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

a reply to: dusty1

If you're interested in quantum physics and chemistry, then I suggest that you apply to a university that offers extensive courses in the subjects.

The same applies to the physics of energy cycles. There's enough information out there that, if you're sincerely interested to learn the hard science, you can access it in many places. I'm not a teacher. Nor do I intend to be. You need a fundamental understanding of chemistry and physics i.e. Chem 101 and Physics 101 to even begin a conversation. It's up to you to acquire that knowledge and figure out the answers for yourself.

originally posted by: rnaa

No, I think that you are providing an INCORRECT reason. There maybe 1000 reasons, but reaching high leaves is NOT one of them.

Ok whatever you totally missed my point.

You suggest it is an internal condition at the "microscopic level understands the problem and alters the giraffe", and I'm saying it is external influences...

I'm just saying that you have to look somewhere else for the purpose of the long neck - it should not be your 'go to' example because it just isn't a viable explanation.

You seems to be all about questions, so give me the smoking gun to their long neck. The whole "better to eat with" is not my "go to", I'm just suggesting that external forces drive much of this. If you add that in mating the bigger giraffe will normally win out, the bigger giraffe will have more options to eat, the bigger giraffe will defend better against predator and so have better survival ability.. etc you get bigger giraffes.

In situations where you do not have all this like on a island you can get Insular dwarfism, a reverse in size. Mush of it is all about efficiency, and evolution loves efficiency.

Insular dwarfism, a form of phyletic dwarfism,[1] is the process and condition of the reduction in size of large animals over a number of generations[a] when their population's range is limited to a small environment, primarily islands. This natural process is distinct from the intentional creation of dwarf breeds, called dwarfing. This process has occurred many times throughout evolutionary history, with examples including dinosaurs, like Europasaurus, and modern animals such as elephants and their relatives. This process, and other "island genetics" artifacts, can occur not only on traditional islands, but also in other situations where an ecosystem is isolated from external resources and breeding. This can include caves, desert oases, isolated valleys and isolated mountains ("sky islands"). Insular dwarfism is one aspect of the more general "island rule", which posits that when mainland animals colonize islands, small species tend to evolve larger bodies, and large species tend to evolve smaller bodies.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Now I should ask who the we is in that statement

"We" is the people on the "evolutionist side of the argument" as you put it in your post.

but will mention a group of scientist that believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming . They have produced many many papers stating as fact that it is so . They have many people that believe them and MSM talks about it all the time .

We are not talking about AGW here so it occurs to me that it is off topic, but yes, your statement this is reasonably true, if not precisely accurate. Scientists have reported "many many" observable, indisputable, facts that indicate that Global Warming is occuring. Scientists have also reported "many many" possible explanations for the GW 'cause'. All explanations except one have been eliminated by the observable, indisputable facts. The only cause that fits the facts is the Anthropogenic one. So yes, scientists agree that AGW is the best model that describes the observable facts.

There is also another group who produce many many papers and who have many people believe like they do that there is no AGW.

That is, unfortunately for your argument, not correct. The 'anti-AGW' people do NOT produce many many papers (when I mention 'papers', I refer to recognized 'peer-reviewed' papers). There are certainly papers that report facts and cite something other than AGW as the cause or nothing at all as the cause. To characterize those papers as 'anti-AGW' is ridiculous. There are also 'papers' (and here I use the term very loosely), that seek to play on controversy surrounding minor points in order to deflect from the 'big picture'. Just because two scientists disagree about, for example, whether the temperature has risen 0.423 degrees or 0.611 degrees doesn't mean that one of them is denying that the temperature has risen.

So I have a choice between Evolution or a God .

That is simply a false choice. It is perfectly possible to accept BOTH. Certainly millions of scientists do; and actually, most theologians would tell you the same thing.

Change I can accept because if you take your tomato plants out of a small container and put them in your garden they will change ,grow bigger and produce fruit .They may have changed but they are always going to be tomato plants and will never turn into something else .The life cycle of a Salmon goes through stages of change but will always be the same type .You may give them different names for those places and times at which you find them but they will always be salmon . That is my understanding of it.

I understand what you are saying but that just has nothing to do with the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

Biological Evolution is about the changes in populations of organisms over time, where time is measured in generations, not days, weeks, years. The changes in Harley-Davidson bikes over the years is not biological evolution and has no place in a productive discussion about evolution.

Of course individuals have a life cycle, and the MES does seek to understand how that particular plant life cycle came to be, but it does so from the point of view of how did any plant come to bear flowers and fruit.

a reply to: Astyanax

Sorry to be a smart Alec, but: any felid.

I'll pay that.

More like a smart Ast(yanax) though.

Edit: but I think cats bend their shoulders, not their legs.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You suggest it is an internal condition at the "microscopic level understands the problem and alters the giraffe", and I'm saying it is external influences...

I never said or suggested any such thing. I only challenged your example of what led to the length of a giraffe's neck. Period.

Evolution does not work because "an internal condition at the "microscopic level understands the problem and alters the giraffe"" and I would never say or allude to that silly notion.

There is no 'understanding' at a microscopic level or macroscopic level or unconscious level or a conscious level or at any kind of level what-so-ever. Evolution is not directed - it just happens - understanding doesn't come into it. Some individuals reproduce better than others so the traits they carry come to dominate the population. That is all. Populations evolve, not individuals - individuals just reproduce or not.

I am not denying the influence of 'external influences' on evolution. Changes in the environment, whether big like a volcano or small like a beaver dam, can certainly tip the balance towards a new status quo. But it isn't individuals that evolve to meet the new conditions - it is the population that evolves. A few individuals might, due to some random mutation, be a bit better at reproducing in the new environment, in which case, their genes will become the dominate gene in the population. It is really just that simple and has nothing what ever with "an internal condition at the "microscopic level understands the problem and alters the giraffe""

You seems to be all about questions, so give me the smoking gun to their long neck.

The bottom line about the Giraffe is that we really don't know how its neck got so long, but reaching for high leaves is not one of the reasons. Your argument is straight out of Lamark and Darwin, but they were speculating from a very low knowledge base. I don't think your underlying concept is bad, I'm just trying to get you to find a better example, because your current one is getting in your way.

Source: The Nature Institute: The Giraffe's Short Neck

A variety of other studies show that giraffe feeding habits vary according to place and time (reviewed in Simmons and Scheepers 1996). Giraffes move seasonally, and in the dry season in East Africa they tend to seek out lower valley bottoms and riverine woodlands. There they usually feed from bushes at or below shoulder height (about two and one half meters in females and three meters in males). Fifty percent of the time they fed at a height of two meters or less, which overlaps with the feeding zone of larger herbivores such as the gerenuk and the kudu (Leuthold and Leuthold 1972; Pellew 1984; see Figure 2). During the rainy season, when there is abundant browse at all levels, giraffes are more likely to feed from the higher branches, browsing fresh, protein-rich leaves. Other studies also show that giraffes do most of their feeding at about shoulder height, with their necks positioned nearly horizontally (Young and Isbell 1991; Woolnough and du Toit 2001). So it looks as though giraffes are not using their long necks the way the theory demands. And they use them even less to reach heights in the dry season, when the theory demands they should need them most!

a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Herolotus
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.



You hit the nail on the head with that one. I couldn't agree more. It's about insanity and the fact that it is encouraged rather than frowned upon. No, I'm not calling all religious folk insane, but it does apply to the absolutist science deniers.

If you are an adult and you have a hunch that a certain thing works in a particular way and you are certain, I mean really damn certain, and you go to sleep and you dream or maybe stare at the ceiling getting all excited thinking eureka that’s it, it all makes perfect sense.

Then you spend the rest of your life searching for any scrap of evidence to supports your fiction, even build up a following of disciples who also spend their lives searching for scraps until one day,between them,they declare that’s it, we have a theory. Even though all the evidence is cherry picked to fit the picture.

1+1+3+4+1
2+5+1+1+1
3+1+1+1+4
4+2+1+1+2
5+1+2+1+1

What do all these numbers add up to in rows?
correct!

Now lets say that the first set of numbers is Evolutionary Theory, It all adds up perfectly. Science now, no longer searches for a solution, but keeps on bending pieces into place.

Done deal!

That is until somewhere way down the track, when they try to fit it in with some new evidence that has been discovered that demands that the third number must be a 2 or perhaps 2 in the third place is required to fit the theory into an even bigger picture

What will science do? kick the new evidence under the rug or will it scrap the theory and start all over again?

Well Barcs, or any of you evolutionist disciples, what do you reckon?

Oh wow, didn't notice but it just hit Christmas day here.

Merry Christmas everyone!!!

Jesus loves you all, even though you don't believe he ever existed.

Oh, and so does Santa!

So that I keep on topic, I think Santa is an alien

interesting fact: Rudolph the brown nosed reindeer is much faster than any of the other reindeers however, his inability to stop quickly is a bit of a problem.

a reply to: Phantom423

If you're interested in quantum physics and chemistry, then I suggest that you apply to a university that offers extensive courses in the subjects.

This is very puzzling.


You claim Nucleosides, which are more complex, were found in meteorites, when it appears that less complex Nucleobases were actually discovered.

The video talked about Adenosine Triphosphate, Adenosine and Phosphates.

You argued that adenine and phosphorus were found everywhere, which are not the same thing.


I am trying to understand your position.

Is it that you believe simple structures, are the same as more complex structures?

a reply to: dusty1

The components are present in meteorites. They could be there as an original state or the breakdown products of a more complex compound. We don't know that. Read the article from NASA:
www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: dusty1

And my position is, and has been, that the guy in the video is clueless in chemistry. He's twisted a fairly straight forward science into some mysterious entity that only he and his church can understand. He has no experimental data.
His audience accepts what he says because they don't understand the science.

a reply to: dusty1

And once again, if you want to debate a specific topic in Creationism, I'm happy to do so. But that means you bring your evidence i.e. data to substantiate your case. And I will do the same. But I can't teach you chemistry/physics 101. You have to do that on your own.

originally posted by: kennyb72
If you are an adult and you have a hunch that a certain thing works in a particular way and you are certain, I mean really damn certain, and you go to sleep and you dream or maybe stare at the ceiling getting all excited thinking eureka that’s it, it all makes perfect sense.

Then you spend the rest of your life searching for any scrap of evidence to supports your fiction, even build up a following of disciples who also spend their lives searching for scraps until one day,between them,they declare that’s it, we have a theory. Even though all the evidence is cherry picked to fit the picture.

You just described the process by which creationists rationalize their faith. Scientific theories aren't developed from hunches. They present a hypothesis based on existing information, then they test the hypothesis to see if it is true. If it is, they add it to the evidence and move on to the next hypothesis. If it is false they start over and try again. Nothing is cherry picked, the picture just gets bigger and bigger as more evidence is found. What you described is EXACTLY how creationist "science" works. The fact that you try to project that onto the scientific method speaks volumes. I know I've asked you this before, but can you list some cherry picked pieces of evidence that were forced into MES? Will this question be ignored as it was in the past?

Now lets say that the first set of numbers is Evolutionary Theory, It all adds up perfectly. Science now, no longer searches for a solution, but keeps on bending pieces into place.

Done deal!

Wrong. Pieces are not forced into place. If evidence is discovered that goes against the current model, the model is altered. This is just your ridiculous anti science perspective causing you to not see things clearly and unbiasedly. You dislike science, so obviously you are going to keep attacking it without substance.

That is until somewhere way down the track, when they try to fit it in with some new evidence that has been discovered that demands that the third number must be a 2 or perhaps 2 in the third place is required to fit the theory into an even bigger picture

What will science do? kick the new evidence under the rug or will it scrap the theory and start all over again?

Well Barcs, or any of you evolutionist disciples, what do you reckon?

I reckon you still have no clue how science works. Give me an example of a scientific theory where bad math was intentionally included just to keep an outdated idea going? Give me an example of evidence being forced into place. I'm pretty sure I've asked this in the past and instead of answering you went off on multiple different unrelated tangents. Give me evidence of this happening with MES. Last time we went through this rodeo, you didn't address any of my counterpoints and keep digging yourself deeper into oblivion with your absurd claims about how science works and we never got anywhere because you just kept posting unrelated false claims and when they were debunked you just move on to the next false claim. This gets old, but if you have an actual argument, I'd like to hear it. All I get from you is metaphors and assumptions.

a reply to: Phantom423

The components are present in meteorites.

adenine was found

Adenosine which was mentioned in the video was not.

They could be there as an original state or the breakdown products of a more complex compound. We don't know that

Wait, what?

The article you cited was giving evidence that the simple components found in the meteorites were not terrestrial in origin.

Please show me where it makes any claim in the article, that these components from the meteorite, were breakdowns of more complex compounds.

a reply to: Phantom423

Ken Ham does not represent all the creation crowd. He only speaks for himself. I know hundreds of people that feel creation was what happened. Not one of those thinks that aliens aren't out there, here, or elsewhere.

I see the media give so much air time and publication to stories or opinions like Ken Ham, but then they do have a proven pattern of agenda driven public opinion design.

edit: and always note how "stereotypes" are relied on and used every time any agenda driven article is published or broadcast.

a reply to: Phantom423

And my position is, and has been, that the guy in the video is clueless in chemistry

I admit I only watched the part about ATP and ATP Synthase.

The speaker called ATP Synthase a motor or machine, which you initially disagreed with

the "engine" that he refers to (incorrectly BTW)

, but numerous articles back up the idea that ATP Synthase is analogous to a motor or machine.

The speaker said ATP was not found on its own, nor were Adenosine or Phosphates.

You responded that:

ATP is ubiquitous in nature

Implying that ATP can be found anywhere. ATP is found in living things.

Neither adenine nor phosphorus are in short supply to my knowledge

But these are not even the components the speaker was referring to.

I am trying to understand if you are purposely trying to mislead,

or if you are confused about the subject matter.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Ken Ham is no different from anyone else in the "all life was created in its present form by my personal god" crowd. The denial of science, misrepresentation and outright denial of evidence and the misunderstanding and baseless criticism of evolution is the common thread, no matter what personal flavour of creationism you subscribe to.

a reply to: dusty1

As I mentioned before, you need to figure this out for yourself. You need to read my posts again for clarification of exactly what I said. Then read the links. If you can't figure it out, then you need to dig deeper into chemistry/physics.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You might be right. But this thread is about the corruption, disinformation and misuse of science by Ken Ham to build his cult. He cannot substantiate any of his claims with hard data and has no experimental evidence to support his distortion of known scientific theory.

The challenge is for one of his minions to stand up and fight the good fight. Bring your best evidence, bring your experimental data, bring Ken Ham if you think it will help. That's what this thread is about.

originally posted by: rnaa

I never said or suggested any such thing. I only challenged your example of what led to the length of a giraffe's neck. Period.

I got your posts mixed up with dusty1

originally posted by: dusty1

I'm not really debating whether a giraffe's eating habits was a causality to having long necks. I was trying to provide a possible environmental factor. Right or wrong with giraffes, food has big evolutionary influences in general.

a reply to: Barcs

Then you spend the rest of your life searching for any scrap of evidence to supports your fiction, even build up a following of disciples who also spend their lives searching for scraps until one day,between them,they declare that’s it, we have a theory. Even though all the evidence is cherry picked to fit the picture.

I know I've asked you this before, but can you list some cherry picked pieces of evidence that were forced into MES? Will this question be ignored as it was in the past?

Source
Similarly, on page 227 it portrays the cytochrome-c phylogenetic tree and the anatomy-based tree and states, "These two methods generally agree." (p. 530) However, it cherry-picks data from the cytochrome-c tree and fails to mention that the cytochrome-b tree exhibits significant differences from a standard phylogeny based upon the fossil record or comparative anatomy. As one article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated:

[T]he mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied . . . an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting.

Wrong. Pieces are not forced into place. If evidence is discovered that goes against the current model, the model is altered. This is just your ridiculous anti science perspective causing you to not see things clearly and unbiasedly. You dislike science, so obviously you are going to keep attacking it without substance.

Way to miss the point entirely,another 'child simple' metaphor that you completely ignored or did not understand, you have just chosen the last few words to argue about. You dismissed the point of the metaphor without addressing it.

I reckon you still have no clue how science works. Give me an example of a scientific theory where bad math was intentionally included just to keep an outdated idea going? Give me an example of evidence being forced into place. I'm pretty sure I've asked this in the past and instead of answering you went off on multiple different unrelated tangents. Give me evidence of this happening with MES. Last time we went through this rodeo, you didn't address any of my counterpoints and keep digging yourself deeper into oblivion with your absurd claims about how science works and we never got anywhere because you just kept posting unrelated false claims and when they were debunked you just move on to the next false claim. This gets old, but if you have an actual argument, I'd like to hear it. All I get from you is metaphors and assumptions.

This is just drivel Barcs, I understand precisely how science works, it is a very logical and pragmatic system of inquiry, I have never denied that. My entire philosophy is centred around science yet be to discovered, I've had a peak behind the door Barcs. I have even given you the chance to take a peak but you are too afraid.

And there you go again, your head is so full of FACTS there is no room left to consider examples 2 to 5 in my metaphorical example

I don’t wish to be rude, but I thank God that real scientists don’t behave like some of the mindless Galahs here, who don’t think for themselves. There would not be a professional scientist on the planet who would be so arrogant as to believe we even have a small understanding of the universe(or maybe that's the problem). What science does know are “The Laws” which have been comprehensively studied, however your theories are 'just that', regardless of your burning desire for them to be laws.

The challenge is for any of you armchair pseudoscientists to come up with the answers, Make it the "Law of Evolution" you smart Alex's I guarantee you will never do it. And in answer to a question you made regarding my Problem facing science example Barcs .

The Door I used in my metaphor, which I purposely constructed so that a child could understand it, (which obviously went right over your head), is the barrier between 'what we know' and 'what is yet to be discovered'. The only argument you could possibly use to counter that would be to say “we already know everything” well good luck with that!

I keep attempting to raise the argument above the clutter. Your science is fine,it is the principles that are wrong ,so why would I get drawn into scientific facts which are clearly well understood. It is your conclusions that are entirely biased.

Face it Barcs, there is still so much needed to complete your theory that a philosophical approach is still required and philosophy is not your strong point is it? in fact, no, never mind!

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

Such a dishonest thread title to suggest that this is a common view, however, it is par for the course from evolutionists.

Oh, and Aliens are my brothers and sisters not my father.

The consequences of stating theory as fact -Agenda, MUCH!!

reply to: kennyb72

Sorry, but you need to come up with a better source than evolution news. They are a creationist website that does not use science to formulate any of their conclusions and relies on deluded people to believe the nonsense they spew. They use the name "evolution news" to deceive folks into thinking they are legit. It is pure disinfo. There is no science on that site, only lies and propaganda. You will probably call this drivel and dismiss it like you do with all my points, but that site is chock full of quote mines, fallacies and lies. You need to educate yourself elsewhere. Why are you so afraid of academia, yet you believe anything these guys say hook line and sinker? Pythagoras would not be happy with your scrutiny.

Way to miss the point entirely,another 'child simple' metaphor that you completely ignored or did not understand, you have just chosen the last few words to argue about. You dismissed the point of the metaphor without addressing it.

Which point did I miss? I cut out the extra filler to save space. I didn't ignore it. It just wasn't worth addressing line by line and was completely delusional of how science actually works. You seem to have this picture in your mind of all these evil satanic looking guys in dark robes in a candle lit room contemplating the latest "theories" to trick the public with. Science follows the evidence. It doesn't force fit it, and if something doesn't make sense right away, they investigate what it means. A hoax every now and then is going to happen, but hoaxes almost always end up exposed by science. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Piltdown man house was orchestrated by creationists to make science look bad.

This is just drivel Barcs, I understand precisely how science works, it is a very logical and pragmatic system of inquiry, I have never denied that. My entire philosophy is centred around science yet be to discovered, I've had a peak behind the door Barcs. I have even given you the chance to take a peak but you are too afraid.

I'm not afraid to learn or explore new things, I'm just not going to blindly believe it. If you're saying you've looked into the future and know future science and all the nuances of the multiverse, then I'd say I'd like to see behind the door for myself. Can you arrange this?

And there you go again, your head is so full of FACTS there is no room left to consider examples 2 to 5 in my metaphorical example

Examples 2-5? I'm sorry but you listed 5 sets of numbers, not examples. You basically claimed that science is like shoving in a 2 in place of a 1 and pretending the equation still adds up or pretending the evidence doesn't exist.

I don’t wish to be rude, but I thank God that real scientists don’t behave like any of the mindless Galahs who don’t think for themselves. There would not be a professional scientist on the planet who would be so arrogant as to believe we even have even a small understanding of the universe(or maybe that's the problem). What science does know are “The Laws” which have been comprehensively studied, however your theories are 'just that', regardless of your burning desire for them to be laws.

The challenge is for any of you armchair pseudoscientists to come up with the answers, Make it the "Law of Evolution" you smart Alex's I guarantee you will never do it.

Funny, you said above that you understand precisely how science works, and now here you are confusing what a scientific theory is and what a law is. Each time you explain something, you show precisely that you do not understand even the basic scientific terminology and principles.

Theories do not become laws when proven, so of course none of us will do that. Laws are measurements (ie formula for calculating the effects of gravity). Theories are substantially backed explanations for how something works. Gravity has a theory as well as a law. One doesn't override the other. And nobody thinks that we understand everything about the universe yet (except creationists). I don't know why you keep saying that. We do know quite a bit about it however(ie evolution, genetics, biology, geology, medicine, surgery etc). Denial of modern science in favor of future science is downright silly.

The Door I used in my metaphor, which I purposely constructed so that a child could understand it, (which obviously went right over your head), is the barrier between 'what we know' and 'what is yet to be discovered'. The only argument you could possibly use to counter that would be to say “we already know everything” well good luck with that!

It didn't go over my head in the least. I didn't agree with it because there were flaws in your reasoning, which I explained, and you ignored.

I keep attempting to raise the argument above the clutter. Your science is fine,it is the principles that are wrong ,so why would I get drawn into scientific facts which are clearly well understood. It is your conclusions that are entirely biased.

Agreeing with experimental data that has been repeated numerous times by numerous scientists is hardly bias. It is following the evidence. Science isn't going to stop following it because future science will be better. Future science will get to where it is BECAUSE of what we learn today. This is why your philosophy on science is so ridiculous. I don't mind your personal belief system, but what I do mind is the constant attack on science, simply because it's not where it will be in 100 years.

Face it Barcs, there is still so much needed to complete your theory that a philosophical approach is still required and philosophy is not your strong point is it? in fact, no, never mind!

Philosophy is not science, nor does it override physical data and evidence. You can believe whatever warped view on the world that you want, I won't knock it. But when you actively crusade against a particular field of science while at the same time supporting absurd sites like "evolution news", while taking advantage of the many benefits science has to offer, it raises an eyebrow. I'm not counting, but you have repeated numerous misunderstanding about evolution and the scientific method thus far and it's laughable that you think you can sum it up in a metaphor constructed for kids. This isn't the minor leagues. You have to do better than that.