what does creationism explain?.
what does it predict?.
what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.
Thi Chi,
You stated that there have been "scioentifc purges." Now, can you give me examples or not? Do you know what a "purge" is by the way or are you just parrotting Cremo and the Weekly World News?
I'm not writing to anybody - you made the claim so put up or shut up.
Gedanken
what does creationism explain?.
what does it predict?.
what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.
Thi Chi,
I'm still waiting examples to support to your claims of scientific purges etc. Someone posted that reply (maybe you) from Cremo a long time ago - I'm sure he's back from India now.
What about a man who quotes Weekly Wordl News as a source. Is that honest? Should peer review journals allow such quotes?
So far you have refused to provide evidence for your outlandish claims.
Gedanken
what does creationism explain?.
what does it predict?.
what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.
ThiChi,
Examples of scientific purges?
Examples in the scientific literature of creationists publishing creationist ideas detrimental to evolution?
An answer to my direct and straightforwrad answer to your claim that I was comparing apples and oranges?
Explain how anything gets published that is new, or unusual, if the peer review process is so flawed - or do you think that authors who cite WWNews are credible?
Before we can proceed either provide these examples or admit that you made them up, or were misled by fellow Creationists into thinking that they exist. Maybe I should look in Weekly World News - I did hear that Satan is on the loose after escaping from Hell.
Gedanken
ps: you say about your quotes that "at some level [they] may have merit." That rules out nothing and indicates that you have no capacity for filtering trash from quality information. That is apparent from your sources, including WWNews.
Edited by - Gedanken on 5 November 2002 15:31:49
what does creationism explain?.
what does it predict?.
what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.
Thi Chi,
Also you fall into the same trap again with your comments on peer review - if it is so bad then how could papers disproving the ether, overturning classical mechanics, etc etc etc have managed to get published?
It is hard to get papers published - and that is as it should be.
Also, why don't you apply your standards to your own area - after all, if Creationists have been shown to misquote and misrepresent statements by evoluionists, tehn should we not discard everything a creationist ssays - you included - as being dishonest? Do you see the point?
Gedanken
what does creationism explain?.
what does it predict?.
what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.
Thi Chi
The Catholic church felt exactly the same way about Galieo and others - that his ideas affected basci religious beliefs. So, no I don't think there is any difference. Plus, the same protocol used in physics is used in Biology - namely the scientific method.
I am still waiting for you to give me an example of a scientific purge - not being able to publish pseudo-science is not the same as what you claim - namely the elimination of articles on certain subjects in the literature. Do you have a examples - also I don't have time to read pages of pseudo-science. If you have examples then provide them please.
Gedanken
what does creationism explain?.
what does it predict?.
what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.
Thi Chi,
100 years ago people taught in physics that the ether existed. By your arguments, then, physics was a flawed subject and should have been rejected as a field of study. You fail to understand that your arguments are not robust - you use them to support your narrow point of view, but if applied generally, then they would bring all human endeavor to a halt.
: Why are there purges in the scientific collections?
Specific examples, please.
Gedanken
ps: I didn't mean to imply that you believed it then or now - my point was that it is a stupid argument based on what I have said over and over, your argument is not robust.
Edited by - Gedanken on 5 November 2002 12:21:14
what does creationism explain?.
what does it predict?.
what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.
rem,
The bit I liked was where it said "lab technicians" couldn't explain their origin. Now, a lab technician is basically someone who washes glassware and does the grunge work in a lab. No disrespect to these folks, many of whom are students doing part time work, but they would hardly be authorities on such a thing. And Charlton Heston? Maybe he should have tried to shoot a few open.
And then Thi Chi's sources quote the WTS and its 11 million books on "Evolution and Creation" glowingly. But the clincher has to be the poster from the 60s showing a monkey, and therefore, evolution must be a hoax. I suppose Gary Larson's famous Far Side cartoon showing the descent of man from monkeys and back again to hunched up computer programmers (I think it was the Far Side) is also irrefutable evidence that evolution is wrong.
It really is a losing battle trying to discuss anything with these types of "true believers." They have absolutely no explanation for the data that does exist and think that throwing hissy fits about how evolutionary theory has changed somehow, or inventing blue spheres, excuse the total failure of creationism - not to mention the Flood - to explain anything.
Gedanken
what does creationism explain?.
what does it predict?.
what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.
Thi-Chi,
If you think that stating that having seen a poster from a high school in 1965 that says we descended from chimpanzees is an accurate reflection of evolutionary thought at that time, then you are an even bigger idiot than you seem.
Secondly, when religions, e.g.,the WTS or fundamentalists state their opions then it is usally supposed to be Divine writ. Scientists always acknowledge that their findings are open to change - in fact other scientists put their theories to objective tests. That is a huge and significant difference. If you think that any advances in science have proceeded in a straight line then you are obviously ignorant of how science and technology advances. Newton's laws are now "rubbish" by your standards since it is now known to be incorrect. The automobile is a failure since we rejected carburretors for fuel injection. The list goes on and only idiots can fail to see the difference between statements of religious "truth" and the devlopment of scientific thought. So I am not concerned, but encouraged, by the fact that science advances by overturning flawed ideas.
As for new earth creationism, and the Bible account of the flood. These are absolutely inconsistent with the evidence - and that is apparent from creationists absolute inability to provide alternative explanations for such simple questions about teh fossil record, or the existence of ring species, or the fact that all life uses the same genetic code.
But, Thi Chi, I really don't care what you think or believe. Your statements about purges in the "scientific collections" are ludicrous. Any published piece of scientific literature can be accessed through a decent university library. If you aren't interested in educating yourself then don't.
Gedanken
what does creationism explain?.
what does it predict?.
what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.
Thi Chi,
Quoting a school poster from 1965 shows that it is you who are sadly lacking. Your argument is really pathetic. What area of science or learning hasn't advanced since 1965? Science does not claim to be absolutely correct - in fact considerable effort is devoted to testing and even overturning current theories and opinions in all areas of science. It is really ludicrous to claim that "the evolution crew claims to have it all wrapped up.' Why do you think people still do research in this area? But there's no doubt that the unification that evolution has brough to Biology has benefitted people by orders of magnitude more than has the simplistic beliefe in special creation.
As for towing the evolution line - there isn't one. Evolution isn't religion and if people won't - or can't - put the effort in to understand that then that's their concern.
Gedanken
what does creationism explain?.
what does it predict?.
what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.
ThiChi,
On yr latest - any sourse that refers to the WTS's books on Creationism favorably is certainly not to be trusted.
Gedanken
