AiG has offered a very ironic article on Alien Life and UFO's. My views on alien life are that bacteria or some simple life may exist in our solar system, and probably elsewhere in the universe, and I think there may even be intelligent life somewhere out there. I do not think that aliens visit us (or ever have) simply because out of all the citings and reports of abduction, no tangible evidence has ever been found to support this notion. I'd like to see an alien body recovered, or at the least, a ship that we could reasonably conclude was not created on earth. I feel that if there is alien life, we may never discover it, due to the fact that we may never develop the technology to travel far enough to discover it (intelligent alien life may, and probably is, very rare and thus likely to be light years away). Nevertheless, I do admire AiG for admitting that if intelligent alien life were ever discovered, it would constitute a falsification of creationism. Now for the irony:
People often want me to explain a sighting of some unknown flying object which they or often a friend have claimed to see. (Sometimes the implication is that if I can’t explain it, it somehow proves that it must be an alien spacecraft; but such reasoning is completely vacuous.1) These kinds of questions are unreasonable. It is one thing to be asked to interpret evidence that we have, but it is unrealistic to ask someone to interpret undocumented second- or third-hand stories with no actual evidence available for inspection.
This reminds me a lot of creationists using flood myths as evidence of a worldwide flood. People from all civilizations have some form of UFO myth, or at least report UFO citings, and this is taken to be evidence of extra-terrestrials. Yet they take flood myths, some of which speak only of a local flood, and use it as evidence that there was a global flood.
The author states the following in his footnotes:
The argument is that alien spacecraft could not be explained by a natural phenomenon. Therefore, it is suggested that witnessing something that cannot be explained naturally must prove the existence of alien spacecraft.
This reminds me a lot of arguments for irreducible complexity or against abiogenesis. "We can't imagine a natural explanation, therefore it must be a direct act of God!"
9 comments:
The only way to get physical proof would be to catch one of the star people and that is a pretty difficult task, although not impossible because it has already been done. As far as evidence goes, I don't know what that is anymore. Many people have photographs of ufo's that they have witnessed but many who absolutely refuse to believe debunk these photos. Very important men and woman who worked for the government/military have come forward to testify to the fact that we are being visited. So other than the fact that soon everyone will know, I don't know what more evidence ppl want. So it remains a difficult task when you witness these things yourself and expect others to believe. Please come check out my site and put in your 2 cents I would appreciate your comments and i have some polls to vote on as well :)
UFO's And The Star People
I'm no YEC (I've gone exactly 180º in the opposite direction), but I fail to see the logic. Why would the discovery of intelligent alien life constitute a falsification of creationism? Assuming the YEC position is true (painful as that assumption would be), what's not to say that God didn't repeat the process elsewhere?
For the AiG theistfucks, every damn thing is evidence for their imaginary sky-daddy.
Fucktards will always be fucktards.
Mike, if you read the link they discuss the problems alien life would give to creationism. I think they would still rationalize it, but just in case it is discovered one day, we should remember their statement.
Mike and Ryan,
I recently submitted a question to the CMI website asking how they would respond if some day a real live extraterrestrial is found to exist, as opposed to asking whether they do exist. (See www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5436/). Notice how little time they spent explaining how they would deal with a real discovery (which was my original question) and how much time they spent trying to convince me that they don't exist. Apparently the possibility that creationism could perhaps someday be falsified does not sit well with them. Also notice how they phrased the title (Can the bible be falsified?) which was NOT what I was asking.
In a followup letter, in which I took them to task for their less than sincere answer, they seemed a little taken aback at my unwillingness to accept their answer at face value and relentlessly bombarded me with more creationist propaganda. (See www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5516/). Notice how they attached a label to me (anticreationist) which was irrelevant as far as the original question was concerned. I'm not sure it's even worth responding to any further.
AiGB,
Sorry for the confusion, but I thought your statement ("I do admire AiG for admitting that if intelligent alien life were ever discovered, it would constitute a falsification of creationism") constituted an affirmation of their logic, to wit, that you interpret the Bible in the same manner and, if ET life were ever discovered, such a discovery would constitute (in your eyes) a falsification of creationism. Thus, my question was directed more toward you than AiG and their ilk.
Strangely enough, as a former YEC (and current TE), I had never heard anti-ET arguments like theirs before. Sadly, their entire position on origins is based on a faulty interpretation of Genesis, not to mention other portions of the Bible.
Keep up the good work! =)
*************
Jere,
Clearly, a falsification of AiG's particular interpretation of the Bible constitutes (in their eyes) a falsification of the Bible itself. Hence, the rephrasing of your question and their statement that "they are one and the same thing! The 'creationistic worldview' is a logical deduction from Scripture." Heh. Logical deduction only for someone attempting to read an ancient Hebrew document through a modern, scientific lens. AiG's eschatology is equally warped due to a failure to read the Bible using a historico-grammatical method of interpretation where authorial intent and audience relevance hold the key to properly understanding the text.
Cheers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNZ2xve0zzI
Very good indication.
UFO's And The Star People
I think if they have the technology to get here I don't think they'll be dying or crashing their ships. They probably come here on tourism, have a look around and head somewhere else.
Post a Comment