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

a reply to: Barcs

I second this recommendation. Unless you want your thread to degenerate into a kindergarten face-pulling contest.

Ah, too late. The Phantom has picked up the glove.

Nothing to do now but sit back and watch, aghast.

a reply to: Astyanax

If they're serious about a debate, they should pick a topic and take it to the debate forum. IMHO

a reply to: windword

Borntowatch is not serious about debating. He doesn't understand or care what an intelligent debate is. The guy is like an avatar for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Hmm, insulting thread title, check.
Usual line-up of anti-creationists lined up to pat each other on the back, check.
Usual line-by-line rhetoric that is usually spewed by such peoples, check.
Wow, you guys must really like talking about God, because you can't seem to stop making threads about Him! For someone that you supposedly don't believe in, you sure do spend a lot of time talking about Him.

The 'Aliens...' Yeah, let's see... What's the usual excuses for why we haven't been 'visited' (publicly)?

1: We're not 'evolved' enough. I almost want to laugh out loud at this one. Apparently, we're so under-evolved, that the 'aliens' don't think we're 'worthy' of talking to in public, so they would rather just abduct people with horrifying results... Yeah, because that's benevolent.

2: They're not 'allowed' to. This would be the whole Prime Directive thing. Probably the most likely, if it were at all true.

3: They are here, and they have made contact, just not with the general public for some reason... Usually because of reason A, or reason B.

What I find to be particularly funny, is that the 'aliens' claim to be superior, yet hide in the dark (still no reasoning for that eh?). They CLAIM to be benevolent, and to want to 'help' us. Yet according to all accounts, not only are these things incredibly evil, they also have absolutely no problem LYING, ABDUCTING, and TORTURING innocent people. Yet they're here to HELP YOU... Sure. That's the ticket.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
One of the problems with creationism is it calls into question the legitimacy of science. There is a huge lack of actually understanding science, and too often poor attempts at discrediting it are made. "Evolution is a farce" because [insert creationist argument here]. Since there is a huge lack of trust in science, no amount of evidence will suffice their requirements of proof.

That's actually a common logical fallacy. People ASSUME that creation somehow 'calls into question the legitimacy of science,' to use your words. That's an atheist lie, or 'stretch,' if you prefer. The only ones spreading that dictum are atheists. Science and God are NOT mutually exclusive, as God used science to create this reality. Your version of 'proof,' is only your explanation of the evidence, not the actual truth, as that would hurt your Worldview.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Ken Ham, Creationist junk bond king, now says that we should stop exploring space for aliens because:

1. They're probably not there or
2. If they are there they're going to Hell

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation."

Yes good point, good point. And we also know that it says "and the Nephilim were on the earth in those days"....and these "Sons of God" both of which were not human but had a major effect on the earth.

Christ also warned about "signs in the heavens".....could mean a great many things.

originally posted by: Barcs
The egos on these people must be enormous. To think god created humans specially in his image and that the entire universe was made strictly for one planet with life on it out of millions of planets. People just have a desire to be special. It's an emotional thing and it satisfies their ego. Too bad it's a load of crap.

Yea well it would appear to be a load of crap from some positions. But anyway God forbid that He would make a humanoid in His own image to rule the universe! And then that dude screws it up so bad that the Maker Himself has to come down in human form to unfu*k the mess. A real ego story! Sounds more like a very good idea turned into a cluster flux. In fact its so depressing on some levels it must be true.

Can we please ignore Ken Ham? He's a nutjob and a charlatan who is still annoyed that the state of Kentucky pulled the tax breaks for his latest scam because they correctly figured out that he was funding his own private (and biased) church via them.

Debating science with science is such a novel idea .Heck it seems to go on all the time on specific sites where people who should be able to agree on the settled science cant agree on what the science say's .Imagine watching PHD's making idiotic statements to make their points and still holding firm that they are correct while the other guy is wrong . We give too much credibility to so-called experts when in fact they will say what ever it takes to make a buck or gain fame . We are all familiar with the climate wars between pro-AGW's and skeptics . Some times the pro camp seem to make good points but it's based on false science . Yes even scientist can be wrong and some will admit it and move along .Some remained stuck in there dogma but still retain their PHD's and the money associated with it.

Trying to resolve the issues is less important then maintaining ones own philosophical world view for most as they have already committed themselves .If you are convinced then that is fine .If you feel the need to convince others then that has to fine as well .There are always going to be people on different sides of the debate that will agree and disagree despite of rank or class . Here is a link to a debate that shows just how little one side can have in the way of science but have at the same time a position of high rank . climateaudit.org... Dig deep into the debate and notice how the two sides represent their stand . this is what it really looks like :>)

i believe in a creator and aliens,

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: windword

Borntowatch is not serious about debating. He doesn't understand or care what an intelligent debate is. The guy is like an avatar for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I'm very familiar with Borntowatch's debating style, That's why I suggest the debate forum, where the topic is limited and can't necessarily derail onto the "off-topic". The debate itself stays within the boundaries of debate protocol; an opening statement, a couple (?) of rebuttal posts and a closing.

I'll pop the popcorn!

double post

a reply to: Chronogoblin

Those sound an awful lot like the same excuses that believers use!

1: We're not 'evolved' enough. I almost want to laugh out loud at this one. Apparently, we're so under-evolved, that the 'aliens' don't think we're 'worthy' of talking to in public, so they would rather just abduct people with horrifying results... Yeah, because that's benevolent.

We are born in, and remain wretched sinners in need of asking for forgiveness BEFORE God will show up, and even then, it's only in the most private and personal of ways, that no one else can hear or see.

2: They're not 'allowed' to. This would be the whole Prime Directive thing. Probably the most likely, if it were at all true.

God can't show himself or be with us because he can't be in the presence of sin.

3: They are here, and they have made contact, just not with the general public for some reason... Usually because of reason A, or reason B.

God can't fix the evil and all that's wrong with with world because of the "Prime Directive" of free will. But, HE is knock, knock, knocking on your heart's door. All you have to do is open up to him!

What I find to be particularly funny, is that the 'aliens' claim to be superior, yet hide in the dark (still no reasoning for that eh?). They CLAIM to be benevolent, and to want to 'help' us. Yet according to all accounts, not only are these things incredibly evil, they also have absolutely no problem LYING, ABDUCTING, and TORTURING innocent people. Yet they're here to HELP YOU... Sure. That's the ticket.

What I find to be particularly funny, is that religious people think that their belief in god is superior to everyone else's beliefs, because they have the only truth.

These huge religious institutions have no problem justifying atrocities committed against innocent people in the name of their god, and have no compunction or second thoughts about asserting their beliefs and dogma over the rights of others.

Yeah, the "Church", God's representative, is here to help you! Yeah, that's the ticket!

a reply to: borntowatch

"Now remember i dont believe that the science around evolution is factual, are we debating that the science you believe is factual is indeed factual. "

Well this is the point, isn't it? If you don't think that the science is "factual", you need to provide evidence to support your case. In other words, choose a particular scientific experiment in evolutionary science which has been validated through accepted scientific method standards and demonstrate that the experiment and the conclusions were wrong.

As an example, if I didn't believe a cloned human embryo could produce viable, genuine stem cells, I would have to take an experiment like the one linked below, repeat the experiment and demonstrate that the conclusion was wrong. In addition, I would have to demonstrate WHY it was wrong. This is called repeat and validate in science. It applies to every field in science from astrophysics to zoology.

www.nature.com... 52K_NVSCcK7R_un4H9Zbv6avMXitDWQvHXQIoxcFApMuStgU

So once again, pick an experiment that verified some aspect of evolution, one of course that you don't agree with - doesn't matter what the experiment is as long as it follows accepted scientific methods of validation - and proceed to demonstrate WHY the conclusion of that experiment was wrong.

A reply to a couple of posts by Chronogoblin

insulting thread title... anti-creationists lined up... rhetoric spewed... can't seem to stop talking about Him.

Okay, everybody's entitled to let off some steam now and then. But:

The 'Aliens...' Yeah, let's see... What's the usual excuses for why we haven't been 'visited' (publicly)?

1: We're not 'evolved' enough. I almost want to laugh out loud at this one. Apparently, we're so under-evolved, that the 'aliens' don't think we're 'worthy' of talking to in public, so they would rather just abduct people with horrifying results... Yeah, because that's benevolent.

2: They're not 'allowed' to. This would be the whole Prime Directive thing. Probably the most likely, if it were at all true.

3: They are here, and they have made contact, just not with the general public for some reason... Usually because of reason A, or reason B.

What I find to be particularly funny, is that the 'aliens' claim to be superior, yet hide in the dark (still no reasoning for that eh?). They CLAIM to be benevolent, and to want to 'help' us. Yet according to all accounts, not only are these things incredibly evil, they also have absolutely no problem LYING, ABDUCTING, and TORTURING innocent people. Yet they're here to HELP YOU...

What on earth does any of that have to do with the thread topic? The OP isn't validating the claims of the UFO community.

Also,

People ASSUME that creation somehow 'calls into question the legitimacy of science,' to use your words. That's an atheist lie, or 'stretch,' if you prefer. The only ones spreading that dictum are atheists. Science and God are NOT mutually exclusive, as God used science to create this reality.

In my (rather extensive) experience of debates in the ATS Creationism forum, it's usually the 'anti-creationists' (as you call them) who are at pains to point out the compatibility of evolutionary theory with creationism. I've seen posts to that effect from Barcs, CrazySh0t and many others. I've written a few myself. It is the concept of abiogenesis, not evolution, that disposes of an active Creator. But even abiogenesis does not exclude the possibility of a Creator who made a universe in which life was bound to emerge and then sat back to enjoy the results. Of course, worshipping and appealing to such a Creator would be worse than useless, so I understand why creationists don't normally come out to bat on behalf of an Aristotelian First Cause.

Of course science and God are compatible. But science and creationism appear not to be. Young-Earth creationists argue against palaeontological, microbiological and zoological evidence that is perfectly acceptable not only to scientists but to just about everyone else. Some Old-Earth Creationists are more accepting of science, but balk at the Big Bang and the apparent self-conjuration of a universe from nothing. Biblical creationists, even if they fudge the age-of-the-Earth issue by singing A thousand ages in Thy sight/Are like an evening gone, still put themselves through incredible contortions to prove, at least to their own satisfaction, that the Flood happened, that the Tower of Babel once rose beside the Tigris and that the walls of a fortified city can be felled with trumpet-blasts while the heavens stand frozen in witness above. Job couldn't pull Leviathan out with a hook, but creationists can find dinosaurs carved on temple lintels in Cambodia and ways a man might survive for three days inside the belly of the whale.* Such scientific absurdities are the very stuff of creationist apologetics.

It isn't God most 'anti-creationists' have a problem with. It's creationism — and some, though by no means all, creationists.
________________________________________________
* That would be a sperm whale, right? The only species of whale with a gullet big enough to swallow a man. Let's hope that whale in the Good Book was on a diet. Sperm whales eat about 50 tons of food a day, mostly in the form of squid that they hunt at depths of up to a kilometre, staying down for up to an hour and a half at a time. The pressure at that depth is so intense that the whale's rib cage and internal cavities collapse (residual air in the lungs is forced into a chamber in the blowhole). Kind of hard to imagine old Jonah surviving the squeeze — even if he had anything to breathe.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Imagine watching PHD's making idiotic statements to make their points and still holding firm that they are correct while the other guy is wrong

Happens all the time, mate. Only not on television.

a reply to: windword

Happy to do that if the other side agrees. However, in the debate forum I presume strict rules of debate would apply (I'm not sure about this). If that's the case, then hard evidence most definitely would have to be put on the table and discussed - not opinions, speculation, theories without evidence and logic that is not logical.

a reply to: Chronogoblin

Not sure how you come up with that argument. Creationists most definitely deny and ignore science. Take the dating of the Earth or fossil records. Several months ago there was a thread on the same topic. I posted several articles, including the one posted below, to which not one Creationist responded. Why? Because they chose to deny the evidence. Makes their lives much easier.

books.google.com... qG2mZ2oM#v=onepage&q=electron%20spin%20resonance%20dating%20method&f=false

You said: "Your version of 'proof,' is only your explanation of the evidence, not the actual truth, as that would hurt your Worldview. "

Would you kindly explain that logic? Thanks.

"Well this is the point, isn't it? If you don't think that the science is "factual", you need to provide evidence to support your case. In other words, choose a particular scientific experiment in evolutionary science which has been validated through accepted scientific method standards and demonstrate that the experiment and the conclusions were wrong."

Now without trying to flog a subject to death I can show some scientific experiments that failed ,but can only offer some that are well known ,so it's not likely to change anyone's mind .

" ‘Spontaneous generation’ was a mainstream scientific doctrine for a very long time, until proven wrong by Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur. Even then it died a slow and painful death. Spontaneous generation basically proposed that given the right conditions and precursors, life would arise all by itself ‘spontaneously’. There were various recipes for this well-established ‘fact’ of science. For example, 17th Century Flemish chemist Jan Baptiste van Helmont wrote, ‘If a soiled shirt is placed in the opening of a vessel containing grains of wheat, the reaction of the leaven in the shirt with fumes from the wheat will, after approximately 21 days, transform the wheat into mice.’ It was also thought that meat left to rot would spontaneously give rise to maggots and flies. The self-evident fact that rotting meat would before long swarm with maggots and flies established the belief in spontaneous generation of maggots and flies from rotting meat. Redi proposed an eminently simple experiment to test the hypothesis: let’s cover the meat with some fine material and see what happens! Well of course no maggots or flies swarmed on the meat as it rotted because no flies could get to the meat to lay their eggs and thus produce the maggots and flies that were so well known. And so Redi overthrew long-established scientific doctrine and replaced it with a new doctrine, ‘Life comes from life’—what became known as the ‘law of biogenesis’ "

"Pasteur banged the final nail in the coffin of spontaneous generation when he carried out his famous swan-necked beaker experiment. He placed sterilized meat broth in his beaker, then heated the thin neck of the beaker and bent it downward like the neck of a swan. While the bent neck allowed air to get to the broth, it stopped anything dropping into the broth from the air. His broth stayed clear for a year, establishing that sterilised broth open to the air, without any protection as per the swan neck, was contaminated by pre-existing life forms falling into it from the air, even though these were invisible to the naked eye. Again it was established that ‘Life comes from life’, and spontaneous generation fell into disrepute." creation.com...

The whole piece is worth a read as it shows also how certain journals will try and maintain a bogus claim while not allowing pieces to be refuted by others . This is quite common and well documented in the climate wars . Here is one such case dealing with the 97% consensus paper put out by Cook .

97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming wattsupwiththat.com... a reply to: Phantom423

a reply to: Phantom423

Indeed. Strict rules of debate do apply. Also, in the debate forum, the debate is moderated and judged. So there is a debate winner.

I'm sure that rules are easy to read and understand, and I have no doubt that Borntowatch, if she cares to do so, can work within the forum constraints, if she prepares her case ahead of time.