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

Last I checked plants go from being a seed to a root system to a sprout to a full grown plant. I'm pretty sure that is quite a bit of changing from one thing to the other.

That can work but a cutting cuts out the seed . A female pot plant will actually or can actually provide it's own pollen .There are studies that show that a isolated female shark is capable of becoming pregnant . Lots of things are not set in stone and it's true that climate science has it's bad actors or bad scientist but I think it may actually be in every arm of science .It's not really a science thing but a human thing . a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: the2ofusr1

That's true, because evolution provides differences all the time. So an organism doing something it doesn't do normally is just evolution in action.

Would it still be evolution if they turn back to their original state ? a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I listened to about half of this video. He has done what all Creationists do - corrupt and misinterpret scientific evidence to fit his model. He totally disregards the evidence that stares him right in the face.

Every topic he addresses and re-interprets to support his case can be shown to be false whether it's Darwin, Haldane, mutations, radiometric dating or ATP. I'm only up to the ATP portion - but I'm quite sure that the remainder of the video is similar - optimizing and distorting known data to fit a model - a model which cannot be experimentally verified. It's merely a lot of rhetoric i.e. hot air.

I'm also quite sure that if I wrote him a letter asking him to present evidence for his opinion on ATP that he wouldn't be able to do it. His chicken-and-egg proposal is ridiculous - which came first ATP or the "engine" that he refers to (incorrectly BTW). ATP is ubiquitous in nature. It's probably a good example of natural selection because there are other compounds like citric acid and arsenic acid which can also produce energy to a cell, just like a battery. And the body DOES NOT synthesize ATP in approximately its own weight every day. ATP is continuously recycled. The human body, which on average contains only 250 grams of ATP turns over its own body weight equivalent in ATP each day. Again, a total misinterpretation of how the chemistry works. The fundamentals of the Krebs Cycle should be well known to anyone who has studied Biology 101. Obviously, he flunked that course.

On Haldane he does the same thing. Haldane's dilemma has been used by Creationists ad infinitum as an example that evolution is not possible. "Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly."
Haldane made a mathematical assumption which was incorrect. But your guy disregards this as though it didn't exist. Such is the strategy of Creationists - ignore the truth, speak to the ignorant masses and you'll get away with it. Not on my watch I'm afraid!!

That's just one example of how he's reinvented the wheel into a square instead of a circle. He's a false prophet like the rest of them. Probably in the same boat as Ken Ham - collecting a lot of money from his followers while feeding them a load of hogwash.

Unfortunately, he's speaking to an audience which has no ability or desire to research the correct information.

I challenge you again to pick a topic for discussion - any topic including any topic he talked about. But as a famous person once said: "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

P.S. I don't expect a response to the above. There will be another disappearance into the "aether", never to be heard from again!

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yes. Evolution isn't directional. It is just a product of its environment.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yes because an organism would not have to "unevolve" to return to an original state. An original state is simply a specific configuration - can be anything - a molecule, a plant or a human. The probability may be low but it's not impossible.

Creationists, or this one guy you are citing? Your thread title suggests that you are grouping all creationists together as believing exactly the same thing as this one guy you are citing.

If you applied the same method to practical or scientific theory, it would not be credible whatsoever.

a reply to: TechUnique

Well, if there are other Creationists out there who don't adhere to Ken Ham's BS, let me know. As I said previously, I have no problem with religion or the concept of God or Gods. It's the corruption of science that annoys me as well as the ignorance of people who follow him. Ham's corruption of modern science is no different than the Nazi concept of genetic inferiority of certain ethnic groups. It's a complete distortion of the evidence and the truth.

As for science, it is not a "belief" system. Science is objective and pragmatic. You don't "believe" in science; you test it, you experiment, you verify. Very different from a belief system where experimental evidence is not required.

Ken Ham is a fraud. Fortunately, enough pressure has been put upon him and his ilk that slowly they are withering away. The trash bin of history is too good for him.

originally posted by: Phantom423
I have no problem with religion or the concept of God or Gods. It's the corruption of science that annoys me as well as the ignorance of people who follow him.

Unfortunately the belief in God sometimes (but not always) goes hand in hand with the ignorance of science.

Ken Ham is a fraud. Fortunately, enough pressure has been put upon him and his ilk that slowly they are withering away. The trash bin of history is too good for him.

I don't know how slowly they are withering away compared to how quickly their resolve is hardened and spreads. These scientific illiterate weeds will never cease to sprout as long as things like faith are involved.

Of course, like you, I am anxious to have some of their claims about science being fraudulent, abused, or faulty in some way, backed up with some evidence. It would be a highly educational debate, one way or the other. At the very least interesting. Any takers? As borntowatch has bowed out.

a reply to: Phantom423

Ham's corruption of modern science is no different than the Nazi concept of genetic inferiority of certain ethnic groups. It's a complete distortion of the evidence and the truth.

So now Ham is a Nazi?


I think you are exaggerating a bit.

a reply to: Xtrozero

How about something much more simpler, such as, short giraffes have a harder time reaching the good leaves so their chances for survival are much less than taller giraffes.

Shorties would still have had young trees and shorter plants to be eat.

Taller giraffes die faster in drought conditions. link


Luckily the vertebrae in the giraffes neck are all ball and socket or that long neck wouldn't work.

Other modifications were apparently needed also.

The giraffes neck is so long that body modifications had to be required during evolution from shorter-necked animals like the Okapi. The heart of the giraffe would have to be very large in order to pump blood to the brain whilst the giraffe was bent over having a drink. Unfortunately, too much blood being pumped to its brain at one time would be fatal. This is why it does not happen. The giraffe has special valves in the vessels in its neck to ensure that the blood flow is adequate. These special valves are called 'Eukaryote'.

a reply to: Phantom423

optimizing and distorting known data to fit a model - a model which cannot be experimentally verified

Aren't Multiverses an example of this also?

a reply to: Phantom423

His chicken-and-egg proposal is ridiculous - which came first ATP or the "engine" that he refers to (incorrectly BTW). ATP is ubiquitous in nature.

So ATP could have formed outside of organisms first, and maybe floated around in a watery organic soup, later to be incorporated?


ATP Synthase an amazing molecular machine.

a reply to: dusty1

Not sure what multi universes have to do with this, but here you go. They've already been created in the lab:

www.extremetech.com...

There was a similar experiment at CERN using a different technique I think.

a reply to: dusty1

What's the point or the question? ATP SYNTHASE is an ENZYME. It is a protein. It is not ATP. ATP is not a machine. The Krebs Cycle is the machine because it's the Krebs Cycle that that begins with a molecule of glucose and ends up in either carbon dioxide or ATP. The energy is produced when the phosphate bond is hydrolytically cleaved to either ADP or AMP, producing 7.5 kcal/m or 10.5 kcal/m (approximate) in energy.

If you want to know how the whole thing works, watch this:
www.khanacademy.org...

a reply to: dusty1

The Nazis corrupted what was known about genetic science at the time. They used Eugenics to define the value of any particular race. That's a corruption of science. It's false science. It's the misuse of science. Ham isn't far behind.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I agree. But you have to understand that Creationists run for cover whenever they're challenged with real science. That's why you'll not see hide nor hair of them - at least in this thread.

a reply to: Phantom423

Looks like I'm preaching to the choir here, but here goes.

The universe is too vast for most people to comprehend, and I mean that in the most basic sense of the words. Some just cannot HANDLE it, at all, even a little bit. Their minds are just not built for it.

To speak of religion, I would like to say only this -

If you are an adult and you believe with all certainty that Santa Claus is real, really damn believe it and practie that belief and think Santa talks to you in your sleep and when you ask him for presents and all that, then you are insane.

If you are an adult and you believe with all certainty that Jesus Christ (or whatever, really) is real, really damn believe it and practie that belief and think Jesus talks to you in your sleep and when you pray to him at night and all that, then you are a sane and good, upstanding member of the community.

Although the creationist/darwinian arguement is a fun one to have, I think everyone should be a lot more worried that the insane are running the asylum. They regulate our schools, are elected to government, teach our children, and push us to war. They believe the world is amde of magic, and they are willing to kill and inprison those who disagree.

Be worried. Dissenting voices are not tolerated.

I'm a Christian and by token: Creationist. I believe that there are ET alien beings though. I'll admit, it's not a popular opinion in my circle of acquaintances, however.

Jesus even alludes to 'eagles' / aliens in Matthew 24...

28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together. Matthew 24:28 NKJV