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

a reply to: the2ofusr1

There's been over 150 years of predictions that could have been falsified but have not. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp: if every possible falsifiable experiment turns out to support evolution, that does not mean that "evolution can't be falsified", it means that evolution is an incredibly robust theory that has consistently made accurate predictions.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Is that not an arbitrary conjecture? What empirical evidence do you have that creatures can develop emotions from random chemical reactions? How do you get from a series of chemical reactions to sadness or love, or a soul for that matter? Aren't you delving into a religious belief? Be intellectually honest.

No I am saying that the process is so long and complicated that it is impossible to describe here. You are more than welcome to look it up for yourself though. It is well documented. Also, there is no evidence for a soul. Emotions are chemical reactions, but there is no evidence for a soul.

My worldview says that is the place where He Sovereignly decided to place a creature He made in His image. And He created the universe and planets and stars, not just for our navigation and to tell times and seasons, but also to display His Majesty. That we are so unique and special that we are alone among trillions and trillions of galaxies. That's how special we are TO HIM..

We are so special that we cannot live in 99.9999% of the universe. Gotcha. That certainly sounds special to me.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
You make it seem as though it is perfect and can't make mistakes and never needs correcting but that is not the case . Evolution is a theory within the scientific community that has many shortcomings that come to light with new discoveries

Who has said that science is perfect and can't make mistakes? I haven't read it if so. What shortcomings are you talking about? The last post you were only denying the evidence and claiming that dating is wrong based on the faulty assumption that rocks are dated based on fossils and fossils are dated based on rocks. By all means, break down the evidence and show these "short comings" that aren't just your misunderstandings of science. Oh wait, we all know you aren't going to do this because there is no evidence in favor of your side and you already concede all the points I have made previously.

Making claims of extinction of species that turn up in the record today .We have not turned over all the rocks or searched all of the debts yet .What would happen to the theory of evolution if they found a dinosaur living today ? Wold it stop being a dinosaur ? Think of the kids for peet sake

If a dinosaur is found alive today it will be studied and analyzed by science to see how the species survived the Triassic extinction and how it's evolution was affected over the last 65 million years. You can say "what if" until the cows come home, it doesn't prove anything except that you don't have the foggiest clue about how evolution works and what the theory says.

If you do not look for evidence that would disprove your claims then you are not following the rules to scientific truth

Glad you mentioned this because theories MUST BE falsifiable. Evolution would be falsified if the dating did add up or we got crazy numbers for organisms that lived in different time periods. This has NEVER happened. No mixed fossil layers is hard evidence for the evolutionary model.

Also you may want to start using paragraphs. Nobody likes to read text walls of false info. At least break those falsehoods down into separate points and give sources for them. Otherwise you are just rambling and preaching nonsense.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In order to falsify evolution, you would have to disprove ALL evidence that says it is real and happening.

Fallacy of equivocation. There is zero evidence that abiogenesis happened. It's neither observable, nor repeatable, that by definition isn't science.

Epic fail. Not only do you completely not understand what equivocation is, you bring abiogenesis that has nothing to do with evolution in the least, and there actually IS some evidence for it. It's a hypothesis, not a theory like evolution.

Equivocation is using 2 definitions of the word and making them the same. For example the word "cool". It can be an indicator of temperature, or it can mean "hip or popular". If you say that somebody is cool, meaning the 2nd definition, that doesn't mean they also have a lower temperature. THAT is equivocation.

My point is that when Christians reject "Evolution" we are rejecting abiogenesis as a means to explain life on Earth. We don't challenge the idea that there are variations withing the species. We don't reject stellar evolution for example. It's a debate whether life was created by an intelligent source, or life just appeared on it's own due to chemical reactions.

Then don't reject evolution, reject abiogenesis. Creation vs evolution is a false dilemma and by not even understanding the basic fundamentals of evolution and how the process is different from abiogenesis, you only make religious folk look bad. Stop the war on evolution.

You CANNOT claim that since it is taught in every single textbook in our schools as the method in which life came to be on this planet we call Earth.

Edit: And furthermore it is taught as fact, not one competing hypothesis.

Prove it. Show me modern textbooks currently used in school that claim abiogenesis is fact rather than hypothesis. EVOLUTION is taught as fact, because it is a fact. Abiogenesis is taught as a hypothesis, although there is a little bit of evidence behind it, just not enough to confirm completely.

And seriously stop saying that people who accept science equivocate evolution. That is nonsense. Evolution supporters refer to biological evolution when talking about evolution, and ONLY that meaning. It is the creationists that bring alternate meaning into it like "slow change over time", "cosmic evolution", "chemical evolution" etc. We are talking about biological evolution, so stop with the nonsense. Answersingenesis of course is your only source for that false claim and they are one of the most biased creationist sites out there.

TextThere's been over 150 years of predictions

a reply to: GetHyped Do you have a link to this theory with all the predictions in the original paper ? tks

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Really??

lmgtfy.com...
lmgtfy.com...

Clearly you're not as well versed on the topic as you think you are.

Thanks for the links .I shall have a look . Oh and I will pass on this link that has some facts not related to this thread but do raise some serious questions and possibilities for the future in unraveling what we were told to believe but just might not be true www.abovetopsecret.com... . a reply to: GetHyped

That was not what I was looking for but thanks anyway . I want to look at the original paper produced if there is such a thing .The history is one thing but it had a start and it's the scientific paper I would like to check out . a reply to: GetHyped

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Original paper??? Read the origin of species by Charles Darwin. There isn't an original paper, there are books and lots of them. Darwin predicted that if evolution were true, multiple fossils would be found documenting the species between ancient ape and modern human. When he predicted this we had found ZERO. Now there are around 20 different species all showing slow change over time in their traits.

I'm assuming you conceded all of my points again as they were ignored again and I'm expecting no less in response to this post. Maybe it's time to step back and look at things from an unbiased perspective. You can't expect to learn anything if the only reading you do is based on creationist websites. It would be nice if you had any actual evidence or valid reason for your religious hated of evolution, but everything you bring up pretty much gets instantly debunked.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No I am saying that the process is so long and complicated that it is impossible to describe here. You are more than welcome to look it up for yourself though. It is well documented.

That's a religious belief. There is no way for science to prove that random chemical reactions can produce a mind, will or emotions. No empirical proof. And I realize what I'm going to say next isn't scientifically empirical proof, but there are tens of thousands of people who have come back from being clinically dead (not NDEs), that have stated they are consciously aware and retain their mind, emotions, and memory. That means the soul is energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. And likewise, based on E=mc^2, that energy would be eternal, it has no mass and therefore cannot be affected by time.

Our fleshly bodies are only hardware to house our spirit and soul (software), those of which are eternal. They exist once the body is clinically dead.

We are so special that we cannot live in 99.9999% of the universe. Gotcha. That certainly sounds special to me.

I can't condemn you for what makes you feel special, I can only speak to myself. But I tend to look at it from the perspective of God, not man. This is the only place in the vast universe He created that He chose to make man in His image. That's absurdly unique to me.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is no way for science to prove that random chemical reactions can produce a mind, will or emotions. No empirical proof.

Natural Selection is a non-random process and to describe it as random just exposes your own ignorance.

Consciousness is just an emergent property of cognitive function, which itself is a byproduct of millions of years of cumulative changes through descent with adaptation.

Talk of "proof" is itself useless. There is no absolute "proof" of anything. We can't even prove with 100% certainty that we are even here.

What there is, is evidence. Mountains and mountains of it.

And I realize what I'm going to say next isn't scientifically empirical proof, but there are tens of thousands of people who have come back from being clinically dead (not NDEs), that have stated they are consciously aware and retain their mind, emotions, and memory. That means the soul is energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

It does not mean that at all.

First of all, we do not understand "death" all that well. The fact that people are often declared "clinically dead" when they are clearly not demonstrates this only too vividly.

Second, the fact that the mind invents memories during times of stress, or under certain other conditions is well documented.

Third, experiences identical to "Out of Body Experiences" have been generated in the lab using magnetic fields to stimulate the temporal lobes, indicating that these type of experiences are the product of the mind. (Look up "The God Helmet" experiments by Dr. Persinger)

Fourth, Neural Correlates demonstrate that consciousness is a property of the brain. We can "see" individual areas of the brain light up when people are experiencing certain emotions, or doing certain tasks. Likewise, when areas of the brain are damaged we have observed complete changes in a persons behavior or sense of "id" which demonstrate these properties are not tied to any "soul" or something immutable outside of our physical bodies.

And likewise, based on E=mc^2, that energy would be eternal, it has no mass and therefore cannot be affected by time.

And yet you would claim it has an interaction with our "earthly bodies". Give me a break.

This is just a hackneyed misuse of scientific terminology to try and justify your faith based beliefs.

Our fleshly bodies are only hardware to house our spirit and soul (software), those of which are eternal. They exist once the body is clinically dead.

No evidence for this has ever been produced. No reason to think this is the case.

This is the only place in the vast universe He created that He chose to make man in His image. That's absurdly unique to me.

This is an assertion without evidence. You have no knowledge of this at all, yet you claim it. How do you know there aren't other beings out there in the cosmos? There may be religious zealot aliens living on a planet orbiting Bernard's star right now who claim they were also created in (their) God's image - you don't know that there isn't.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Natural Selection is a non-random process and to describe it as random just exposes your own ignorance.

I never used the term "Natural Selection".

Perhaps you were thinking of another conversation with another member in this thread.

No evidence for this has ever been produced.

Correction, no empirical evidence, for obvious reasons. But there is still first-hand testimony from tens of thousands of people who were declared clinically dead (not NDE) by medical doctors. Besides that, I'm not denying my belief is religious.

This is an assertion without evidence

You edited the part where I said it was my subjective belief.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Natural Selection is a non-random process and to describe it as random just exposes your own ignorance.

I never used the term "Natural Selection".

Perhaps you were thinking of another conversation with another member in this thread.

I never said you did. What you did is say "There is no way for science to prove that random chemical reactions can produce a mind"

Random chemical reactions.

Which is a dishonest description of abiogenesis and or evolutionary processes, because it does not take into account he non-random application of natural selection.

ETA to address this -

Correction, no empirical evidence, for obvious reasons. But there is still first-hand testimony from tens of thousands of people who were declared clinically dead (not NDE) by medical doctors. Besides that, I'm not denying my belief is religious.

Anecdotal evidence is of no scientific value.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Which is a dishonest description of abiogenesis and or evolutionary processes, because it does not take into account he non-random application of natural selection.

Well, call me stupid, but why would Natural Selection have any part in abiogenesis since it tries to explain how life came from non-life? Natural Selection has to do with reproduction. So there is no 'dishonesty' here, it's not at all accurate what I said or tried to convey.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Well, call me stupid, but why would Natural Selection have any part in abiogenesis since it tries to explain how life came from non-life. Natural Selection has to do with reproduction. So there is no 'dishonesty' here, it's not at all accurate what I said or tried to convey.

Because large chains of organic molecules are subject to natural selection as well. Organic chemistry went through it's own selection process before life even began.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Well, call me stupid, but why would Natural Selection have any part in abiogenesis since it tries to explain how life came from non-life. Natural Selection has to do with reproduction. So there is no 'dishonesty' here, it's not at all accurate what I said or tried to convey.

Because large chains of organic molecules are subject to natural selection as well. Organic chemistry went through it's own selection process before life even began.

But not natural selection, that's a reproductive term.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Well, call me stupid, but why would Natural Selection have any part in abiogenesis since it tries to explain how life came from non-life. Natural Selection has to do with reproduction. So there is no 'dishonesty' here, it's not at all accurate what I said or tried to convey.

Because large chains of organic molecules are subject to natural selection as well. Organic chemistry went through it's own selection process before life even began.

But not natural selection, that's a reproductive term.

No, it applies to any kind of replicative process. Natural selection is used to design wind turbines, for instance.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Well, call me stupid, but why would Natural Selection have any part in abiogenesis since it tries to explain how life came from non-life. Natural Selection has to do with reproduction. So there is no 'dishonesty' here, it's not at all accurate what I said or tried to convey.

Because large chains of organic molecules are subject to natural selection as well. Organic chemistry went through it's own selection process before life even began.

But not natural selection, that's a reproductive term.

No, it applies to any kind of replicative process. Natural selection is used to design wind turbines, for instance.

Bad example, engineers are intelligent designers.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Bad example, engineers are intelligent designers.

It's not really. They use computers programmed with evolutionary algorithms to simulate the selection process. Many iterations on a basic design are created by random changes (ie mutations), these are then narrowed down to just a few designs which perform well enough past certain pre defined parameters (natural selection). The process is repeated over many generations until improved designs emerge.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Bad example, engineers are intelligent designers.

It's not really. They use computers programmed with evolutionary algorithms to simulate the selection process. Many iterations on a basic design are created by random changes (ie mutations), these are then narrowed down to just a few designs which perform well enough past certain pre defined parameters (natural selection). The process is repeated over many generations until improved designs emerge.

That is still intelligence (engineers/programmers) directed.