It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 16
10
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
If there are aliens out there, the chance that they'll find us is larger than us finding them. Not saying we should stop looking, but it should not be a priority when we can't even solve our local problems, or we don't even know what's lurking beneath the oceans.

That is ignoring the likely possibility that they are already here, or that we ourselves are aliens with a forgotten past.
edit on 28-12-2014 by vasaga because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




Do they also consider aliens to be 'demonic'? ....whatever that means.... Are they Muslim or something like that?


You are into the alien/UFO phenomena and don't know why Hynek or Vallee are?

"Along with his mentor, astronomer J. Allen Hynek, Vallée carefully studied the phenomenon of UFOs for many years and served as the real-life model for the character portrayed by François Truffaut in Steven Spielberg’s film Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

His research has taken him to countries all over the world. Considered one of the leading experts in UFO phenomena, Vallée has written several scientific books on the subject."


Dr. Jacques Vallee

"Hynek was the founder and head of the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS). Founded in 1973 (originally in Evanston, Illinois but now based in Chicago), CUFOS is an organization stressing scientific analysis of UFO cases. CUFOS's extensive archives include valuable files from civilian research groups such as NICAP, one of the most popular and credible UFO research groups of the 1950s and 1960s."

Dr. J. Allen Hynek


You OBVIOUSLY have no clue who these giants of UFOlogy are. Quoting them on matters of UFOs and aliens is like quoting Einstein in matters of Quantum Physics or quoting Plato in matters of Philosophy.




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


I think you need to get a clue who those "someone else"s are. lol




edit on 28-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




Crafty? it was a direct quote


" 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 Vallee."






edit on 28-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
If there are aliens out there, the chance that they'll find us is larger than us finding them. Not saying we should stop looking, but it should not be a priority when we can't even solve our local problems, or we don't even know what's lurking beneath the oceans.

That is ignoring the likely possibility that they are already here, or that we ourselves are aliens with a forgotten past.


I agree that there is plenty to discover right here in our own solar system but with a population of over 7 billion I think it is fine that there are those that gravitate towards possibilities outside our influence. I think there are still plenty of people who prioritize matters our own global problems the only problem I do see is that we as a species are more inclined to fund projects of destruction instead of instruction or discovery. We tend to fight over what we already have or know rather than improve what we have or know.

Overall though I believe if we have more diversification of interests then it will have a net effect of allowing people to find positive things to pursue instead of negative ones.

That is my opinion on it anyway.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Chronogoblin

It may be obvious to you, but if the sky and trees and such were proof of god, then there wouldn't be any question. But there is. So, obviously the existence of nature, and therefore our reality, does nothing to prove that your god exists to anyone but you.



Therefor, every act against a believer is against Heaven itself.


That's one weak god you got there. He couldn't even keep his own heavenly occupants happy, apparently, as he lost 1/3 of them in rebellion, and they're still fighting!



Free Will has to do with choosing God, or the other guy, not anything else.


Okay. So you tell me, why doesn't God show himself to everyone without question? Why does God allow people to be deceived and why does he allow suffering and evil to exist in his creation and to affect his heavenly abode? Why does he blame all of us for HIS mistake in the Garden of Eden?






edit on 28-12-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

The challenge is very simple and straight forward. Pick a topic in Ham's Creationist science and debate it. Bring your best evidence including data, experiments, anything that validates your position. If you don't feel the data that I bring to the debate is objective, then you are free to say so and to challenge it.
It's that simple.
But I seriously doubt that anyone is going to step up to that plate!



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Would it not be better for you to put your package together and allow others to have at it ? I would think that if you wanted to challenge Ham then you have 2 options to do so . On his terms or he can except your challenge and ,maybe sign up on ats to meet it. I would be watching with my popcorn in hand .:>) a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423






If you don't feel the data that I bring to the debate is objective, then you are free to say so and to challenge it.



Your data was is fine, it just doesn't say what you claimed it says.

How can anyone have a rational debate or discussion with you, when you either don't understand the data, or are purposely misleading what the data says to support your statements?



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

You're finding every excuse in the book not to engage in a debate. You're very transparent

In a debate, both parties agree on the topic. Ken Ham has been approached many times to debate any issue he feels he has evidence for. To date, no response. The debate with Bill Nye was more of a philosophical debate and did not address the scientific data.

The challenge is open to anyone on ATS to include Ken Ham if he's a member here.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

What data are you referring to that I don't understand? And how were you misled?

I also haven't presented any hard data in this thread to my knowledge so not sure what you're talking about.

The subject is Creationist science, remember that.




edit on 28-12-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

You're finding every excuse in the book not to engage in a debate. You're very transparent
a reply to: Phantom423 I was transparent from the start . You were challenging anyone to engage you with debate .We are many pages into this thread and no one has challenged you . We have been discussing a few aspects of science . I didn't come here to debate you but to try and engage in a conversation about a debate . We have both left things on and off the table . I know as many should that both sides of a this subject are going to share things that will over lap and will not really be a issue of debate . Maybe you should lay it out in a scientific manner without assumption but make yourself a hypothesis that can be proven false . For something to be proven as fact should also have the ability to be proven false .have at it and see where it goes because I am sure you will get some takers that will challenge you ...peace



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




The challenge is very simple and straight forward. Pick a topic in Ham's Creationist science and debate it.


Why does any of us have to defend him?? Isn't there a way to refute his stuff personally via email to AIG?



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


What data are you referring to that I don't understand?

LOL

And how were you misled?

I wasn't mislead.



I also haven't presented any hard data in this thread to my knowledge so not sure what you're talking about.

Ok.

Abiogenesis.

Go.
edit on 28-12-2014 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

You either need to read what you wrote or take a few English grammar lessons.

No response necessary.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Ok op this is not Ham's challenge but seeing you are a scientist and verify of falsify this science ,it is the best I could find . " Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation. " www.halos.com... The lecture or some of his presentation is on YT a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Actually, I've always found that the biggest non believers in UFOs and the paranormal are found on the left, not the right. They have a tendency to deride anything that is out of the ordinary as they perceive things to be.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Ok op this is not Ham's challenge but seeing you are a scientist and verify of falsify this science ,it is the best I could find . " Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation. " www.halos.com... The lecture or some of his presentation is on YT a reply to: Phantom423




There are a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions that Gentry uses to come to his conclusions regarding the Polonium Halos. He also uses some obvious design flaws. The fact of the matter is that there are indeed other, more realistic and scientifically sound interpretations for his data and observations. Many of the assumptions he makes have been tested under laboratory conditions by respected geochemists, and in many cases, the results of these experiments directly contradict Gentry's conclusions. www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Thanks for the link .I breezed through some of it but like I said before in this thread ,I am not a scientist and from what I can find ,neither is Thomas A Baillieau .If his argument had weight to it I would have suspected to find a discussion with Dr.Gentry and his work .Some times it is so easy to misrepresent what someone else has said or is saying . I will leave the debate up to the scientist that discuss such things . www.halos.com... The conclusions at www.talkorigins.org... turns the table around but fails to address the science that says billions of years . Gentry does not use the granite with the polonium for a date of creation but shows that the standard uniformatarnian model cant be accurate on billions of years because of the cooling time frames would not have captured the icatope because of the short half life . a reply to: kayej1188



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1



I am not a scientist and from what I can find ,neither is Thomas A Baillieau


You didn't look very hard. Baillieau is a (apparently retired) Geologist with several published technical books to his name. It would seem that much of his career was with the U.S. Government. The titles of his published works indicate that he was deeply involved in inventorying U.S. uranium deposits. That would make him ideally positioned to comment on Gentry's hypotheses. He is also a Unitarian Christian.

Gentry seems to have taken two facts: radiation causes 'halos' in granite and the half-life of Polonium 238 is only three minutes long and decided that since he 'knows' God created the Earth in a day and the granite must have cooled very quickly only Po238 could have done the trick and the halo's must be the fingerprints of God.

He completely ignores that Po238 is the FIFTH decay product of Uranium 238 which has a half-life of about 4.47 BILLION YEARS. The first decay product of U238 is U234 with a half life of about 245 THOUSAND YEARS. He just completely ignores anything to do with science, whether it be geology or physics or anything else, unless it fits his narrative.

That is NOT science. It is pseudo-science at best and borders on quackery.
edit on 29/12/2014 by rnaa because: improved wording



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1



If his argument had weight to it I would have suspected to find a discussion with Dr.Gentry and his work.


You mean a like a debate back and forth? I know you are not a scientist, but surely you don't think that scientific paper is a transcription of a formal debate? That is absurd.

Somebody (Gentry in this case) writes a paper, and others (Baillieau in this case) respond with criticism and/or support. The original author may or may not respond further. Baillieau discussed the Gentry paper, what it said, and what it didn't say, very extensively in order to address his comments to the specific topic. Gentry has not, to my knowledge, responded in any substantive way to Baillieau's refutation.

Instead of addressing the science,


Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three “singularities” — one-time divine interventions — over the past 6000 years. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the halos based on current scientific theory? Indeed, this is where most creationist arguments break down: when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science.

source



Some times it is so easy to misrepresent what someone else has said or is saying .


Exactly. I bet you don't even see the irony in your remark.



I will leave the debate up to the scientist that discuss such things


That would be a great idea. The scientists involved in this debate are Gentry and Baillieau. Baillieau has demonstrated gaping holes in Gentry's argument. Gentry has done absolutely nothing to address Baillieau's criticisms other than to say 'no sir, unh unh'.

Gentry has made no attempt what-so-ever to discuss the science that he has gotten so terribly wrong. Nothing. Bailieau's refutation stands, despite Gentry's attempt to hand-wave it away - hand-waving is not science and doesn't cut it as discussion.
edit on 29/12/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
10
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join