My Aliens challenge

[Tolworth John]

Please explainhow "evolution being false", this means there can't be aliens

If one bases a statement on a belief and that statement is false then it follows that the belief is also false.

 

[Astrid]

And in a science magerzine he would get a honest, fair peer review if he presented an artical with young earth dates in it.

How gulliable you are.

.

Bit of a typo there. Young earth DATA
would get attention.
Fanciful dates will no data to confirm
them would just get the circular file.
Only the gullible would accept as science
any claims that lack data.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Maybe that's the problem then?

The problem....
... is your refusal to accept any fact that refutes your, rather unusual, interpretation of the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem....
... is your refusal to accept any fact that refutes your, rather unusual, interpretation of the bible.

Which is what, exactly?

Show me you even remotely understand it.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Which is what, exactly?

Show me you even remotely understand it.

How can I hope to understand your fantasy?

 

[Shemjaza]

And in a science magerzine he would get a honest, fair peer review if he presented an artical with young earth dates in it.

How gulliable you are.

He'd have to be able to present verifiable evidence for his YEC dating... and he can't.

All christian scientist publish in secular journals etc, but to do so they have to adjust there articles to complie with the ruling, never to be questioned theory of evolutio.

False.

The ability to demonstrate scientifically a more viable alternative to the theory of evolution would win you the Nobel prize... prioritising personal, religious conviction over scientific evidence is unjustified.

 

[essentialsaltes]

All christian scientist publish in secular journals etc, but to do so they have to adjust there articles to complie with the ruling, never to be questioned theory of evolutio.

Can you give an example of one Christian scientist who has published in these journals who says this is true?

 

[driewerf]

If one bases a statement on a belief and that statement is false then it follows that the belief is also false.

1) The purpose of this thread and challenge is to explore what the evidence would point at, if investigated by someone who sees it without any precognition, not from the bible, not from previous geological studies, just as blank as possible. Hence the existence of aliens is assumed, just fort he sake of the argument.
2) You declare “evolution” wrong. Since the theory of evolution is a scientific theory I expect you to provide evidence – scientific evidence – for that statement. You want to play on science’s play ground? That’s fine. You play according to science’s rules. So no argument from authority, no word plays, no arguments from incredulity. The only type of arguments accepted will be empirical evidence. Please provide observed data that goes against the Theory of Evolution.
3) Let us assumed – just for a short time – that the Theory of Evolution is indeed wrong. Please explain why the process (which ever it was) that brought us here could not have yielded aliens. Since per your previous post you claim that the wrongness of evolution is an argument for the non existence of aliens.

 

[driewerf]

All christian scientist publish in secular journals etc, but to do so they have to adjust there articles to complie with the ruling, never to be questioned theory of evolution.

Really?
Can you name one “christian scientist” that had to do this, specify on what paper and show the paper as before and after this alleged “compliance”? Because this is a serious accusation.
And how do you know that? Do these “christian scientists” show you their refused copies?

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, Yes Yes I agree,ruling out the possibility of the supernatural aproi disqualifies every atheist scientist.

Grow up, everyone has a bias, it is how one makes allowance for that bias that counts.

The supernatural has no impact on science. The clue is in the name. Science deals with the natural world and the super natural doesn't.

And another point. Science is a process that specifically roots out bias. It doesn't matter what you want the answer to be. You follow the evidence to wherever it leads.

And a third. Please note the last sentence in the last paragraph. And note the direction that science proceeds. It gathers the evidence and tests it leading to an answer. It doesn't start with an answer and look for evidence to support it, rejecting any that disproves it.

So yeah, anyone who does that, like our chums at creation.com, are not doing science. Some of them may have scientific qualifications and some might use scientific language when promoting their beliefs (note that word) to convince people that they are doing scientific research. But anyone who understands the very definition of science knows that they are not.

 

[Astrid]

Really?
Can you name one “christian scientist” that had to do this, specify on what paper and show the paper as before and after this alleged “compliance”? Because this is a serious accusation.
And how do you know that? Do these “christian scientists” show you their refused copies?

He doesn't know that any.more than he knows there
was a third sniper in the grassy knoll.

If someone did " adjust" their data, they've
committed an act of intellectual / scientific
dishonesty, which, curiously is precisely what an
educated yec must do in order to be a
young earth creationist.
Yet our friend thinks it's what they must
do in order to finally go straight.
Droll.

The only yec scientist I know of to
directly address the yec dilema is a
Dr. K Wise, PhD paleontology, to wit:

"....even if all the evidence in the universe turns
against yec I will still be yec.".

Pure, unalloyed intellectual dishnesty;
though to his credit he is honest, like a bank robber
who says yeah, I rob banks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pure, unalloyed intellectual dishnesty; though to his credit he is honest, like a bank robber who says yeah, I rob banks.

Welcome to the world of faith.

And I can't warn you enough not to take it lightly.

Remember Jonestown? the subways in Tokyo? Vernon Howell? Heavens Gate? and a host of other cults?

You can call them "intellectually dishonest" all you want.

But if you think that's going to matter ... think again.

 

[Kylie]

And in a science magerzine he would get a honest, fair peer review if he presented an artical with young earth dates in it.

How gulliable you are.

If he has the evidence to back it up, then the evidence will speak for itself. There are plenty of examples of a scientific principle being laughed at when proposed but accepted because of the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

If he has the evidence to back it up, then the evidence will speak for itself.

Did evidence speak for itself with geocentrism?

I say it did.

What say you?

 

[Kylie]

Did evidence speak for itself with geocentrism?

I say it did.

What say you?

I say you don't understand how to interpret evidence, since the arguments for geocentricism had deep flaws which could not be explained with a geocentric model. The fact that those flaws were unexplainable with geocentricism and yet easily explained with a heliocentric model is why we abandoned geocentricism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I say you don't understand how to interpret evidence,

Can't answer that, huh?

More like you won't.

But I did.

I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade.

 

[Kylie]

Can't answer that, huh?

More like you won't.

But I did.

I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade.

Wow, AV, that's poor form.

You asked me one question - "What say you?"

And I answered it. I said you are wrong, because the evidence does not support geocentricism. And I even explained why the evidence for geocentricism is wrong too, just in case you were asking about that.

And then you claim that I never answered you?

And then you say, "I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade," essentially admitting that you are happy to leap to conclusions without actually properly examining and investigating the evidence to see what's really going on.

 

[Astrid]

If he has the evidence to back it up, then the evidence will speak for itself. There are plenty of examples of a scientific principle being laughed at when proposed but accepted because of the evidence.

Laughed at, or just not accepted immediately.

That is as it should be.

If the idea has merit, it will be accepted in time.
Sometimes quickly, sometimes it takes years.

That is the pattern.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the idea has merit, it will be accepted in time.
Sometimes quickly, sometimes it takes years.

Is that why have around seven different theories as to how we got our moon?

Which idea has the most merit?

And if it's accepted, why do we keep getting more?

I believe this one is the latest one:

Earth Had Two Moons, New Model Suggests

 

[Bradskii]

Is that why have around seven different theories as to how we got our moon?

Which idea has the most merit?

And if it's accepted, why do we keep getting more?

Do you have no idea how science works? We all know that you reject it. But surely you must at least know how it works. You must know what a theory is. Why don't you explain it to us? You'll then end up answering your own question.