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

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

That is still intelligence (engineers/programmers) directed.

And?

Your original point of refutation was that natural selection was a term which could only be applied to living things reproducing. You were flat out wrong on this point as I have conclusively shown.

And is that the best you can do, really? Nit-pick on the definition of a term you don't even understand? What about the other 99% of my original post?

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Anecdotal evidence is of no scientific value.

Didn't I say that originally?

And I realize what I'm going to say next isn't scientifically empirical proof...

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Your original point of refutation was that natural selection was a term which could only be applied to living things reproducing.

Not exactly, I said that in regards to the theory of abiogenesis.

What about the other 99% of my original post?

My first response was edited. Perhaps you didn't see that.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

That's a religious belief. There is no way for science to prove that random chemical reactions can produce a mind, will or emotions. No empirical proof.

I think this statement pretty much sums up your misunderstanding. First it's a broad generalization of a 3.8 billion year process and your standards for proof are impossible to meet, because you'll only believe it if you are physically there to witness it, which is impossible because it takes a long time. It perplexes me why you don't hold your religion to the same standard, however, yet believe it blindly.

Chemical reactions aren't random. They are consistent every time if the factors are the same. The mind didn't emerge from random chemical reactions, it started very simple and increased in complexity for billions of years from genetic mutations and natural selection. The fossil record shows this, Genetics confirm it. Stop using generalizations and other fallacies to support your argument.

I had originally thought on this thread that evolution was like a straw man and pulling straws out would not disprove the theory .I still look at it in that respect but now must add that it is very similar to Creationist . Evolutionist have a bible called The Origin of Species .Both sides would agree that the other group has some old gray haired person as their god .Evolutionist had some early apostles like Earnst Haeckel ,Harald Cook , Eugene Dubois Professor Reiner Protsch , evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com... . Both sides would claim to have apostates .then and now .


Both religions preach in hopes to gain converts .The Bible tells me that We are fools for Christ's sake ,and history tells me that Piltdown man made monkeys out of the scientists of the day..As I was once a believer in evolution and really didn't look into the matter very much ,it was just a belief. One that I no longer hold in the least . Maybe if they had found some of those many missing links you might expect I could have maintained what little belief I had .

I want to thank OP for allowing me to participate in his thread and to the contributors also . Like the UFO threads on the site ,I cant see me wasting my time disputing other peoples religion that I don't adhere to and can just respect them ....peace

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
That's a religious belief. There is no way for science to prove that random chemical reactions can produce a mind, will or emotions. No empirical proof. And I realize what I'm going to say next isn't scientifically empirical proof, but there are tens of thousands of people who have come back from being clinically dead (not NDEs), that have stated they are consciously aware and retain their mind, emotions, and memory. That means the soul is energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. And likewise, based on E=mc^2, that energy would be eternal, it has no mass and therefore cannot be affected by time.

Our fleshly bodies are only hardware to house our spirit and soul (software), those of which are eternal. They exist once the body is clinically dead.

So, you come to me demanding empirical evidence that consciousness can arise naturally yet push the idea of a soul then give subjective evidence for its existence. That is a HUGE double standard. If you are going to cast doubts on consciousness arising naturally due to lacking evidence, surely you cannot accept the faulty evidence for a soul instead. That is intellectually dishonest.

I can't condemn you for what makes you feel special, I can only speak to myself. But I tend to look at it from the perspective of God, not man. This is the only place in the vast universe He created that He chose to make man in His image. That's absurdly unique to me.

How do you know that? Are you saying that you know for 100% fact that there is no other world in this universe where humans would be able to live and thrive? How do you know this? Scientists don't even know this. Where did you get your evidence for such claims?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

No offense, but when the introduction to your "evidence" that evolution isn't science contains an example of quote mining:

In 1859, in his book Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin said: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, (why) do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”. This is from chapter six entitled Difficulties on the Theory.

followed by something that is completely and utterly factually in accurate:

Scientists who believe evolution have been searching for transitional forms ever since but they have been not found. Therefore, fraudulent fossils have been made and presented as transitional forms.

you really need to find new sources of information.

Since you seem to think that the theory of evolution begins and ends with Darwin*, have you ever actually read "On The Origin Of Species"?

* Hint: It doesn't begin and end with Darwin. Not even close. We have over a century and a half of further research in the area, including fields that didn't even exist when Darwin first developed his theory... like genetics. It's like saying that atomic theory isn't science because the "plum pudding" model of the atom that JJ Thompson proposed at the turn of the 20th century was incorrect.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, you come to me demanding empirical evidence that consciousness can arise naturally yet push the idea of a soul then give subjective evidence for its existence. That is a HUGE double standard.

Not at all, I admitted before the statement was made that I was basing my belief on anecdotal evidence, I said freely that it wasn't empirical proof before even making the statement. I don't need empirical proof for a subjective belief, all I need is reasonable evidence. And I consider multiple first person testimonials to be reasonable proof to form my belief.

I can demand empirical proof for a statement you made that there is scientific proof or evidence to something being true. That's how logic works, the person making the truth claim is the person who carries the burden to prove the claim. Science rests on empirical data, not religion. I can form my religious beliefs separate and independent of empirical proof, all I need is evidence.

How do you know that? Are you saying that you know for 100% fact that there is no other world in this universe where humans would be able to live and thrive? How do you know this? Scientists don't even know this. Where did you get your evidence for such claims?

I can't say for 100% fact that I even exist. But I believe the Word of God that says we were created here unique.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

Not at all, I admitted before the statement was made that I was basing my belief on anecdotal evidence, I said freely that it wasn't empirical proof before even making the statement. I don't need empirical proof for a subjective belief, all I need is reasonable evidence. And I consider multiple first person testimonials to be reasonable proof to form my belief.

This reads like confirmation bias to me.

I can demand empirical proof for a statement you made that there is scientific proof or evidence to something being true. That's how logic works, the person making the truth claim is the person who carries the burden to prove the claim. Science rests on empirical data, not religion. I can form my religious beliefs separate and independent of empirical proof, all I need is evidence.

So why is it that you wouldn't want to hold religion up to the same evidence standards as science? Why are you rationalizing why it is ok to accept subjective evidence for religion?

I can't say for 100% fact that I even exist. But I believe the Word of God that says we were created here unique.

Well the word of god also says that the Earth was created before the stars and that the light from the moon is a different light than the light from the sun. The word of god doesn't exactly have a good track record for being correct in these matters.

(Genesis 1:14-19) 14 Then God commanded, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate day from night and to show the time when days, years, and religious festivals[c] begin; 15 they will shine in the sky to give light to the earth”—and it was done. 16 So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars. 17 He placed the lights in the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God was pleased with what he saw. 19 Evening passed and morning came—that was the fourth day.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So why is it that you wouldn't want to hold religion up to the same evidence standards as science? Why are you rationalizing why it is ok to accept subjective evidence for religion?

Religion isn't a science. Nor does it require the scientific method to form a belief structure. Forget religion, what does it take for you to believe someone is lying to you? do you need to form a theory and test it using the scientific method or do you simply need subjective evidence to believe it to be true or not true?

It takes concrete proof to know something, it takes just the slightest evidence to believe something to be true.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Religion isn't a science. Nor does it require the scientific method to form a belief structure. Forget religion, what does it take for you to believe someone is lying to you? do you need to form a theory and test it using the scientific method or do you simply need subjective evidence to believe it to be true or not true?

How do I know if someone is lying to me? I find evidence that something other than what was told to me happened. Though there is a follow up question that you missed. Should I continue to trust that person now that I know he's been lying? The answer is no. That is the case with the bible. So many lies and inaccuracies have been found in it (I highlighted two in my previous post, but that's not all; heck there are more in that very passage from Genesis I quoted) that no reasonable person should even begin to trust it.

It takes concrete proof to know something, it takes just the slightest evidence to believe something to be true.

Or in the case of religion, no evidence or even evidence to the contrary. Wait that covers all situations. So what you really should have said is, "people will believe something is true regardless of what the evidence says."

Why are we discussing the conditions someone needs in order to believe something is true anyways? Beliefs are flawed. All that matters is what is and isn't reality. You can believe in god all day due to whatever flimsy evidence you want, but at the end of the day, if god doesn't exist your beliefs mean diddly. People make up all sorts of reasons why they believe something. But the question remains, why DON'T you want to apply the same standards of evidence requirements to religion? Are you afraid that your religion would be proven wrong? If you are confident that it is correct, then applying these evidence standards should REINFORCE your beliefs since that would mean that concrete evidence would also support your claims alongside the subjective evidence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How did this go from an argument about what is required for scientific fact and what is needed for a subjective belief to an argument about theology? I'm not following you down the rabbit trail. This isn't a debate about whether God exists or not, or whether the Bible or Koran is more accurate.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I'm just trying to make a lateral comparison. Religion, at the end of the day, is primitive man's attempt to explain the universe. Just like science is modern man's attempt to explain the universe. So if one form of evidence collection is required for one, it should be required, or at least striven for, for all. By relying on subjective evidence, you are leaving yourself open to all sorts of interpretations that are probably wrong. The great thing about objective evidence is that it doesn't lie.

Tell me, if objective evidence ever surfaced for god that showed a good picture of what god is and can do, would you care about subjective evidence for god at all anymore?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

There IS empirical proof, you just ignore it and fight evolution with nothing but misunderstandings, fallacies and generalizations. Your entire argument has no basis in reality, and you have the nerve to accuse others of committing fallacies that you don't even know the meaning of.

You reject abiogenesis with the claim that random chemical reactions cannot lead to a mind with emotions, which is a blatant straw man and equivocation of evolution and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis did not lead to a mind, evolution did. You claim you are not rejecting evolution, only abiogenesis, but this is false. Abiogenesis is about life arising from its most basic components leading to the emergence of a replicating cell, not a mind. Evolution is about how the genetic code of that cell changes over time and how the environment affects which organisms are more likely to survive.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Your original point of refutation was that natural selection was a term which could only be applied to living things reproducing.

Not exactly, I said that in regards to the theory of abiogenesis.

What about the other 99% of my original post?

My first response was edited. Perhaps you didn't see that.

Oh I saw it. It was almost content free. Little more than you crab-walking away from your previous statements with some drivel about "well there's no empirical evidence but there are thousands of testimonials" and went on to imply that I was censoring a critical caveat from your original statement (when all I was really trying to do was not quote verbatim in an effort to preserve space).

So there are thousands of testimonials hey. Tell you what, go on to any online scam artists website and what will you see? Hundreds of testimonials claiming that their brand of snake oil makes your penis bigger or allows you to make millions working from home. Testimonials ain't worth crap.

And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that there is an eternal soul which exists above and beyond the known physical laws is an extremely extraordinary claim, and anyone with half a critical-thinking brain should be demanding the highest cailbre of evidence, not just accepting somebody's testimony on it.

You disregard the science as not having "empirical proof" but then you accept religion on the weakest evidence imaginable. One makes you uncomfortable and challenges your preconceived worldview, the other makes you feel all warm and fuzzy so you bend over backwards to believe it hook line and sinker.

Apart from that, you did not address any of the points I made, you simply squabbled over the definition of 'natural selection'.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Little more than you crab-walking away from your previous statements with some drivel about "well there's no empirical evidence but there are thousands of testimonials"

What do you mean by "crab walking away"?

When I originally made the statement I said it wasn't empirical scientific proof, and for obvious reasons. That's not backtracking, that's re-stating my exact same statement.

Testimonials ain't worth crap.

Have you ever seen a trial? Eye-witness testimony from first person accounts is the most powerful evidence there is in swaying opinions.

You disregard the science as not having "empirical proof" but then you accept religion on the weakest evidence imaginable.

Science demands empirical proof to assert something is scientific fact, does it NOT? Religion doesn't, religion is person and subjective. I don't need you or anyone else to assert to a fact for me to believe in it. And I haven't even discussed reasons why I believe in my particular religion, so you're just arguing prejudicial arbitrary conjectures on this point above.

a reply to: Barcs

There IS empirical proof

Do you even know what I made the statement about? What did I ask for empirical proof of? Tell me.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
What do you mean by "crab walking away"?

When I originally made the statement I said it wasn't empirical scientific proof, and for obvious reasons. That's not backtracking, that's re-stating my exact same statement.

What I mean is your lack of interest in addressing any of the real substance of your post - I'm not talking about your caveat that "I know this isn't empircal proof, but..." - but rather the points I raised originally in my first reply.

But let's look at that statement for a second. "And I realize what I'm going to say next isn't scientifically empirical proof, but.. "

It's weasel words. It's weasel words because you then go on to present an argument based on testimonials and some pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that you think sounds sciency and conclude with certainty that the soul is real and eternal after previously bashing science for supposedly not having good evidence.

It's the intellectual equivalent of, "I'm not a racist but.." or "I respect you, but.."

Have you ever seen a trial? Eye-witness testimony from first person accounts is the most powerful evidence there is in swaying opinions.

Actually, by itself it's not the most powerful evidence at all. However, legal burden of proof is a completely different concept to scientific burden of proof, which is why anecdotal evidence is accepted.

However, even in a legal framework, there is still the opportunity to cross examine the witness, not to mention to verify their credentials. That is not the case here with wild tales of out of body experiences. As such these amount to little more than hearsay.

So I would not even begin to equate these stories with legal standards of evidence. But even if you were - science sets an entirely different standard anyway, as I'm sure you are well aware.

The plural of anecdote is not "data" and never will be. A thousand people can be wrong. A million people can be wrong. Quite easily.

As an example - an American doctor, Doctor Albert Abrams became wealthy selling machines which he said could diagnose and cure all kinds of ailments. His devices were widely used, with millions of people swearing by their effectiveness. It worked for them and their experiences were unshakable. When Abrams died, it was found his machines were filled with useless random mechanical parts that did absolutely nothing.

Science demands empirical proof to assert something is scientific fact, does it NOT? Religion doesn't, religion is person and subjective. I don't need you or anyone else to assert to a fact for me to believe in it. And I haven't even discussed reasons why I believe in my particular religion, so you're just arguing prejudicial arbitrary conjectures on this point above.

Translation - I'm going to believe in what I believe in regardless. Doesn't matter if there is no good evidence for it. Makes me feel good.

You go for it mate. Just don't think your opinion is anything more than that, and when you try to bash well established scientific theories or even hypothesies for not having evidence, you better be able to back that up with something substantial or else sooner or later you will get called on it.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Barcs

There IS empirical proof

Do you even know what I made the statement about? What did I ask for empirical proof of? Tell me.

I was making a general statement in regards to the general understanding you are demonstrating, not responding directly to that post. Is it not true that you made the statement about random chemical reactions creating a mind? That's the statement I was referring to, but if that wasn't you I apologize.

You reject abiogenesis with the claim that random chemical reactions cannot lead to a mind with emotions, which is a blatant straw man and equivocation of evolution and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis did not lead to a mind, evolution did. You claim you are not rejecting evolution, only abiogenesis, but this is false. Abiogenesis is about life arising from its most basic components leading to the emergence of a replicating cell, not a mind. Evolution is about how the genetic code of that cell changes over time and how the environment affects which organisms are more likely to survive.

I like science explained in simple terms that consider the contradictions to observations .