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

originally posted by: borntowatch
Its not about God, you and me, its about science and its validity in respect to the issue, when you and others work that out then get back to me

Life seems to almost be a common event when conditions are right. Life on earth started very early so it seems the process is rather spontaneous once conditions are met and even though forces/events have tried to wipe it out a number of times in earth's history it just seems it spring back in abundance once again when conditions correct back to where life can happen. This tells me that life happens just like a sun happens when conditions are right. Jupiter is the same as our sun, but conditions were not right and so never reached the point to nuclear reaction, but the important thing to think about is IF the conditions were right it would surely be a star too.

I'm sure this is the same throughout the universe....if conditions are right, life just happens as a natural universal event. When we say life we are talking about ANY kind of life form, but when we start to add conditions to that life then as all things the chances for it to happen become more and more rare. If I say alien life in general then I would say we have 100% chance of finding that life, but when I say an intelligent, capable of building, capable to build in the abstract, has the physical capabilities to go into space etc etc we really start to dwindle down life to a very rare event to happen, much less find us too in our neck of the woods.

Because of this if we were not a product of some alien race then I do not see us ever actually meeting one before one of us becomes extinct.

originally posted by: dusty1

Honestly every time I think of evolution I think of a giraffe who can't reach a piece of fruit. Somehow evolution on a microscopic level understands the problem and alters the giraffe.

How about something much more simpler, such as, short giraffes have a harder time reaching the good leaves so their chances for survival are much less than taller giraffes. This means that more taller giraffes breed and over a long period the species get taller. You can apply this to polar bears too as to why they might be white and Kodiak bears are brown.

A fine tuned universe either supports an Engineer or the only other explanation is multiverses. I just believe that design is the logical answer.

Never know... I just see a lot of randomness that follow simple rules. I don't call them rules because someone made them though.

The earth is special, as of yet there is no evidence otherwise.

What is of earth that is not either in abundance throughout the universe or can't happen just the same throughout the universe? I would use the term rare more than special. Rare in it meets all the needs for life to happen, and just as important for evolution to have time to do its thing too.

I believe creative ideas are what create new pathways.

One of the things that makes humans human, is our ability to think in the abstract.

OP just as a heads up to what you may be required to address in your challenge .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Well if we( earth) is the only place that life exist ,it would make earth a very special place ,wouldnt it ?

Indeed it would. What of it?

It would not alter the truth of biological evolution on Earth if it were found that Earth were the only place in the cosmos where life had evolved. Neither would the it imply that life on Earth was created.

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.

Wrong. "the evolution side of the debate" doesn't care about "shear numbers". Your understanding of the situation is completely backwards. The "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" ("MES" for short, or "Evolution" for simplicity), is a theory that explains observed facts, and makes predictions that can be tested and either falsified or verified.

It is not something that is true because "shear numbers" of people "believe" it; rather "shear numbers" of people "agree" with it because it is simply the best explanation for the most number of observable facts.

So why spend all this money to look for what you believe is so?

Again, "we" do not "believe" it to be so. "We" agree that it is the best explanation available. "We" continue to look for new facts because we want to understand the universe we live in.

Why would "you" want to stop trying to understand the universe?

Interestingly, there are two different creation stories in Genesis, and in both of them the first words God speaks to Adam is an order to understand the universe.

Genesis 1

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Genesis 2

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

So how can you "rule" over something if you don't understand it? There is a modern name for someone who names and classifies organisms - they are called taxonomists and taxonomy is part of Biology, which is of course a science. God is commanding Adam to become the worlds first Scientist!

Do you need to convince yourselves?

Convince "ourselves"? No. "We" simply want to understand more. That is part of what being human entails. If you are not curious about the universe around you, you are not much of a human, and you are, according to my argument above at least, challenging the very first instruction God ever gave to mankind.

Or do you need proof to be convinced?

This 'convinced' line you are trying to run with here just doesn't make any sense. Convinced of what? That fossils exist? That populations of organisms change over time, generation to generation? What?

The word "evolution" means "change over time". Biological Evolution is the change in populations of organisms over time. Populations do change over time; it is undeniable observed fact, there is nothing that anyone needs to convince themselves about. Evolution is an existential fact of the universe we live in.

"Our" explanation for how evolution proceeds is imperfect, and is known to be imperfect. "We" strive for perfection, but perfection is, of course, forever just out of reach. Never the less to learn more, to correct mistaken ideas, and to come to know the unknown is what makes us human.

Just curious .

Call me a cynic, but I doubt that that is true - I suspect you are just smug.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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!"

I'd say the same thing too, though I'm not surprised that Murgatroid never got back to me on this. He never does.

a reply to: Velom

This isn't a conversation I want to have on this open forum. I'm not going to "reconsider" what the moderators have told me. I like the fact that the mods have loosened up on drug talk within the past year and I don't want to ruin that. Trust me I WANT the war on drugs to end, but breaking the forum rules to get it done is just going to get me banned.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

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

Well if we( earth) is the only place that life exist ,it would make earth a very special place ,wouldnt it ? a reply to: Astyanax

This is true, but probability says otherwise. Probability says that life is proliferated throughout the universe.

a reply to: flipflop

That is the point, there is NO evidence for either probability Alien existence or God existence.

What is the fascination with aliens in this discussion? In logic this argument is called a "Strawman" argument I believe.

(EDIT: not strawman, but I haven't nailed the name of the fallacy yet. I've just drawn a mental blank...)

If I accept that "aliens did it", (whatever 'it' is; planting life on Earth maybe?), where does it get us in the argument about supernatural creation (God did it) .vs. natural abiogenesis and evolution (nature works)?

How did the aliens come to exist? Or is it just "Turtles all the way down"?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Thanks for the head's up. But I'm afraid borntolose has disappeared into the aether!! Just as I predicted. Could have made a bet in Las Vegas on that one and made some money!!!

Anyway, haven't listened to the video yet. But I will after finishing the work of real science!!

a reply to: rnaa

infinite reggression ?????

its not a formal logical falacy , but :

if you attempt to deny the validity of naturalistic origins AND supernatural creation simeltaneously - falling back on the " aliens did it " meme - then as you have already dismissed nartral and spernatural origins - the only recourse is " moar alienz " cue - infinite regression

a reply to: dusty1

Honestly every time I think of evolution I think of a giraffe who can't reach a piece of fruit. Somehow evolution on a microscopic level understands the problem and alters the giraffe.

Except that is unlikely to be the reason Giraffes have long necks. Females have much shorter necks. It is much more likely that the males long necks give them an advantage during fights to protect their harem than in reaching the most delectable food.

a reply to: NavyDoc

But the fart would only work in Apple branded unicorns!

God wouldn't use Apple products. They are forbidden by the Bible.

a reply to: rnaa

Fallacy of false equivalence, perhaps?

There is currently no hard evidence for extra-terrestrial life but considering we have an entire planet teeming with life, we know life can at least exist in this universe. Ergo, given the phenomenal size of the universe, it seems at least plausible that there could be other life out there. It's an idea that can be tested and objective evidence found to support it.

On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever for god(s) and no means of even testing such an idea. The fallacy is putting the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life on the same footing as the lack of evidence for god(s), thus conflating the scientific search for life beyond our planet as being a matter of faith, like religion.

Of course, we now this is utter bollocks but it makes for a convince smokescreen for the faithful to avoid tough questions and convince themselves that scientific searches for truths are just as irrational and baseless as their proclamations of faith.

a reply to: dusty1

I think Steve would not have agreed with you.

"Think Different"

A creative mind was not simply bound by the constraints of current technology. Development of a touchscreen, wifi, apps and a new operating system, were developed and occurred outside the device.

Steve Jobs would most definitely agreed with him.

Every device has its rules and you cannot communicate with that device unless you follow those rules. Whether you are Steven Jobs, Steven Hawkings, or Steven Smith. You cannot turn on a light bulb unless you close the switch. You might have a standard SPST switch or a 'fancy' switch controlled by a voice recognition device or a motion sensor; it doesn't matter, you still must follow the rules of the device.

A touchscreen is a device and it has rules - you cannot violate those rules if you want to use it productively.

WIFI is a specification for devices to communicate and it defines rules about how that communication will operate - you cannot violate those rules if you want to use it productively.

Apps and operating systems are software 'devices' that have rules - you cannot violate those rules if you want to use them productively.

Steve Jobs could not have violated the rules of any device and still used them productively.

They were designed to interact yes, but they were not bound by the old device.

That is correct. They are different devices and they have different rules. If you want to use the old device, you still have to use the old rules. If you want to use the new device, you must use the new rules.

Steve Jobs genius was identifying how to use the rules of devices in new ways, and to identify what new devices (with their own rules) were required to fill the gaps between the status quo and his imagination. Whether a product he had in mind was made up of existing devices put together in novel ways or of new devices generated to allow his ideas to work, all those devices has operating rules that cannot be violated in order to be used productively.

a reply to: Xtrozero

How about something much more simpler, such as, short giraffes have a harder time reaching the good leaves so their chances for survival are much less than taller giraffes. This means that more taller giraffes breed and over a long period the species get taller.

See my earlier post on the subject. While the idea was common at the time of Lamarck and Darwin, it has been refuted since at least the late 1940's.

The reaching for leaves hypothesis is unlikely since females have much shorter necks than males, the species would have gone extinct if only the males could reach the high branches as the feeding strategy hypothesis describes. Sure, the male can reach the high leaves, but that is clearly not the only thing that long neck is used for.

The Giraffe's Short Neck

The giraffe's neck carries out a variety of functions—it allows feeding from high branches, serves as a weapon in males, brings the head to elevated heights that give the giraffe a large field of view, is used as a pendulum while galloping, and so on. Virtually all structures and organs in the animal body are multifunctional and interact dynamically with other multifunctional structures and organs. When scientists pick out a single function and focus solely on it to explain a multifunctional organ, their explanation can only be inadequate. This is comparable to believing you can paint a richly-nuanced, colorful rendition of a landscape with one color. It just does not work.

The author voices an argument that the Giraffe actually has one of the shortest necks in the animal kingdom - at least with respect to the length of its forelegs (what other four legged animal has to bend its front legs in order to reach a pool of water for a drink?)

I had made a comment earlier that may have not made sense due to the complicated subject called evolution . Is it a theory or a fact ? If it's a fact then like you said " The "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" ("MES" for short, or "Evolution" for simplicity), is a theory that explains observed facts, and makes predictions that can be tested and either falsified or verified. " The Big Bang not so much . Unless you are a mathematician and use probabilities in your equations . That can give you a prediction and you can say probably . That is what I referred to by numbers when looking at the Cosmos .

I am looking at the subject and using a picture called the Straw Man . The reason I use this picture is because of all the different departments of Science that contribute to the Man . Pull one straw out does not change the picture .Pull many out and he/she may loose a arm or leg . Facts are just that ,facts .Interpretation is a opinion given based on the persons knowledge of the facts and their world view . Two people having the same knowledge of a thing can and do interpret them differently . Which one is closer to the truth in their opinions ? Does it come down to a person needing to trust that one is correct and so choose to belief them ?

" Again, "we" do not "believe" it to be so. "We" agree that it is the best explanation available. "We" continue to look for new facts because we want to understand the universe we live in." Now I should ask who the we is in that statement but will mention a group of scientist that believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming . They have produced many many papers stating as fact that it is so . They have many people that believe them and MSM talks about it all the time .

There is also another group who produce many many papers and who have many people believe like they do that there is no AGW . Both groups have scientist and facts .Both have differing opinions about the facts . What would your advice be to someone who is not a scientist in determining which group is probably closer to the truth . Does it really matter ?

I am not against discovering things ,understanding things and how they work ,or how they might work better . Sometimes I think it might be better to step back and take a different approach in understanding the world we live in but that would mean I would have to change my Philosophical world view in order to do that . So I have a choice between Evolution or a God . Not the word evolution as it would apply to the Harley Davidson engine or the evolution of the car or chair . That kind of evolution is fact .That kind of evolution needs a designer a intelligent being .

Change I can accept because if you take your tomato plants out of a small container and put them in your garden they will change ,grow bigger and produce fruit .They may have changed but they are always going to be tomato plants and will never turn into something else .The life cycle of a Salmon goes through stages of change but will always be the same type .You may give them different names for those places and times at which you find them but they will always be salmon . That is my understanding of it . a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

I had made a comment earlier that may have not made sense due to the complicated subject called evolution . Is it a theory or a fact ? If it's a fact then like you said " The "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" ("MES" for short, or "Evolution" for simplicity), is a theory that explains observed facts, and makes predictions that can be tested and either falsified or verified. " The Big Bang not so much . Unless you are a mathematician and use probabilities in your equations . That can give you a prediction and you can say probably . That is what I referred to by numbers when looking at the Cosmos .

Actually the BB theory has falsifable evidence for it as well. They are called the Cosmic microwave background and the Cosmic neutrino background which allow astronomers to trace back the history of the universe all the way back to just before the big bang happened. Also, why can't math and probabilities be used to prove something? Math is definite, so if the math works out, there is a good chance that it is true.

I am looking at the subject and using a picture called the Straw Man . The reason I use this picture is because of all the different departments of Science that contribute to the Man . Pull one straw out does not change the picture .Pull many out and he/she may loose a arm or leg . Facts are just that ,facts .Interpretation is a opinion given based on the persons knowledge of the facts and their world view . Two people having the same knowledge of a thing can and do interpret them differently . Which one is closer to the truth in their opinions ? Does it come down to a person needing to trust that one is correct and so choose to belief them ?

The problem is that many science deniers come into these threads WITHOUT all the facts then try to debate people that do.

" Again, "we" do not "believe" it to be so. "We" agree that it is the best explanation available. "We" continue to look for new facts because we want to understand the universe we live in." Now I should ask who the we is in that statement but will mention a group of scientist that believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming . They have produced many many papers stating as fact that it is so . They have many people that believe them and MSM talks about it all the time .

There is also another group who produce many many papers and who have many people believe like they do that there is no AGW . Both groups have scientist and facts .Both have differing opinions about the facts . What would your advice be to someone who is not a scientist in determining which group is probably closer to the truth . Does it really matter ?

AGW is a hot political topic. It is hard to sift through the BS and the real science to get to the root of the matter. Not all science is like that though. Just because you can find an example of one scientific discipline like that, doesn't mean they all are.

I am not against discovering things ,understanding things and how they work ,or how they might work better . Sometimes I think it might be better to step back and take a different approach in understanding the world we live in but that would mean I would have to change my Philosophical world view in order to do that . So I have a choice between Evolution or a God . Not the word evolution as it would apply to the Harley Davidson engine or the evolution of the car or chair . That kind of evolution is fact .That kind of evolution needs a designer a intelligent being .

So despite ALL the evidence that says that evolution is correct, you will discount it all because it conflicts with your world view? Well at least you are honest about your confirmation biases. Can't say the same for your peers though.

Change I can accept because if you take your tomato plants out of a small container and put them in your garden they will change ,grow bigger and produce fruit .They may have changed but they are always going to be tomato plants and will never turn into something else .The life cycle of a Salmon goes through stages of change but will always be the same type .You may give them different names for those places and times at which you find them but they will always be salmon . That is my understanding of it . a reply to: rnaa

Last I checked plants go from being a seed to a root system to a sprout to a full grown plant. I'm pretty sure that is quite a bit of changing from one thing to the other.

Reply to the2ofusr1: Your Questions Answered

I think it was Einstein that said he could have 1000 reasons why he might be correct but all I would need is one reason why he was not. Is that the case with evolution?

Yes. It is the same with all scientific theories. In fact it is the same with all inductive conclusions. A thousand examples cannot prove them right, but one counterexample is enough to prove them wrong.

Where does the theory have it's first objective fact or does it start with a presupposition that has a counter part?

The first objective fact leading to a theory of evolution is the observation that life exists in different forms. The theory seeks to explain why this is so.

Evidence supporting the theory comes from four sources: simple observation, which reveals that while organic species vary, they vary in ways that show that they are related to one another, some more closely than others; from selective breeding, which shows that new variations can be developed on old forms; from fossils, which preserve a record of evolutionary change over time; and from genetic and microbiological studies, which show that all living things are descended from a common genetic ancestor.

Of course, none of this evidence actually proves the theory of evolution, any more than previous experience proves that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning. But the chances of either of those propositions being wrong are dauntingly high.

If the theory is only to give one group a philosophical world view as a counter to the other for comfort then I can understand the need for it.

See, this is where all creationists go wrong. They derive comfort from their religious views, so they believe that people who accept the theory of evolution must also somehow draw comfort from it. Tell me, what comfort do you think can be derived from the view of life as an endless, doomed struggle to survive and reproduce, conducted for no better reason than that we cannot help ourselves?

Perhaps you think 'evolutionists' derive comfort from believing that there is no afterlife in which God will judge their sins and condemn them. But that's not evolutionists, that's atheists. Two different things. Lots of religious people accept evolution, among them the Dalai Lama and the Pope.

Is the study in the metaphysical a legitimate science?

Irrelevant, since evolutionary biology is a study of the physical — to wit, the variation and development of living species.

God is Occam's approach for me.

The formal statement of Occam's Razor is as follows: 'entities must not be multiplied unnecessarily'. From the scientific point of view — though not, of course, from a psychological one — God is the ultimate Unnecessary Entity.

a reply to: rnaa

what other four legged animal has to bend its front legs in order to reach a pool of water for a drink?

Sorry to be a smart Alec, but: any felid.