Questions for Creationists (page 13)

rem

ThiChi,

I agree that his writing style is pretty normal, but I was not commenting on his style. I'm commenting on his content and, more specifically, what he chooses as credible sources.

Here is the publisher of Origins: Higher Dimensions in Space, the Fundamentalist Hindu magazine where Michael Cremo contributes:

Torchlight Publishing, Inc.

If you are willing to suspend your credibility and accept the existence of UFO's, paranormal phenomenon, and the wisdom and culture of India, then "You've come to the right place." Click on some of their "Featured Titles" for a good laugh.

rem

Edited by - rem on 5 November 2002 16:53:37

Gedanken

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

ThiChi

REM:

Just because he "contributes" to this forum does not mean that he may subscribe to all content or, not allowed to have other beliefs that you may disagree with. This issue here is his research.

G: Again, buy the book for this documentation or, follow the Abstracts that provide names and dates. It is all there. However, the Book has all the info. No more breast milk for you!

I tell you what G: prove that it does not occur, or are you still smarting from the stand you took on the Peer Review bias?

Realist

thichi,

there a couple of things i would like to mention:

a) life didn't start out by suddenly forming a cell. it started with self replicating molecules. the system got more and more complex with time. you don't need 200 proteins assembling at the same time. you need only one self replicating molecule. self replicating RNA molecules of up to 40 bases were already created in lab experiments.

b) your calculations are further bogus since certain peptide bonds are far more frequently formed than others. these frequently formed bonds are still present in todays proteins (by the way further supporting the scientific view). so since we don't know all the 'rules' with which peptides form it is pointless to do statistical calculations in the first place.

c) evolution as the mechanism producing new species is proven beyond any doubt. so even if it won't be possible to reproduce all the steps that led to the formation of the cell doesn't mean evolution is false. therefore as long as not proven otherwise you can choose to believe that the first cell was put here by God or whatever miraculous force...but does that give us any new insight in how the universe works? why are you against considering the possibility that it is a inherent property of matter to form complex structures? why don't you consider the possibility that God created the universe in a way that everything assempled by itself? wouldn't that be a far more elegant way to do things?

Gedanken

Thi Chi,

You are a total moron - YOU stated that there have been scientific purges - NOW PROVE THAT WHAT YOU STATED IS ACCURATE. Otherwise you are a liar, or you are mistaken if you admit to such. If you think that you can make such charges and then cowardly retreat from proving them then your posts are only worth ignoring, for you are obviously a charlatan.

As for the peer review business - you only proved that you are totally ignorant of the process - just because it may have problems clearly does not mean it doesn't work - for, if you were correct, then NO INNOVATIONS WOULD GET PUBLISHED. So your comments are, again, totally misguided.

As with your moronic apples and oranges comment about physics and evolution, the facts totally demolish you ill conceived observations and you have no reply to my answer.

So, can you back your words up, or are you merely a snivelling coward who resorts to changing the issue when your words are challenged?

Gedanken

ThiChi

Realist:

"your calculations are further bogus"

I have not made any calculations. However, if you are referring to the calculations related to the probability of life coming into existence,, this was conducted byscientists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe that have estimated what the chance of obtaining the simplest self-reproducing system by random combination of molecules.... As stated, "generous" was the method. The point made is still valid. Your observations are surprisingly superficial given the many mechanics of this process you have omitted. What number of probability did you come up with?

Edited by - thichi on 5 November 2002 18:33:51

Edited by - thichi on 5 November 2002 18:38:26

ThiChi

Haaa G:

Name calling again? I refer you to my earlier posts that gives the information to start your search. Can you coo like a baby? If you are too cheap to buy the book, or too lazy to do abstract research (It seems that you would not know what to do if you found yourself in a library...), try e-mailing Cremo and ask for an example. You wont like what you find (that is, based on your absurd views regarding Peer Reviews...)

"As for the peer review business - you only proved that you are totally ignorant of the process "

haaaahaaaa hehehee! Remind me to buy you a cane for x-mass, because you are blind! Proof has been posted as to your fail safe process of Peer Review...you are truly a Dip F**k!

Edited by - thichi on 5 November 2002 18:32:32

Edited by - thichi on 5 November 2002 18:35:9

Gedanken

Thi Chi,

You made the claims, so the fact that you can't back them shows you to be the impotent intellect that you have always seemed to be. And a liar as well. And I'm sure your Creator won't appreciate your language. After all, bluster boy, you are supposed to hold higher standards aren't you. But you are a liar with a filthy mouth as well as being a moron.

You have posted proof only of your own phenomenal ignorance.

Gedanken

Edited by - Gedanken on 5 November 2002 18:49:31

Edited by - Gedanken on 5 November 2002 18:50:7

rem

ThiChi,

The problem is that when a person contributes to such magazines, uses bad sources for their research, such as the Weekly World News, happens to be a religious Fundamentalist, etc... his credibility and objectivity are put into question and his credulity is manifest. At what point do you finally say, "hmm, this guy doesn't sound like a trustworthy source of scientific information"? I suppose for me, the threshold is a bit lower than for you.

I would suggest you become more critical of your sources if you are really interested in truth and not just ideas that are comforting to you. Remember, I had to do this already... I used to be a creationist just as you are until I seriously and dispassionately looked at both sides of the issue and saw two things:

Blatant lies and misconceptions in the Creationist camp with no willingness to correct them
Overwhelming and convincing evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that all corroborate Evolutionary theory on the Evolutionist side.

It was not easy for me to change my beliefs, but it was the only intellectually honest path for me, especially in light of the scripture at Proverbs 18:17.

The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.

rem

Realist

thichi,

i think you misunderstood my point. hoyle made these calculations disregarding many importnat mechanisms. for instance what is the chance that out of the over 100 different chemical substances 4 different ones come together and form a nucleotide? if you just calculate this probability disregarding the chemical/physical laws that cause the formation of the nucleotide how meaningfull is that calculation? if you do the calculation disregarding the chemical rules and the availability of the different chemical substances you will come up with very weird statistical results.

matter has a tendency to form complex structures...as long as we don'T understand what amino acids prefer to bond and what nucleotides prefer to bond etc. it is pointless to calculate any probabilities.

Edited by - realist on 5 November 2002 19:35:6

Questions for Creationists

Share this