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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: flipflop


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?

It's not too far outside anybody's spectrum of understanding, it's a hoary old science-fiction and pseudoscientific proposition that has been around since the 1940s at least. It's been a pop-culture trope for three bloody generations and you still thinkl it's 'far outside'?

You flatter yourself. The one clinging to outdated, commonplace ideas is you.




edit on 20/12/14 by Astyanax because: un trope sans la lettre E est de trop.




posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I believe in creation and I believe in UFO's! I also believe the UFO's to be
piloted by the fallen angels! One more thing...I believe that these UFO
pilots are inter-dimensional not extraterrestrial.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: dusty1

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



My point is that you didn't find aliens on Mars.


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



I call it the double slit experiment.

I actually open both eyes a little bit, and see that the universe appears to be designed.



edit on 20-12-2014 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)


I just double checked,

and yes

the experiment is repeatable
edit on 20-12-2014 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc





Let's just say that I am willing to change my position if provided with irrefutable and reproducible proof that God does exist.



I hear you NavyDoc.

But I don't think that a Supreme would need to explain or justify His existence to us,

or do a little soft shoe just for our benefit.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth


I believe in creation and I believe in UFO's! I also believe the UFO's to be piloted by the fallen angels! One more thing...I believe that these UFO pilots are inter-dimensional not extraterrestrial.

How wonderful! It must be like Hallowe'en every day round your house!



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax





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



Hi Astyanx.

I did engage the OP.

I think it is ironic that a search for a Creator is laughed at by many, but a search for little green men is applauded.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

Which creator?



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1

I hear you NavyDoc.

But I don't think that a Supreme would need to explain or justify His existence to us,

or do a little soft shoe just for our benefit.



This is true. It wouldn't have to explain or justify anything if it didn't want to. It is Supreme and all. However, at the same time it also wouldn't require much effort on it's part either to do so. The simple act of certifying it's existence would be well within it's power to do so and in doing that would also solve many of the problems that plague mankind. So if it really did create all this including us I would think that doing that one little tiny thing would be of some value.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: dusty1

Which creator?



Witch creator?



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




The simple act of certifying it's existence would be well within it's power to do so and in doing that would also solve many of the problems that plague mankind. So if it really did create all this including us I would think that doing that one little tiny thing would be of some value.



You make some good points.

But God could appear to some members of ATS and they would still deny His existence.

In my opinion, many of mankind's problems, are caused by mankind turning it's collective back on God.

Some believe they should seek Him, not the other way around.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

Oh, how intellectually honest of you.

Next...


edit on 12-21-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

LOL! The double slit experiment is not evidence of your personal god. This nothing more than an unfounded personal belief (I asked for objective evidence). To refute it I need simply to say the experiment is evidence AGAINST your god for the same reasons as you: none.

NEXT!
edit on 21-12-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: windword

Borntowatch is not serious about debating. He doesn't understand or care what an intelligent debate is. The guy is like an avatar for the Dunning-Kruger effect.


That would be an assumption,
In the other threads I made it clear I wasnt going to debate, here I said i would.

Please tell me you can understand that there is a difference

I understand how frustrating it is telling someone your opinion and them ignoring you.
Imagine how frustrating it is for me when you read what I say and cant comprehend simple English

I chose not to debate because I am not interested in arguing strawmen and stupidity with every atheists with a chip on their shoulder, I accepted a one on one discussion



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: borntowatch



Well this is the point, isn't it? If you don't think that the science is "factual", you need to provide evidence to support your case. In other words, choose a particular scientific experiment in evolutionary science which has been validated through accepted scientific method standards and demonstrate that the experiment and the conclusions were wrong.

As an example, if I didn't believe a cloned human embryo could produce viable, genuine stem cells, I would have to take an experiment like the one linked below, repeat the experiment and demonstrate that the conclusion was wrong. In addition, I would have to demonstrate WHY it was wrong. This is called repeat and validate in science. It applies to every field in science from astrophysics to zoology.

www.nature.com... 52K_NVSCcK7R_un4H9Zbv6avMXitDWQvHXQIoxcFApMuStgU

So once again, pick an experiment that verified some aspect of evolution, one of course that you don't agree with - doesn't matter what the experiment is as long as it follows accepted scientific methods of validation - and proceed to demonstrate WHY the conclusion of that experiment was wrong.


You know what I have decided debating you would make me a moron

Your first comment


originally posted by: Phantom423If you don't think that the science is "factual", you need to provide evidence to support your case.


is so monumentally distorted, i figure the rest of the discussion will degenerate beyond comprehension (yours)

I am not interested in wasting my time

So yes you can call me scared or pathetic or whatever

that or think about how ludicrous your statement was, its just not worth it



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch




I accepted a one on one discussion


Then would you be willing to take it to the debate forum?

A place where games, logical fallacies including strawmans would be detrimental. Is there a reason you wouldn't take it to the debate forum?



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Yeah there would
Simply because of that statement that I quoted, clearly the person I have offered an intellectual conversation with doesnt have basic comprehension skills
That and I feel hostile towards them now, doesnt make it a very good platform for me to debate simple science.

I am more than happy to leave religion off the table all together, in fact religion is a faith, science a formula. If I dont accept the formula of evolutionary science and somebody can persuade me otherwise, who benefits?

I am not against debating, one on one, the science of evolution, no bible comments, no youtube, anything pertaining to do with evolutionary science anyone wants to bring to the table, I am for it, just not with an individual who cant comprehend basic English. The first strawman, that I dont believe in science....No chance.

There will be a next time, just not with some one who makes a statement that infers that I dont believe in science, simply its not worth my time.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

You apparently did not understand my statement. Science states objective "facts".
The definition of "fact":

1.Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2.Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

3.A real occurrence; an event.
had to prove the facts of the case.

4.Something believed to be true or real.
a document laced with mistaken facts.

5.A thing that has been done, especially a crime.
an accessory before the fact.

6.A conclusion drawn by a judge or jury from the evidence in a case.
a finding of fact.
____________________________

Note that I never said INDISPUTABLE fact. I said "fact".

This is what you said: "Now remember i dont believe that the science around evolution is factual, are we debating that the science you believe is factual is indeed factual. "

You said that the science around evolution isn't factual. How did you arrive at that conclusion? What evidence do you have that science - be it about evolution or anything else - does not deal with facts?

You're trying to weasel your way out of the debate with an irrational response. So the challenge is still open. Pick a topic and we'll debate the "facts".

Bring a dictionary.







edit on 21-12-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

You're weaseling your way out of a discussion of evolution because you know you have no objective evidence. Your "evidence" boils down to opinion with no experimental data.

Once again, the challenge is open. If you have evidence or even an opinion with partial evidence, let's see it.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

"I am not against debating, one on one, the science of evolution, no bible comments, no youtube, anything pertaining to do with evolutionary science anyone wants to bring to the table, I am for it, just not with an individual who cant comprehend basic English. The first strawman, that I dont believe in science....No chance.

There will be a next time, just not with some one who makes a statement that infers that I dont believe in science, simply its not worth my time. "

I don't think you're against debating. I think you're scared to death of this particular debate!

There will be a next time? Let me know the time and place.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   
'"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 .". Yes that comes from engineering and science done on earth .Probably made with materials from earth ,with the major use for earthlings .One could say that most tech we use today comes from the military industrial complex using engineers and scientist .It's not hard to see the many benefits derived from the craft .It is also easy to see the destruction that can come from it .

It is also easy to find how it can be used as a political tool .Now for me personally ,that is the scariest part .Put someone in a lab coat in a commercial saying things that are not true to a gullible audience and all bets are off .We live in a system where 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what for supper is quite problematic .As it has been shown a journal publishes a bogus paper that would give politicians the needed tool they need to impose conditions on most of us that would set us back 300 years as a society . These same scientist get paid from the public purse .

Now we know that it's really hard to hold the feet of our politicians to the fire,but we do have elections .That group we replace with another group who may be worse then the first .They swing from incumbent to opposition and so still get to feed at the trough .Scientist seem to be in a much better position as they do much less to keep it . Politicians give us a sense that we a different choice but science not so much .

We have got to the point where the corruption in both camps are making the public to loose confidence in both .Not that either position can be filled but in the integrity that will go with the position .Integrity is the quality dept ,but seems to have been replaced with the rhetoric dept .Now I am not saying that there are not any genuine people in these two camps but there is defiantly gate keepers in both .If you don't tow the line then you are out .

So should we be putting in so much money, to land a piece of equipment on a comet ? Well it could be that that will transform our present understanding of them .It could be that all the scientific books will have to be rewritten. Or it may be that the rhetoric will change ,but every thing will remain the same .You see ,it seems that the a persons philosophical world view is much more important to maintain then weather a comet is made of ice or rock .Or weather we are just a fluke or created by a loving God . a reply to: Phantom423



new topics




 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join