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

Well then I guess you are correct in a absolute technical sense . Using the PH scale in a practical sense tells me that I may need to add lime to make my plants grow .Maybe that is the problem with people that try and live in practical terms because they have no idea what the technical perfect balance needs to be . Maybe that is what the Georgia Guide stones is really about and a technical perfect amount of humans would need to take out 6 billion others to maintain a perfect amount calculated by a scientific statistician .That might be a problem for those that believe in a God that said go forth ,multiply and fill the earth .But if you could convince people that there is no God then human life only become the survival of the fittest . a reply to: iterationzero

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Well then I guess you are correct in a absolute technical sense .

I'm not sure that there is another sense that should be applied to a scientific discussion, like one involving increasing acidification of the oceans.

Using the PH scale in a practical sense tells me that I may need to add lime to make my plants grow .

RIght, but different plants need different nutrients, and soil pH directly impacts nutrient availability. The amount of lime you need to add to the soil is dependent on what you're growing and what you're current soil pH is. It's not enough to just know that the soil is acidic.

Maybe that is the problem with people that try and live in practical terms because they have no idea what the technical perfect balance needs to be .

I don't see why it has to be an either/or proposition. If you understand the science behind the "practical terms", you understand why you're doing what you're doing, as in the case of liming the soil. If you understand the "practical terms" that stem from the science, you can see the real world impact. Why would you only want to understand one or the other?

Maybe that is what the Georgia Guide stones is really about and a technical perfect amount of humans would need to take out 6 billion others to maintain a perfect amount calculated by a scientific statistician .

Given that we don't know who erected the guidestones, or rather who paid to have them erected, I'm not sure as to the validity of the claim that "a scientific statistician" calculated that number. When dealing with large numbers that would seem to have a high degree of uncertainty built into them, like the 500,000,000 figure, most scientists would talk about an order of magnitude and ignore the first digit. Just food for thought.

That might be a problem for those that believe in a God that said go forth ,multiply and fill the earth .

You're leaving out some important parts of that passage:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Notice it says "replenish", not "overrun"? I would take that passage to mean that God gave humanity responsibility for our planet, not ownership to do as we see fit.

But if you could convince people that there is no God then human life only become the survival of the fittest .

"Survival of the fittest" was only meant to be a biological concept, synonymous with "better designed for an immediate, local environment". It was never meant to be a theory governing morality. Any use of an evolutionary concept to set some kind of a moral standard would be a naturalistic fallacy.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Hey, I'm a Christian and I believe they exist, I just think they are inter-dimensional and not extra-terrestrial, and I think they are demonic.

Hyperdimensional Demonic Alien Sex Fiends Raped My Great-Grandma, eh?

This isn't Christianity, this is howling insanity.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Hey, I'm a Christian and I believe they exist, I just think they are inter-dimensional and not extra-terrestrial, and I think they are demonic.

Hyperdimensional Demonic Alien Sex Fiends Raped My Great-Grandma, eh?

This isn't Christianity, this is howling insanity.

No, actually its an "appeal to ridicule fallacy".

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Your post was an 'appeal to ridicule fallacy'? Hmm.

It was certainly ridiculous, I'll give you that. Mad and heartrendingly symptomatic, but yes, ridiculous too.

But who were you appealing to?

a reply to: Astyanax

I didn't make this comment:

This isn't Christianity, this is howling insanity.

you did. And it was an attempt to de-legitimize my actual comments via ridicule. Have a nice day.

Thank you for your response .I had thought after making my comment I might owe a apology if you had taken it the wrong way .Terms and the definition of terms can carry some ambiguity if two people are not quite on the same page .I see the struggle that goes on between scientist and academics in discussing subjects ,so for a simple person to enter into the fray not on the same page should be expected .

In that thread at WUWT on ocean acidification it seems to be about splitting hairs and getting to a absolute technical meaning .Sabine's statement " As a public servant that must stick to the rigor of the scientific method and only present data that is of sufficient quality " raised the hackles on many wondering what the ramifications might be as the more sufficient quality data is after 1988 might suggest that data prior to that and papers produced could be overturned in the future as not meeting a level of quality sufficient for govt. policy .

It has been suggested that we are moving into a Technocratic form of rule ,in the not too distant future . Science seems to be moving closer to model projections ,and can take liberty with data input so there may be something to that notion .Physical data with all the cats and dogs collected by field work may become a thing of the past and replaced with best guesses generated by the models . don't know and don't know if I should care actually .I guess it will be up to the elite academics to make that decision on how science will be conducted .The scientist will either have to fall in line or go practice another form of science .

Had I been dealt a different hand of cards when younger I think I may have gone into Botany .I knew after dicing up my first frog with my moms paring knife I didn't have the stomach for blood and guts .When not climbing trees or fishing I turned to mechanics and older cars .Technology has turned them into a complete new beast nothing like their parents .A beast that can be remotely controlled by some other operator gives one a reason for pause and thought .

Science worked with Technology being accurate within a acceptability that no longer is acceptable .First 1 degree then 1/2 then 10ths 100ths and now thousandths of a degree . So we end up with a new model requiring increments in the 1000ths adjusting past 1 degrees into the modelers best guess what that may have been. How can that process even be considered accurate to the facts at the time ? We see it more and more in the way the data is adjusted to create a new type of data and then older data being flushed from the conversation .It's like having the ability to rewrite history and make the past say what you need it to say based on sufficient quality .

We as humans have a response to both weather and climate that has a practical application . When it rains we use a umbrella .When it's cold we put on warmer cloths .If the temperature drops a few thousand's of a degree we have no practical thing we can do .We could fear that knowledge but we could also embrace it . We live in a world with huge swings of temperature from -30 to +30 so what difference in a practical sense can we make of a few 10ths of a degree .We along with our cousins the plant world do well with warmth .We also do well with cool . If the plants and humans can adapt and change to the environment should it be such a great concern that scientist come out and put fear into humans ? We might not consider that the plants can think for themselves and are not afraid of change .Unlike the plants we humans are very mobile and much more adaptive .Why should we listen to what scientist say about the future with their models when the models diverge from the actual real world ?

" Given that we don't know who erected the guidestones " No we don't know ,but if we were to make a educated guess I am sure we could narrow it down ,by finding the ones that have used such language .Most of them have come off as some sort of elites within their circles .We can collect the data and weight it against the facts .It might only be a judgement call , but it's not like they are going to present themselves to us as such .

" And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." That word replenish is a interesting word .We don't seem to have a measurement ,a quantity ,a volume or a quality .Could it be that the answer comes out later on in scripture ? Is there more data that needs to be added in order to make a judgement call as to what that may have meant ? The rule of first mention is very important to what will be added later on .

"Notice it says "replenish", not "overrun"? I would take that passage to mean that God gave humanity responsibility for our planet, not ownership to do as we see fit. " Later on we see him speaking about the city of Babel .We see lots of cities today that hold the bulk of the human population . Did He mean up or out over the whole earth .We see people living in places many could not survive but some do and have for a long time .

""Survival of the fittest" was only meant to be a biological concept, synonymous with "better designed for an immediate, local environment". It was never meant to be a theory governing morality." A psychopath might not take the same meaning . It is very important in understanding terms in what they mean and what they don't mean . The diversity of the birds Darwin looked at was probably more to do with the divers botany . If the food type was available in abundance then a bird with the tool to take advantage could and would take up residence .imo a reply to: iterationzero

Just to add to a little of what I was saying in the previous post .

The Doom message version 48.2a (subclause i) has been released.

Forget methane clathrate pits, now extra plant growth (blame CO2) could cause global soil to unleash massive amounts of carbon.

Carbon dioxide (aka “pollution”) feeds plants. This is bad (didn’t you know?). An all new “first” computer model with plants, soil, and fungus, warns us that more plants could get soil microbes excited which might break down more soil carbon and release it into the air. Disaster! It’s a could-be-might-be-catastrophe. (At least until paragraph 6 — see that caveat below).

In the meantime this is is so big, it’s practically nuclear — the model reports that it could set off a “chain reaction”:

An increase in human-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could initiate a chain reaction between plants and microorganisms that would unsettle one of the largest carbon reservoirs on the planet — soil.

Did you know there is twice as much CO2, carbon in the soil as there is in Earths whole atmosphere?

Researchers based at Princeton University report in the journal Nature Climate Change that the carbon in soil — which contains twice the amount of carbon in all plants and Earth’s atmosphere combined — could become increasingly volatile as people add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, largely because of increased plant growth. The researchers developed the first computer model to show at a global scale the complex interaction between carbon, plants and soil, which includes numerous bacteria, fungi, minerals and carbon compounds that respond in complex ways to temperature, moisture and the carbon that plants contribute to soil.

joannenova.com.au...-40045 a reply to: iterationzero

a reply to: the2ofusr1

In that thread at WUWT on ocean acidification it seems to be about splitting hairs and getting to a absolute technical meaning .Sabine's statement " As a public servant that must stick to the rigor of the scientific method and only present data that is of sufficient quality " raised the hackles on many wondering what the ramifications might be as the more sufficient quality data is after 1988 might suggest that data prior to that and papers produced could be overturned in the future as not meeting a level of quality sufficient for govt. policy .

My perception is that politicians get hung up on the details of the numbers. Some of them do it because they don't know any better, some of them do it because it's a convenient way to hinder legislation based on science. By way of a made up example, if climate scientists say that they project the pH of the ocean will go from 8.1 to 7.9 in the next five years and then in 2019 it's only down to 7.91, a certain portion of politicians will then cry out that the scientists were wrong and that they can't be trusted. For some reason, it's not enough that we're seeing increasing acidification of the ocean, but it has to be exactly what the scientists predicted five years ago, or it's wrong! And heaven forbid that scientists use real world data to improve their model and then explain how their predictions have changed, but I'll get into that later in this reply.

It has been suggested that we are moving into a Technocratic form of rule ,in the not too distant future . Science seems to be moving closer to model projections ,and can take liberty with data input so there may be something to that notion .Physical data with all the cats and dogs collected by field work may become a thing of the past and replaced with best guesses generated by the models . don't know and don't know if I should care actually .I guess it will be up to the elite academics to make that decision on how science will be conducted .The scientist will either have to fall in line or go practice another form of science .

As someone who has made a career out of science, I couldn't disagree more that "physical data with all the cats and dogs collected by field work may become a thing of the past and replaced with best guesses generated by the models". This will never happen, because part of putting a scientific model together for a system is to then take physical data from the real world and see how accurately the model predicted the outcome. Then the model is refined, more data is gathered and compared to the predictive model, and so forth. It never ends.

One reason for this is that scientists are, at heart, a competitive bunch. Everyone wants to have the best model. If you propose a model and then just assume it's right without ever testing it, you'd be laughed out of any serious discussion in your field so quickly your head would spin.

Science worked with Technology being accurate within a acceptability that no longer is acceptable .First 1 degree then 1/2 then 10ths 100ths and now thousandths of a degree . So we end up with a new model requiring increments in the 1000ths adjusting past 1 degrees into the modelers best guess what that may have been. How can that process even be considered accurate to the facts at the time ? We see it more and more in the way the data is adjusted to create a new type of data and then older data being flushed from the conversation .It's like having the ability to rewrite history and make the past say what you need it to say based on sufficient quality .

You're not erasing history, you're just acknowledging that your newer model is more correct than your older model. That's the difference between science and religion. Religion is dogmatic, unchanging, unable to revise itself where there's fault. Instead, religion has to go through all kinds of mental contortions to process new data as it becomes available. Science is the opposite. Science seeks to improve it's level of understanding by testing new ideas. If the new idea has merit, it either is incorporated into or replaces the old idea. If the new idea doesn't have merit, it's thrown out.

We as humans have a response to both weather and climate that has a practical application . When it rains we use a umbrella .When it's cold we put on warmer cloths .If the temperature drops a few thousand's of a degree we have no practical thing we can do .We could fear that knowledge but we could also embrace it . We live in a world with huge swings of temperature from -30 to +30 so what difference in a practical sense can we make of a few 10ths of a degree .We along with our cousins the plant world do well with warmth .We also do well with cool . If the plants and humans can adapt and change to the environment should it be such a great concern that scientist come out and put fear into humans ? We might not consider that the plants can think for themselves and are not afraid of change .Unlike the plants we humans are very mobile and much more adaptive .Why should we listen to what scientist say about the future with their models when the models diverge from the actual real world ?

I don't think this is the right place to discuss how much temperatures have to change to create climate issues that can have a greater impact on us than we can solve by putting on a sweater or grabbing an umbrella. Take a look at some of the more recent research on loss of usable land area and how there's less and less fresh water readily available for human use.

" And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." That word replenish is a interesting word .We don't seem to have a measurement ,a quantity ,a volume or a quality .Could it be that the answer comes out later on in scripture ? Is there more data that needs to be added in order to make a judgement call as to what that may have meant ? The rule of first mention is very important to what will be added later on .

Why would we turn to scripture for an answer to that and not use what we can see in the world around us?

""Survival of the fittest" was only meant to be a biological concept, synonymous with "better designed for an immediate, local environment". It was never meant to be a theory governing morality." A psychopath might not take the same meaning . It is very important in understanding terms in what they mean and what they don't mean . The diversity of the birds Darwin looked at was probably more to do with the divers botany . If the food type was available in abundance then a bird with the tool to take advantage could and would take up residence .imo

Should the science be ignored because someone, a psychopath as you would put it, misuses it as moral justification for some action? That's like making hammers illegal because someone committed homicide with one.

You mention Dogma and Religion and in many ways we would probably agree but may differ on the reasons why .Like the laws of physics that may not change they can be better understood and so a once dogmatic statement in science adapts a slightly different way of wording the definition as to not drag along with it the old meaning . Call it a refining of sorts but the Bible should work in the same way as I have come to think about it .Yes religious camps will hang on to old notions and thoughts.I guess science works in a similar fashion where the better the institute and the professors could turn out a higher quality student .

I think that when it comes to models ,climate scientist in particular have gotten a free pass .If they would have been a little off ,one could cut them some slack . Those models didn't just miss the target , they have diverged off to some other planet .Well at least that is what it will look like as time goes on .Which raises the question as to how did the models match the past so closely .If it was a sensitivity issue then correcting that denominator will throw off the hind cast . Seems that there is no way out of the predicament they find themselves in . I cant see how the IPCC could claim any kind of confidence if the present models were scrapped because they didn't work .

" One reason for this is that scientists are, at heart, a competitive bunch. " I am sure that that statement is true as to one reason for some but I am quiet sure there are other reasons that might compel someone to become a scientist .Some may not be honorable though . a reply to: iterationzero

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I didn't make this comment, you did.

I said 'X is A'.

You said 'No, X is an appeal to ridicule fallacy'.

Now you're claiming your X was a different X. And you have the effrontery to try and teach other people logic? Astonishing.

It was an attempt to de-legitimize my actual comments via ridicule.

No, it was a perfect re-statement of your actual comments in plain English.

You wrote:

I believe (aliens) exist, I just think they are inter-dimensional and not extra-terrestrial, and I think they are demonic... a huge segment of Christianity that rejects the angel view of Genesis 6.

Here's the relevant portion of Genesis 6:

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose... when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

In this context, according to you, 'sons of God' means 'aliens'.

It is also fairly clear that the 'taking' of wives referred to was not a consensual arrangement. Ergo, 'rape'.

And since this clearly took place during the early existence of human beings on Earth, these 'daughters of men' are supposedly our ancestresses — yours included. Ergo, 'great-grandma'.

'Hyperdimensional' was a word you used yourself. A meaningless word, but there you go.

Your statement can be perfectly translated as

Hyperdimensional Demonic Alien Sex Fiends Raped My Great-Grandma.

And yes, you're right, it's bloody ridiculous. But you said it, not me.

a reply to: Astyanax

In this context, according to you, 'sons of God' means 'aliens'.

No. "sons of God" in Hebrew is "B'nai ha-Elohim", the only word in the OT and extra-biblical Hebrew literature that gets translated as "aggelos" in the Greek and "angels" in English. They weren't aliens, they were fallen angels. Their offspring were the "Nephilim", (fallen ones).

Link

Israels last incursion into Gaza turned up a massive tunnel system with booby traps . I wonder or have wondered if some of yhem are still there ? Gaza was one of the places Joshua didn't conquer . a reply to: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Israels last incursion into Gaza turned up a massive tunnel system with booby traps . I wonder or have wondered if some of yhem are still there ? Gaza was one of the places Joshua didn't conquer . a reply to: NOTurTypical

I don't think they got all of the tunnels

Wow - we've gotten way off topic here! It's okay though - fine with me. It is unfortunate that the climate wars have produced some very misleading data and some very bad science. Rather than educating the public, it has become a political football. As I said above, climate has been changing since the earth was formed. So it shouldn't be a mystery to anyone that it continues to do so. Living things including humans naturally have an effect on the climate simply because living things are part of the eco system. What a concept!! But am I willing to turn in my SUV for a bicycle? Hell no!

@the2ofusr1: You said above: "Like the laws of physics that may not change they can be better understood and so a once dogmatic statement in science adapts a slightly different way of wording the definition as to not drag along with it the old meaning . Call it a refining of sorts but the Bible should work in the same way as I have come to think about it "

Remember I said at some point (forget exactly where) - there is no "The End" in science. A "law" is only a "law" until someone challenges it and that law changes. Einstein referred to quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance". His theory of relativity is being challenged and may be proven wrong (or partially wrong). In another experiment, scientists were able to create a temperature below absolute zero, which the laws of physics say is impossible - until now anyway. Here's the link - an interesting experiment: www.dailytech.com...

In any case, no one showed up for the challenge. It's still open if anyone cares to accept it.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Prezbo369

Hey crafty editing there. You cut out the part where I said I agreed with the conclusion of two of the most respected men in the history of UFOlogy, Drs J Alan Hynek and Jacques Valle.

Crafty? it was a direct quote, you said something just as crazy and crackpot as the OP.....and do the two people you mention also define aliens incorrectly? why should I care?

And they AREN'T Christians.

Do they also consider aliens to be 'demonic'? ....whatever that means....

Are they Muslim or something like that?

So crafty edit, making it appear I didn't say that and just pulled some crap right out of my arse.

Well it's either that or you regurgitated something that someone else pulled out of their ass.....so....

originally posted by: windword
What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the sky or a tree is evidence of the existence of your god? Or, are you saying that every private realization of the self examined life is a revelation of your god?

Yes, and yes. Good, you are beginning to understand. Except, He is YOUR God as well, whether you accept that, or not, is up to you.

Whatever. You're "excuse" for why God doesn't appear in a substantial form is because he can't.

If God doesn't allow sin in Heaven, how do you account for the rebellion which included 1/3 of his residents? How do account for Jesus have been credited with saying this?

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it.

Heh, anytime someone says "whatever" in an argument, they have already lost. But I'll let that slide. He meant through the actions of the people on Earth. God is privy to every act. Therefor, every act against a believer is against Heaven itself. You know, the way America used to act? As for the Angelic rebellion, Lucifer sinned and was cast down, what part of that is unclear? He sinned, was tainted, and then cast out of Heaven. Not sure what is unclear about that part.

God is dead! And we killed him! Who will bear this responsibility? God of course! Long live God!

No Ma'am/Sir, it is YOUR responsibility. Too bad the last part is so snide. Sideways comments are the name of the game when your Worldview is challenged.

If you say so. Way to ignore the "Free Will" argument that Christians so often use as an excuse as why God allows evil.

Not sure what you mean here, Free Will has to do with choosing God, or the other guy, not anything else. I don't know what all the other Christians preach, and I am not them, so if you would, could you keep your comments about me so I can answer more fully?

Hey, I'm just comparing your example of UFO enthusiasts excuses to God/creation enthusiasts and their excuses!

And the point of that is? Telling humanity how similar we all are? Why thanks! I think so too.

a reply to: GetHyped

Too bad 'Zeus' was a nephilim hybrid who cannot directly contact you. They are kinda like vampires in that respect, you have to invite them in. If an entity named Zeus contacted you, then you should immediately stop talking to it, as it is a lier.

Not sure as what is to challenge or how one might go about it in a objective scientific way when there are still things in science treated dogmatically .It's like a voyage where we are looking at a big picture and only picking up a few details and adding them to some of the few details of the past and waiting to see what is coming around the corner with new surprises because we thought we had seen it all . Modern science is compartmentalized but has taken some steps to bring together the differing studies to find better questions . It's always going to be that question that was never asked that will open up lines of new investigation . Particle physics gave us spooky things and Scientific study of consciousness could lead to even spookier things if taken seriously but like many things in life if you are afraid to journey to uncharted waters you will never see what is around the corner . a reply to: Phantom423

a reply to: Chronogoblin

Zeus just told me your personal god is a liar.