Questions for Creationists

by IronGland 184 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ros

  Sorry to bring this to the top again.

  Realist,

  Notice your obvious condescending bias. (That should suggest something even to you.)
  You wrote:

  ros,
  
  its great if a person can combine a naive idea such as creationism with a scientific mind and interest. however most people are not able to do so. therefore i don't think its a good idea to teach creationism at highschools as an alternative to evolution.

  And you do this without any viable argument of the points mentioned. I happen to consider myself at least as intelligent as you (naive as it may seem), not to mention the likes of renouned scientists such as Dr. Francis Collins.

  That being said, I agree with you that creationism should not be taught as an alternative to evolution. It is not.

  ~Ros
• 

  ThiChi

  Realist: Your numbers please?

  G: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.........get it?

  I have provided what you need to look into this matter. Peer Review that! hehe..

  Hovever, here is a little more brest milk for you:

  The curator of the fossil collection at Harvards Museum of Comparative Zoology, Stephen Jay Gould,

  wrote about the Haeckel fraud:

  Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases

  in a procedure that can only be called fraudulentsimply copied the same figure over and over again

  (Natural History, March 2000). Gould further commented on the deleterious effect of such

  inaccuracy when it is reproduced in a textbook and not corrected: The smallest compromise in

  dumbing down by inaccuracy destroys integrity and places an author upon a slippery slope of no return.
  Haeckels fraudulent drawings are presently in at least ten major biology textbooks published from

  1998 through 2000. In each case, they are used to demonstrate the supposed similarity of early

  embryos in different animals and man, and the authors claim this is evidence of common ancestry

  and Darwins evolution hypothesis. These authors simply perpetuate Haeckels fraud in an effort

  to promote what they call the theory of evolution. The problem is, the authors of modern

  science textbooks will include the faked pictures as proof of evolution even when they know of the

  fraud. Students are being taught these lies as if they are facts. The students then

  build their own belief system on such lies, only perpetuating the lies.
  

  Edited by - thichi on 6 November 2002 12:30:40

  Edited by - thichi on 6 November 2002 12:31:18
• 

  Gedanken

  Thi Chi,

  What I do get is that you are unable to focus on an issue. Instead you have now degenerated to uttering childish whoops of imagined victory.

  Your latest has nothing to do with your original claim of "scientific purges." So let's stick to that. You made a definite claim - without stating that it was something you had merely read somewhere and might be true or not - that there have been scientific purges, i.e., a re-writing of scientifc history or an elimination of certain writings from the literature. I asked for actual examples. Neither you nor the writings by Cremo point to any evidence whatsoever "scientific purges." So, I must conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about, and probably have a learning disability to boot.

  Of course, anyone who believes a person who quotes Weekly World News - a journal that once claimed that Satan had escaped from Hell and up into an oil well in Alaska - deserves whatever they get in the way of being duped.

  As for peer review - have you ever tried to publish an article? If not then your knowledge of the process is just hearsay.

  Gedanken

  Edited by - Gedanken on 6 November 2002 13:1:9
• 

  Realist

  thichi,

  once again...it is pointless to calculate numbers since we don't have the equations to do it! do you get the point???

  ros,

  a question...would you consider the idea that the world rests on a gigantic turtle as naive? i hope so!

  it is not different with biblical (or any other) creationism. to think that God created everything the way it is today is totally absurd. it contradicts scientific findings in every field and as if this wouldn't be enough ...have you ever noticed that the world is not perfect??? how do you explain this if God created the world already formed? why is there so much shit going on in this universe? so much destruction, death, suffering? where is this God? you would have to assume that he is obviously either incompetent or he gives a shit... and do me a favor and don't explain suffernig with the original sin caused by bad bad humans. otherwise i would like to hear your explaination why suddenly super nova started to happen, asteroids start to hit the earth, earthquakes and volcanos etc. happened, why animals became carnivores etc.etc.etc.

  it simply doesn'T make ANY sense and it makes God (if he exists) look like a total ass. if he is that incompetent and ignorant than i think we have no reason to worship him.
• 

  ThiChi

  Have you read Cremo's book then? Or are you just speaking out of your ass again?

  Names or dates are not good enough for you? You are digging yourself into a big hole......when and if I do post another example of the fraudulent aspects of your sacred order of descended primates, then what?

  "it simply doesn'T make ANY sense and it makes God (if he exists) look like a total ass. if he is that incompetent and ignorant than i think we have no reason to worship him."

  Nice statement, however, this is not the issue G man.

  Edited by - thichi on 6 November 2002 13:14:0
• 

  Gedanken

  Thi Chi,

  I don't have to read Cremo's book. I am not asking Cremo, I am asking you since you made the claim. So it is up to you to back up your statement of scientific purges having happened. That's how debates work - you make a claim then you either have to back it up or retract it. So far you have not provided one example. All you can do is post excerpts from Cremo - none of which make your case for you. The onus is on you bluster boy since you made the claim, not me.

  Why don't you just tell us what the evidence behind your claim is - it would be far simpler than dishonestly avoiding the issue. Or are you not competent enough to make the case?

  Gedanken
• 

  ThiChi

  ""once again...it is pointless to calculate numbers since we don't have the equations to do it! do you get the point???""

  I know the "point," your guess is as good as mine. So that you are now armed with this important information, I hope you will act accordingly. Our life here sure is special..........
• 

  Realist

  thichi,

  my god ...is it that complicated? the only argument against evolution is that the probability that a self replicating system formed by itself is too small. and this argument is based on WRONG calculations.
• 

  ThiChi

  G:

  You proceed from a good number of false assumptions. Try to focus:

  1: I provided information regarding another viewpoint that has merit, IMHO.

  2. I provided reviews from a number of reputable Journals (Like the British Journal of Science) that admits Cremo raises some questions that have merit.

  3. I provided some of those questions for consideration.

  4. I provided information to look into the mater (with names and dates and places), if desired.

  5. You raised the claim that the Evolution theory is protected form fraud and such by the Peer Review process.

  6. I provided information that shows that the Peer Review process is flawed and not the safety net you claim.

  I have e-mailed Cremo to allow him to respond since it is his work. I have asked for the one, best example of a purge, for your benefit. I feel he would be the best person to defend his work. Lets see what happens.

  As for your statement regarding the existence of God only based on your experience in life, I have no answer. However, I see this world and life in a wholly different perspective, to a good outcome.

  Edited by - thichi on 6 November 2002 13:45:40

  Edited by - thichi on 6 November 2002 13:53:14
• 

  ThiChi

  Realist:

  You miss the whole point of the exercise.

  The scientists are not here to rebut your claim, and since you don't have or know the answer yourself, and you sound like an Evolution Fundamentalist, your viewpoint is, well frankly, suspect. The point is that life is very unique, whatever numbers you use.

  Edited by - thichi on 6 November 2002 13:46:29