Questions for Creationists (page 16)

ThiChi

This is gettings old:

"You provided abstracts with no details. "

What do you think an Abstract is? You seek the Paper.

plmkrzy

As highly intelligent as dolphins are, I seriously doubt they will ever take over the world. Or want to for that matter.

Why are humans the only creatures capable of that? Making or breaking the planet and everything on and in it?

Why do people create things? Why CAN we create things? Why do we even WANT to create things? Why do we wear clothes? Nothing else does. Well, except hermit crabs. My son put a seashell on my desk the other day; he brought it home from the beach as a present. LOL. Then left. So guess what happen to me while I was on the computer? AAAAAAAAAAA!

Gedanken

Thi Chi,

Fair enough - you are making an effort to back up your claim. It is a very good idea to get the evidence before you make the charge.

Now show me where I said that the peer review process protects against fraud. Can you? It doesn't. That's what you mistakenly read into my remarks.

In fact there has been a huge fraud in physics this summer involving a guy called Schon from Bell labs. There is a huge article in the latest Nature (Oct 24) about it and about peer review. Peer review does not eliminate fraud. What peer review does is provide a process for screening that eliminates (to a good degree) such egregious behavior as quoting Weekly World News or making ricidulous and unsubstantiated claims. The scientific method ensures that, eventually, fraud or bad experiments will come to light. That's because scientists continually test each other's work and claims. Does the Schon scandal cast doubt on physics as a discipline?

Before we go on, either show me where I said what you said I stated, or agree that you misunderstood my comments. Either one is fine by me.

Gedanken

ThiChi

REM:

You sure know alot of what people have done and not done:

"They took Cremo's word for it. Therefore, it is silly to stand on book reviews to show that a view has merit - unless the reviewer has spent much time looking at the supporting data. As has been shown before, when a reviewer did look at the supporting data, the review was less than flattering."

How do you know? So, reviews are worthless? Get real.

Your unending rationalizations to explain away the issues are really getting thin and old. Dont let the Fundamentalist in you get out of control.....

Did any of your posted reviews show any examples of looking at the data? No. So you cannot say they did. I can at least say there is no evidence that they did.

rem

plmkrzy

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 DAMN! 8 pages long! Have we learned anything yet?

.

Hmm.. looks like my post got eaten by the Internet Fairy.

LOL I thought you were being sarcastic and I didn't get it. hehe

Edited by - plmkrzy on 6 November 2002 15:12:1

JT

I don't question

IS how one poster started out -- and i said to myself MISTAKE NUMBER #1

ThiChi

"I can at least say there is no evidence that they did."

Wow, a reasonable observation, which still proves nothing.

G: You are right, it was REM that I responded to. Sorry!

Edited by - thichi on 6 November 2002 15:17:17

Questions for Creationists

Share this