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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

What's your point? At least we're looking.

I ask again: what experiment do you propose to objectively produce evidence for god?




posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Actually, it's the sheer weight of evidence that make it so.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Ken Ham, Creationist junk bond king, now says that we should stop exploring space for aliens because:

1. They're probably not there or
2. If they are there they're going to Hell

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation."

Ham's retort:

blogs.answersingenesis.org...

The challenge I made months ago to debate anyone on this board about Creationism and evolution is still open. Any takers??



The Bible does not mention anything about the New World and Native Americans, but they were there all along.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Experiments fail all the time. Old knowledge is replaced with new knowledge. In the lab there's a mantra that is well known:
"99% of all experiments are relegated to File 13. It's the 1% that we're looking for".

Science is about discovery. It's pragmatic, objective and will argue a topic until some level of "truth" is known. Debate and discussion, challenging the known facts, working on a new theory or replacing an old one - this is what it's about. It's a process not a dictatorship where a truth is proclaimed and never questioned again.

And that's why I challenge these Creationists to debate their "evidence". But the fact remains, that not a single one on this board has been able to do so.

The challenge remains open to any who want to step up to the plate.





Yep, that's it.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: Phantom423





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





Atheists Say God Does not Exist, So Let's Stop Looking.






Fair point. Let's just say that I am willing to change my position if provided with irrefutable and reproducible proof that God does exist. I willing not to reject the possibility of the existence of a supreme being, but I have not seen any evidence supporting this at this point in time. I guess that makes me a bad atheist, but I see radical absolutist atheists almost just as bad and radical absolutist theists. Neither side can say with absolute certainty that their position is in fact the true one.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Murgatroid
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the MSM has absolutely zero credibility.


I snipped your usual tag of useless external quotes, but WHAT part of that article is evidence that the MSM has zero credibility? Are you saying that HuffPo is a liar and Ken Ham didn't say that? Are you saying that Ken Ham is right and HuffPo is biased against him? What exactly are you getting at? What is "that"?


I would suggest that physics indicates that Ken Ham is a liar. First of all, all of his positions are conjecture. He simply tries to explain things with unscientific theories like the earth was surrounded by a 3 foot wide shell of ice.

As Scotty said, "ye canna change the laws of physics, Captain!"



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Perhaps the solution is to be found if both God and Alien are one and the same

or is that too far outside of your spectrum of understanding to accept?



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: flipflop

I'll take "non-sequitur" for $500, Alex.

What exactly is your point here? What evidence is there for your statement?



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: flipflop
a reply to: Phantom423

Perhaps the solution is to be found if both God and Alien are one and the same

or is that too far outside of your spectrum of understanding to accept?




Certainly that is possible, but there is no evidence for it. In fact, there is really no solid proof that aliens exist. (Although I would suggest that the mathematical probability that they exist somewhere is really high).

Let's look at recent events. We have discovered methane on Mars. Although that is not absolute evidence that life exists on Mars, it is a heck of a lot more solid evidence than we have of the existence of God. That is what is being asked in this thread. What solid evidence we have and what experimental tests do we suggest to prove, or at least indicate the possibility, of the existence of God?



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped That is the point, there is NO evidence for either probability Alien existence or God existence. the whole subject is hypothetical and no conclusion can be reached for this debate other than what we already know. there has to be hard evidence beyond dispute to conclude the existence of gods or aliens. and currently we have none. so the belief in the existence of either is negative.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: flipflop

Aliens: a testable, falsifiable hypothesis

God: none of the above

One of these things is not like the other...



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: flipflop

Aliens: a testable, falsifiable hypothesis

God: none of the above

One of these things is not like the other...


if you swap those around are you not left with the same assumption.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Phantom423
Ken Ham, Creationist junk bond king, now says that we should stop exploring space for aliens because:

1. They're probably not there or
2. If they are there they're going to Hell

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation."

Ham's retort:

blogs.answersingenesis.org...

The challenge I made months ago to debate anyone on this board about Creationism and evolution is still open. Any takers??



The Bible does not mention anything about the New World and Native Americans, but they were there all along.



It does if one takes the spreading of man across the earth from family linages mentioned. The problem was that most took the spread of man from three sons of Noah and said yea three races from these sons.....but this doesn't even make any sense in total. Why? Because you still have more than three major race types demonstrated early.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

What numbers are you referring to? I don't think you understand how science works - it's always a work in progress. There's never a "The End" to any one conclusion or result. Creationists do the opposite: They formulate the conclusion first which is then set in stone. The conclusion is based on no credible evidence which can be debated and then becomes an irrefutable "fact". So the process of scientific discovery is rendered useless.

And what money are you talking about? Research money? Evolution encompasses many fields of study - anthropology, paleontology, forensic pathology, anatomy, physiology, genetics and genetic engineering. Not sure why you think money is wasted or that the research is a waste of time just to validate something "we already know", as you state.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chronogoblin
That's actually a common logical fallacy. People ASSUME that creation somehow 'calls into question the legitimacy of science,' to use your words. That's an atheist lie, or 'stretch,' if you prefer.

That is not my assumption that is my experience. The experience of countless others as well. Creationists tend to either call into question the validity of science, or they just don't fully understand enough about it. Another thing I've noticed is many of them flat out refuse to educate themselves, believing that they already have the truth and understanding. So no, it is not an atheist lie or stretch of the imagination by any means. Creationists are the ones committing logical fallacies.



The only ones spreading that dictum are atheists. Science and God are NOT mutually exclusive, as God used science to create this reality. Your version of 'proof,' is only your explanation of the evidence, not the actual truth, as that would hurt your Worldview.

No, atheists are not the only people who have picked up on the habits of creationists. Even the Pope doesn't buy into six day creationism, and he is far from being an atheist.

You are more than welcome to challenge my world view at any time.

I am perfectly capable of changing it should faults in it be shown.

Can the same be said about you? An honest question, not a mere retort.

Side note: I was not always an atheist.



edit on 12-20-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I was referring to space exploration for life .I probably should have stated as such . a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
The creation of the Nations was about language more then anything else . It's kind of a mishmash of sorts now but you find the french in France , the English in England the different Tribes in North America ,Canada,United States .I guess some countries today were not part of the original nations based on language but conquest . a reply to: Logarock



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: flipflop

If you swap what around? Aliens is a testable (and probable, considering we have at least 1 data point) hypothesis. God is not.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Why is it a waste of money? Space exploration isn't only about the search for alien life. There's all kinds of spinoffs from that research.

Like this: www.nasa.gov...

And how about these:
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in medical therapies
Infrared ear thermometers
Ventricular assist device
Artificial Limbs
Invisible braces
Scratch-resistant lenses
And the list goes on

You need to get yourself educated on what science really does and how it impacts your life every day - and that includes space exploration.

There's enough data from comets and asteroids that have impacted the Earth which clearly demonstrate that the chemical components of life are probably ubiquitous, at least in our solar system. And that's just life as we know it. Intelligent beings may exist that are completely different from us chemically and physiologically.

Whether "life" exists outside this very small planet isn't the point. The point is that having an open mind can lead to all sorts of possibilities. Creationists have closed minds. They know all the answers before the questions are even posed.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1


What did you find on Mars, hot air or cold air?

Methane, a possible marker of organic life.

Never mind; at least you're a realist. Your refusal to engage the OP with anything more substantial than cheap shots is a clear confession that you realize you haven't got a leg to stand on.

*


a reply to: the2ofusr1


It would seem to me that the evolution side of the debate is convinced that the shear numbers make it so . So why spend all this money to look for what you believe is so ? Do you need to convince yourselves ? Or do you need proof to be convinced ? Just curious .

Why do you think the 'evolution side of the debate' gives a flung fewmet about the search for extraterrestrial life? Just curious.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join