Rainbow Dash Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 The Wikipedia article on the Starchild Skull is extremely biased. This discredits Wikipedia's article: There are 6 billion cell phone users worldwide. I assume many billions of them have decent quality cameras. Shouldn't there be overwhelming evidence of our alien mothers by now? Point me in the direction of "major UFO siting". This is a video I found showing UFO's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNj9mbQztHI I don't know if this could have been faked, but videos like this exist. Do you have reasons why these couldn't be UFO's? Positing that aliens began life on earth is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory, albeit highly unlikely. And you realize that's a very strange thing to say (regardless of whether or not it's true), right? All you have to do is show how things that appear to be functions actually are functions, and not just features resulting from blind forces that we make sense of by describing it functionally. That is, that the intention causes the features to be. We make sense of bee queens as functioning as the producer of workers and drones, but really that's just what sort of happens naturally. The part of us that tells the story "that's her job" is an "as-if" explanation. That is, it's as-if that were her function, her job because she does lay those eggs. The problem with creation myths is that they confuse the function for the feature. That is they don't realize that the description is "as-if", but rather talk about it like the description is literal. This confuses the appearance of intentionality for actual intentionality. Evolutionary theory really only says that it's an "as-if" explanation rather than a literal one. The mechanics of which seem to be given all the available evidence to be gradual changes over time and certain environmental selectors. If we found out tomorrow that punctuated equilibrium was the mechanism, it would still be evolutionary theory. The mechanism is important, but not a make or break thing. Yes I know that many people consider this strange, but I don't see why people should think it is strange. Can you rephrase your post? I don't follow your argument. What does, “things that appear to be functions actually are functions” mean? What does it mean for a description to be “as-if”? What do you mean by function and feature and how do creation myths confuse them?
greekredemption Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 This is a video I found showing UFO's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNj9mbQztHI I don't know if this could have been faked, but videos like this exist. Do you have reasons why these couldn't be UFO's? For a start, you're asking the wrong question. I think David Hume's thoughts on miracles are adequate enough to deal with this UFO stuff: The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion. In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence. That there are countless other explanations for 'lights in the sky', both more probable and easily evidenced, suggests that concluding 'UFOs' is somewhere near the bottom of the list. It's also curious how all these apparent sightings of UFOs are very grainy and don't actually show anything that couldn't be more easily and simply explained by, I don't know. lamps reflecting in a window, refraction, helicopters, etc, etc. And we're not seriously discussing the starchild skull, are we? Good god.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Well it would play rather well for creationists, who don't even recognise that there is such a thing as geological layers. So if those gosh darn evolushonists found a rabbit in a layer of rock older than the food rabbits eat, it'd seem to vindicate their point of view, don't you think? And for the theory of evolution it would indeed pose a problem. Of course, if ONE rabbit - or what seems to be a rabbit - was found in the precambrian, against the weight of the rest of the evidence supporting evolution it'd probably not matter. But if it came as one of several animals implicitly predicted by evolutionary theory not to exist before a given time, then, well, evolution would have to be re-thought. So, yes, it is a good example of falsification. If scientists started finding rabbits, camels, bats or even humans in the precambrian, evolution would to some extent be thrown into doubt. You can't just claim that someone can't recognize geological layers just because they don't believe in evolution. If evolutionists and non-evolutionists both predict that rabbits won't appear in the precambrian, then you can't say that not finding rabbits in the precambrian is evidence for evolution. 2) "If a feature gives an evolutionary neutral advantage, the feature will go away over several generations because mutations that degrade outnumber the mutations that improve." Could you expand on this There are 2 parts of evolution, mutations and natural selection. if a feature gives an evolutionary neutral advantage, natural selection doesn't affect it because any changes won't affect the ability to survive or reproduce. Without natural selection increasing certain mutations and eliminating others, it will accumulate all sorts of mutations uniformly. A majority of those mutations are harmful to that feature so that feature will degrade over time. One example is that bats are thought to have obtained bad eye site because they started relying on radar instead of eyes causing them to go (Edit: towards becoming) blind over several generations. For a start, you're asking the wrong question. I think David Hume's thoughts on miracles are adequate enough to deal with this UFO stuff: That there are countless other explanations for 'lights in the sky', both more probable and easily evidenced, suggests that concluding 'UFOs' is somewhere near the bottom of the list. It's also curious how all these apparent sightings of UFOs are very grainy and don't actually show anything that couldn't be more easily and simply explained by, I don't know. lamps reflecting in a window, refraction, helicopters, etc, etc. And we're not seriously discussing the starchild skull, are we? Good god. I am not saying these videos are proof of UFO's, I was just rebutting the claim that if there were aliens they would have to make themselves invisible. I am just stating under the assumption there are aliens, they could just be some of those UFO's in some of those videos and would not need to make themselves invisible. What's wrong with discussing the Starchild skull?
Ray H. Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 My point was that ET's are oddly absent from everyday life on Earth and I don't see why this should be so, if they have knowledge that could be of use to us. Have you talked to an ET recently? Have you seen them strolling (hovering?) through the park? Do they go on TV and share their knowledge with anyone? Lights in the sky do not answer the question of why, if they exist, are ET's being so evasive? Bats are not blind. Seriously, you might want to be skeptical of your skepticism. A simple google search on any of the issues you raise will bring up multiple sources of information that would clear up the gaps you're currently filling in with X-files episodes. You might also look up "straw man argument", as you've used it repeatedly.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 My point was that ET's are oddly absent from everyday life on Earth and I don't see why this should be so, if they have knowledge that could be of use to us. Have you talked to an ET recently? Have you seen them strolling (hovering?) through the park? Do they go on TV and share their knowledge with anyone? Lights in the sky do not answer the question of why, if they exist, are ET's being so evasive? Bats are not blind. Seriously, you might want to be skeptical of your skepticism. A simple google search on any of the issues you raise will bring up multiple sources of information that would clear up the gaps you're currently filling in with X-files episodes. You might also look up "straw man argument", as you've used it repeatedly. Are you aware that several astronauts claim to have seen UFO's. Aliens are not being evasive. I was stating that they are believed to be going towards being blind. Evolutionists believe they evolved from other mammals, which usually have better vision. I heard this claim used as an example of this theory a long time ago and may be outdated, but that doesn't change the concept. As for the simple google search, you need to be careful what sources you trust. I look at sources for both sides and choose the side that makes better reasoning, not just trust the first claims I find on a quick google search. Edit: have you even ever done a google search for evidence for extraterrestrials? Can you explain where and how I am using straw man arguments?
greekredemption Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 You can't just claim that someone can't recognize geological layers just because they don't believe in evolution. If evolutionists and non-evolutionists both predict that rabbits won't appear in the precambrian, then you can't say that not finding rabbits in the precambrian is evidence for evolution. I didn't say that. You asked how evolution would be falsified. I provided you with one example. There are 2 parts of evolution, mutations and natural selection. if a feature gives an evolutionary neutral advantage, natural selection doesn't affect it because any changes won't affect the ability to survive or reproduce. Without natural selection increasing certain mutations and eliminating others, it will accumulate all sorts of mutations uniformly. A majority of those mutations are harmful to that feature so that feature will degrade over time. One example is that bats are thought to have obtained bad eye site because they started relying on radar instead of eyes causing them to go blind over several generations. Sure. Random mutation and non-random selection. So... I don't understand your point here. I am not saying these videos are proof of UFO's, I was just rebutting the claim that if there were aliens they would have to make themselves invisible. I am just stating under the assumption there are aliens, they could just be some of those UFO's in some of those videos and would not need to make themselves invisible.What's wrong with discussing the Starchild skull? I... wait, what? The Starchild Skull is a deformed human skull. I don't understand where the alien shite comes from.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Alien life would be evidence for evolution. It would show that terrestrial life is not unique and that nature can produce other life.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 The Starchild Skull is a deformed human skull. I don't understand where the alien shite comes from. The Starchild skull is not human! Stop being ignorant and watch this video: Alien life would be evidence for evolution. It would show that terrestrial life is not unique and that nature can produce other life. You are assuming that if there are aliens, then life originated separately on two different planets without considering the possibility that life started somewhere else and they spread life here.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 You are assuming that if there are aliens, then life originated separately on two different planets without considering the possibility that life started somewhere else and they spread life here. I'm not assuming that.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 I didn't say that. You asked how evolution would be falsified. I provided you with one example. This debate would be more productive if you tried to make a convincing argument instead of finding ways to answer the question while dodging the issue. I'm not assuming that. Then can you elaborate how that still supports evolution?
greekredemption Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 This debate would be more productive if you tried to make a convincing argument instead of finding ways to answer the question while dodging the issue. So instead of answering the question, I should read your mind? All I can do as a layman is address your objections, which I have done. If you need to educate yourself on evolution, there are plenty of places online to do that much better than I could.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 This debate would be more productive if you tried to make a convincing argument instead of finding ways to answer the question while dodging the issue. Then can you elaborate how that still supports evolution? Already elaborated. You asked someone for a way to falsify evolution and they answered you. You then move the goal posts without even acknowledging that they've answered your question. Could you please acknowledge that the question of how to falsify evolution has been answered? http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-starchild-project/
Rainbow Dash Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 So instead of answering the question, I should read your mind? All I can do as a layman is address your objections, which I have done. If you need to educate yourself on evolution, there are plenty of places online to do that much better than I could. When I stated that your example would also be predicted by a non-evolutionist, did it not occur to you that an example that would not also be predicted by non-evolutionists would help your claim? I am sorry if that wasn't obvious. Already elaborated. You asked someone for a way to falsify evolution and they answered you. You then move the goal posts without even acknowledging that they've answered your question. Could you please acknowledge that the question of how to falsify evolution has been answered? http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-starchild-project/ Ok, sure the answer was met. But it is still relevant that the example doesn't do a good job at supporting evolution. And for your link, it is obvious that you have not watched the video I posted on the Starchild skull.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 When I stated that your example would also be predicted by a non-evolutionist, did it not occur to you that an example that would not also be predicted by non-evolutionists would help your claim? I am sorry if that wasn't obvious. It's strange to think that if evolutionists (those correctly adhering to the scientific method) declared evolution false because rabbits were found in the pre-Cambrian that many non-evolutionists (theists) would have to declare that it does not falsify evolution (if they wanted to be consistent with their claim that evolution is not falsifiable). Ok, sure the answer was met. But it is still relevant that the example doesn't do a good job at supporting evolution. And for your li Ok, sure the answer was met. But it is still relevant that the example doesn't do a good job at supporting evolution. And for your link, it is obvious that you have not watched the video I posted on the Starchild skull. Could you give an unqualified acknowledgment that the question was answered? As for your video it is obvious that you have not read the link. It's a deformed human skull.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 As for your video it is obvious that you have not read the link. It's a deformed human skull. The link says they ignored the possibility of hydrocephaly, even though the video clearly explains why its deformities can't be explained by hydrocephaly
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 The link says they ignored the possibility of hydrocephaly, even though the video clearly explains why its deformities can't be explained by hydrocephaly It can be explained by hydrocepaly. It wouldn't lend any credence to your alien hypothesis even if it couldn't.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 It's strange to think that if evolutionists (those correctly adhering to the scientific method) declared evolution false because rabbits were found in the pre-Cambrian that many non-evolutionists (theists) would have to declare that it does not falsify evolution (if they wanted to be consistent with their claim that evolution is not falsifiable). Not all evolutionists correctly adhere to the scientific method. Not all non-evolutionists are theists, I am an example. I never said non-evolutionists didn't consider rabbits in the precambrian contradictory to evolution, it just would also contradict how animals can't live when there are no plants, which is why they would be expected that to not be discovered. As for your video it is obvious that you have not read the link. It's a deformed human skull. Your link references a source from 2006. It is outdated. Much more accurate DNA tests have been done since then.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Not all evolutionists correctly adhere to the scientific method. Not all non-evolutionists are theists, I am an example. I never said non-evolutionists didn't consider rabbits in the precambrian contradictory to evolution, it just would also contradict how animals can't live when there are no plants, which is why they would be expected that to not be discovered. All evolutionists do adhere to the scientific method and all non-evolutionists are theists. You may be an outlier but that doesn't matter. Do you acknowledge that a method for falsification of evolution has been provided? It's a yes or no question and does not need opinionated commentary. Your link references a source from 2006. It is outdated. Much more accurate DNA tests have been done since then. Yes and it's still a human skull.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 All evolutionists do adhere to the scientific method and all non-evolutionists are theists. You may be an outlier but that doesn't matter. All You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means ProfessionalTeabagger,I am going to wait for someone else to respond who is hopefully more open minded.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 I think it was Stef who said "I'll leave it to third-rate thinkers to point out the rare exceptions". Being open-minded doesn't mean believing superstitious horseshit or making fallacious arguments against the most successful scientific theory ever. Being open-minded means always being ready to change your mind if new evidence and/or reason comes to light. Evolutionists give specific criteria for what would change their minds. THEY are the open-minded ones, not people like you who do nothing except make appeals to ignorance and steam-roll over any counter evidence or argument.
Ray H. Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Are you aware that several astronauts claim to have seen UFO's. Aliens are not being evasive. I was stating that they are believed to be going towards being blind. Evolutionists believe they evolved from other mammals, which usually have better vision. I heard this claim used as an example of this theory a long time ago and may be outdated, but that doesn't change the concept. As for the simple google search, you need to be careful what sources you trust. I look at sources for both sides and choose the side that makes better reasoning, not just trust the first claims I find on a quick google search. Edit: have you even ever done a google search for evidence for extraterrestrials? Can you explain where and how I am using straw man arguments? You use them every time you rephrase someone's argument incorrectly and then argue against that incorrect interpretation. You did it in this very post. Unfortunately, I did watch the starchild skull video. It's not proof or a rebuttal of anything. It's a combination of assertions without proof and misinterpretation of DNA tests. Yet, you have the gall to tell me I should be careful what sources I trust. For fuck's sake, man (or woman or alien.)
Rainbow Dash Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 You use them every time you rephrase someone's argument incorrectly and then argue against that incorrect interpretation. You did it in this very post. Unfortunately, I did watch the starchild skull video. It's not proof or a rebuttal of anything. It's a combination of assertions without proof and misinterpretation of DNA tests. Yet, you have the gall to tell me I should be careful what sources I trust. For fuck's sake, man (or woman or alien.) Can you be more specific. What arguments did I misinterpret and what are the correct interpretations and what did I not correctly interpret from them? Can you explain how the DNA tests are being misinterpreted?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Unfortunately, I did watch the starchild skull video. It's not proof or a rebuttal of anything. It's a combination of assertions without proof and misinterpretation of DNA tests. Yet, you have the gall to tell me I should be careful what sources I trust. For fuck's sake, man (or woman or alien.) When you say he gives no proof, do you have reasons for not trusting the experts he referenced that studied the skull?
Ray H. Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 I'm not going to hold your hand through this. Do a search. It's been debunked. If those outlets can't convince you, then I certainly won't be able to either. Good luck.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 I'm not going to hold your hand through this. Do a search. It's been debunked. If those outlets can't convince you, then I certainly won't be able to either. Good luck. I looked for debunkings, and the video I posted along with other sources supporting the Starchild make better arguments then the debunkings I found. If you found a source debunking it, then you are unwilling to spend 2 seconds posting a link. If you don't have a source debunking it then you have no evidence for saying it has been debunked. So you are either making an assertion with no evidence, or you are intentionally leaving out information.
greekredemption Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 THE STARCHILD SKULL IS NOT HUMAN! STOP BEING IGNORANT AND WATCH THIS VIDEO: You are assuming that if there are aliens, then life originated separately on two different planets without considering the possibility that life started somewhere else and they spread life here. Soooo... even if we accept the highly specious idea that a malformed skull is not human, it still contains DNA? What's the problem?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Soooo... even if we accept the highly specious idea that a malformed skull is not human, it still contains DNA? What's the problem? If you still consider the idea of the Starchild skull not being human as "highly specious" and are stating that the skull is simply "malformed", I am not going to waste my time giving an explanation.
greekredemption Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 If you still consider the idea of the Starchild skull not being human as "highly specious" and are stating that the skull is simply "malformed", I am not going to waste my time giving an explanation. Testing shows the skull to be human, for one. Secondly, even if the skull were not human (by what means I'm not sure), if it contains DNA it doesn't seem to suggest extra-terrestrial origins. DNA is of course common to all known life, and all known life is terrestrial. Perhaps it's a different species of human? Why must it be extra-terrestrial? Can't it be fairies? Gods? The whole Starchild Skull thing has so many holes in it it's hardly worth talking about. That you can't see that baffles me in the extreme.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Testing shows the skull to be human, for one. More recent and accurate DNA testing from 2012 disproves the older DNA tests. Please respond with up to date information.
greekredemption Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 More recent and accurate DNA testing from 2012 disproves the older DNA tests. Please respond with up to date information. It does no such thing. Both X and Y chromosomes were found in earlier DNA tests. And as far as I know, the analysis of the FOXP2 gene does not in any way indicate non-human DNA (has a conclusion even been released? I don't know). Maybe you'll be interested in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2#Clinical_significance And, look, this is all hinging on DNA. Let us suppose for a moment that this quack merchant is correct, and for some reason this skull is half non-human. Why can't it just be another species of human (of which there are many)? Why are you defaulting to the alien hypothesis? And furthermore, why would aliens have DNA at all!? The fact is that this skull is explained by existing theories. Skull deformations of this kind are relatively common. The DNA testing shows human DNA. What else do you want? Skullchild of the Gaps.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 The fact is that this skull is explained by existing theories. Skull deformations of this kind are relatively common. If you can show me an existing theory that can explain every anomaly of the Starchild skull listed here: http://starchildproject.com/the-project/skullbasics , I would love to see it.
greekredemption Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 If you can show me an existing theory that can explain every anomaly of the Starchild skull listed here: http://starchildproject.com/the-project/skullbasics , I would love to see it. Hydrocephalus? Progeria? And what about the rest of my post?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Hydrocephalus? Progeria? How do either of those things even explain the first thing on the list from the link which states: "The bone is like no other bone on Earth. Its biochemical signature is much richer in collagen than regular bone."?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 And as far as I know, the analysis of the FOXP2 gene does not in any way indicate non-human DNA (has a conclusion even been released? I don't know). Can you show me an example of a human with a number of mutations in their FOXP2 gene that is anywhere near what the Starchild skull has? Because I don't believe one exists Why can't it just be another species of human (of which there are many)? Why are you defaulting to the alien hypothesis? If you were able to comprehend the numerous large differences the Starchild skull has with humans and life on earth in general, in addition this skull fits the general description of a gray alien, and that Hydrocephalus and Progeria can't explain all the anomalies of the Starchild Skull, you would find it is a reasonable conclusion.
Recommended Posts