Congressional Candidate Knows Extraterrestrials

This is a bit off-topic, but it’s worth mentioning because it’s rare that we encounter a politician who may actually be crazier than a creationist. We found this in the Miami Herald: Miami politician says aliens took her on a spaceship. Now she’s running for Congress.

Sounds good, huh? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Florida has a U.S. senator who once flew aboard the Space Shuttle. [That’s Bill Nelson.] A congressional candidate from Miami can go one better: Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera says she’s been aboard a spaceship too. But this one was crewed by aliens. As in extraterrestrials.

No comment. Let’s read on:

Three blond, big-bodied beings — two females, one male — visited her when she was 7 years old and have communicated telepathically with her several times in her life, she says.

Isn’t this great? We’re told:

Rodriguez Aguilera, 59, a Republican who is running to replace retiring Miami Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, recounted her experience with the ETs during a 2009 television interview. She described “going up” inside the spaceship — though whether it went into space or just hovered around town was left unclear. “I went in. There were some round seats that were there, and some quartz rocks that controlled the ship — not like airplanes,” Rodriguez Aguilera said.

Sounds credible. The news story continues:

In two separate videos posted to YouTube years ago, one by local Spanish-language station America TeVe and another by a political critic with the user name DoralGirl26, Rodriguez Aguilera spoke on television in detail about her extraterrestrial experiences. She said the alien beings reminded her of the famous statue in Rio de Janeiro, Christ the Redeemer, with arms outstretched.

Among the things she said she found out from the aliens:

▪ There are 30,000 skulls — “different from humans” — in a cave in the Mediterranean island of Malta.

▪ The world’s “energy center” is in Africa.

▪ The Coral Castle, a limestone tourist attraction South Miami-Dade, is actually an ancient Egyptian pyramid.

▪ “God is a universal energy.”

At last, we may get someone in Congress who knows what’s going on. Let’s read some more:

The Miami Herald asked Rodriguez Aguilera about her experiences Friday. She responded with a statement that waxed astronomical, but sadly failed to mention close encounters of any kind.

[They quote her:] “For years people, including Presidents like Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter and astronauts have publicly claimed to have seen unidentified flying objects and scientists like Stephen Hawking and institutions like the Vatican have stated that there are billions of galaxies in the universe and we are probably not alone,” she said. “I personally am a Christian and have a strong belief in God, I join the majority of Americans who believe that there must be intelligent life in the billions of planets and galaxies in the universe.”

There’s a lot more to the story, but nothing about aliens, so we’ll stop here. Oh, in case you want to make a contribution, here’s her campaign website: Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera for U.S. Congress.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

ICR: Dino Coprolites Prove the Flood

If you’re still in denial about the Flood and Noah’s Ark, this is going to change your mind. It’s an article at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. And it’s another example of what we call the Creationist Scientific Method:

1. Select a conclusion which you hope is true.
2. Find one piece of evidence that possibly might fit.
3. Ignore all other evidence.
4. That’s it.

ICR’s article is titled Plant-Eating Dinosaurs Consumed Crabs. It was written by Brian Thomas. He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” This is ICR’s biographical information on him. Here are some excerpts from his new article, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Paleontologists found bits of crustacean shell inside well-preserved dinosaur dung. Besides being a first-time discovery, these dietary supplements challenge the herbivore status of the hadrosaurs that ate them. They also raise questions about why dinosaurs would deviate from their normal diet.

You can read about Hadrosaurids at Wikipedia. They say: “This group is also known as the duck-billed dinosaurs, for the flat, duck-bill appearance of the bones in their snouts.” They have a separate article devoted to the subject of Hadrosaur diet which says that they were herbivores. Also:

The diet of hadrosaurid dinosaurs remains a subject of debate among paleontologists, especially regarding whether hadrosaurids were grazers who fed on vegetation close to the ground, or browsers who ate higher-growing leaves and twigs.

[…]

Coprolites (fossilized droppings) of some Late Cretaceous hadrosaurs show that the animals sometimes deliberately ate rotting wood. Wood itself is not nutritious, but decomposing wood would have contained fungi, decomposed wood material and detritus-eating invertebrates, all of which would have been nutritious.

So what’s the big issue here? Brian refers to this article in Scientific Reports: Consumption of crustaceans by megaherbivorous dinosaurs: dietary flexibility and dinosaur life history strategies, and says:

Researchers found dark, shell-like material in 10 of 15 fossilized excrement specimens called coprolites. … Hadrosaurs were supposed to be strict herbivores. Why would they eat crabs?

Wowie — that’s a serious question! The entire rickety structure of evolution is in danger here. Brian tells us:

The coprolites with crab shell fragments also contained rotten wood fragments. Surely old wood and crabs were not the ideal diet for animals with hundreds of razor-like teeth designed to slice plant matter with their scissor-action jaws. Perhaps the dinosaurs ran out of regular food and died with substitute food still inside them.

What does Brian have in mind? Here it comes:

The only way to know with certainty why these hadrosaurs deviated from their otherwise very herbivorous diet would be to travel back in time to watch them, their surroundings, and behaviors. But if they were forced into a diet of last resort, then times were tough — just as one would expect during continent-covering floods.

Yes — oh yes! — that’s the explanation. There can be no other! It’s interesting to see how the authors of the Scientific Reports paper try to minimize the significance of their discovery. The end of their abstract says:

This surprising fossil evidence challenges conventional notions of herbivorous dinosaur diets and reveals a degree of dietary flexibility that is consistent with that of extant herbivorous birds.

Foolish scientists. They found undeniable evidence of the Flood, and they ignored it. The ability of Darwinists to delude themselves is limitless. It’s a good thing we have ICR to tell us The Truth.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Creative Challenge #48: Anti-Evolution Argument

We’ve challenged you before to present good creationist arguments, most recently #47: Best Creationist Argument. But all you’ve done is give us the arguments that creationists actually use, such as: it’s in the bible, it’ll keep me out of the Lake of Fire, evolution isn’t nice, it’s the devil’s work, etc.

All of that stuff is fine — for creationists — but it doesn’t begin to do the job of persuading rational people. Today we’re looking for a serious intellectual challenge to evolution, not merely something that will satisfy a drooling idiot.

Creationists sometimes attempt to make serious arguments, but the best they can do is to point out something not yet explained — origin of life, consciousness, etc. They fail to grasp that something not yet explained doesn’t disprove evolution, it’s just a research project that needs to be worked on. What creationists need is something that literally can’t be explained because it demonstrably contradicts the laws of nature. We discussed this before in Advice for Creationists.

Creationists attempt to do that by citing the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but they obviously don’t know what they’re talking about. They also cite what they claim are the “odds” against something, but they fail to grasp that the odds are literally against everything — see Discoveroids: The Odds Are Against Evolution.

So we’re challenging you once again, and this time we want you to think like a scientist, not a creationist. The form of today’s challenge is that you must tell us, with reasonable brevity:

What is — or could be — the best logical, scientific argument against evolution?

You know the rules: You may enter the contest as many times as you wish, but you must avoid profanity, vulgarity, childish anatomical analogies, etc. Also, avoid slanderous statements about individuals. Feel free to comment on the entries submitted by others — with praise, criticism, or whatever — but you must do so tastefully.

There may not be a winner of this contest, but if there is, your Curmudgeon will decide, and whenever we get around to it we’ll announce who the winner is. There is no tangible prize — as always in life’s great challenges, the accomplishment is its own reward. We now throw open the comments section, dear reader. Go for it!

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Ken Ham: Creationism Gives Us Great Science

This is about a familiar topic for Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. The title of his new post is Can Creationists Be Innovators?

Before the rise of what we know as science, when virtually everyone was a creationist, humans developed agriculture, the bow & arrow, horse-drawn wheeled vehicles, architecture, etc. The pace of such progress was painfully slow, but shouldn’t surprise us that every now and then, a creationist somehow devises something useful. When something like that happens, it’s important to note that the innovation isn’t derived from a knowledge of scripture.

Even today, according to the Salem hypothesis, engineering types — and that often includes computer scientists — have a tendency toward the creationist viewpoint. More accurately stated, many of the so-called “scientists” who admit being creationists are mostly engineers. There are several examples among the signers of the Discoveroids’ Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

We’ve previously written about some of Hambo’s examples of creationists who managed to improve a device, or to invent something. See Ken Ham: Creationist Designs a Bicycle!. Before that, in Ken Ham Presents a Great Creation Scientist, Hambo was raving about Raymond Damadian, described by Wikipedia as: “an American medical practitioner and inventor of the first MR (Magnetic Resonance) Scanning Machine.” As we said then:

A “creation scientist” is one who attempts to pervert science so he can claim that it supports his faith-based beliefs in the recent six-day creation of the Earth, the universe, and all species, plus additional goodies like Noah’s Flood. Such ancient tales — even if Damadian believes them — have no scientific or technological relationship to the work for which he is known. … Had Damadian confined his work to the “science” of Genesis, he couldn’t have invented anything — except perhaps some kind of improved horse-drawn chariot.

With that as background, let’s see what Hambo has for us today. We’ll give you some excerpts from his new post, with bold font added by us for emphasis. He begins by criticizing Bill Nye, and says:

Creationists can certainly be innovators and engineers (as well as fantastic scientists in any field, even supposed evolutionary ones such as biology, geology, or paleontology — just like the many PhD scientists employed by Answers in Genesis). I’ve publicly challenged Nye many times to provide just one example of a technology that was developed because of a belief in millions of years or evolution. He’s never provided one because, well, there aren’t any. An evolutionary worldview does nothing to further technology — the question of origins has nothing to do with it!

Cleverly done. Just as we say that the “science” in Genesis leads nowhere, Hambo responds by saying that “a belief in millions of years or evolution” doesn’t get us anywhere. But Hambo deliberately misses the point. It’s not merely a belief in millions of years — which is a conclusion, not a presupposition — it’s a firm commitment to studying, testing, and understanding reality — not ancient mythology — that gives us scientific progress. Then he repeats an old clunker:

You see, there are two kinds of science. Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s what was used to put a rover on Mars, develop WiFi, and, for Dr. Damadian, to make the MRI. But historical science deals with the past (e.g., rock layers and fossils), so it isn’t directly testable, observable, and repeatable. So what you believe about the past can directly influence how you interpret the evidence in the present. If you start with a belief in millions of years and evolution, that’s how you’ll interpret the evidence. But if you begin with God’s Word as your starting point, you’ll interpret the evidence through the lens of God’s Word and the history recorded in it.

We’ve debunked that “two kinds of science” too many times already, so we’ll just move on. Hambo says:

We Love Science — and We Want Kids to Love It Too! We want young people to be innovators and scientists because we at AiG love science. We want them to study God’s beautiful creation and universe for his glory and to develop technology to help us fight the effects of the Curse [caused by the sin of Adam & Eve].

The rest of Hambo’s post is nothing but promotion for his books and tapes about creationism for home-schoolers “to help encourage kids to love STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and to think about it biblically.”

So there you are, dear reader. You too can raise your kids to be creation scientists. Who knows — one of them may invent some new and improved version of the loin cloth.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article