution.

Evolution stands on its own whether there was an intelligent designer or if life arose chemically. Though, technically, an intelligent designer could still be behind chemical creation of life as well. So whatever.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually, I've debated with Christians who reject all of these things.

Well, I would argue they are ignorant to science. I can't speak for their ignorance nor should I be required to. We can clearly see variations within a species.

Abiogenesis is just a hypothesis and isn't even close to entering the theory stage of science yet, so any problems you have with it are moot, especially when concerning evolution.

You CANNOT claim that since it is taught in every single textbook in our schools as the method in which life came to be on this planet we call Earth.

Edit: And furthermore it is taught as fact, not one competing hypothesis.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Well, I would argue they are ignorant to science. I can't speak for their ignorance nor should I be required to. We can clearly see variations within a species.

I know crazy huh? But they exist and they even exist on these boards.

You CANNOT claim that since it is taught in every single textbook in our schools as the method in which life came to be on this planet we call Earth.

I don't remember abiogenesis being discussed at all when I was in high school. I learned about Abiogenesis for the first time on ATS, debating evolution deniers.

Edit: And furthermore it is taught as fact, not one competing hypothesis.

Well for one, it is the leading hypothesis for explaining how life arose. For two, a hypothesis doesn't have to have competing hypotheses. For three, I give you panspermia.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We are going down a rabbit trail here, the point I'm making is Creationists reject abiogenesis. And quite often the term "Evolution" is equivocated with abiogenesis and not variations within the species. I see no reason Biblically not to accept for example that 2 pairs of breeding dog-like creatures are not responsible for all the varying dog-type creatures we see today.

This was my point earlier, reject it if you will:

"Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the sense of “common descent.”

Fallacy of equivocation

You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are constantly changing and adapting to their environment.” But, of course, the fact that animals change does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor."

Answers In Genesis