by IronGland 184 Replies latest jw friends
"the only argument against evolution is that the probability that a self replicating system formed by itself is too small."
Who made that claim?
However, a fair question, since you brought it up, is : How did this "self replicating system" came into existence and at what point did this happen?
well i am a geneticist...so i know what i am talking about. the only point where creationists can try to question evolution is the 'creation' of the first cell. as i said before...so far only some steps have been simulated in the lab...so you can still adhere to your religious view that God created the first cell by hand.
ThiChi
1: I provided information regarding another viewpoint that has merit, IMHO.
True
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.
A book review is not a Peer Review. It seems that the book reviewers did not have a chance to take a good look at the supporting sources in the book. Yes, on the surface, his claims sound reasonable, but do they really have any backing? Looking at just a few examples in detail shows that they do not.
3. I provided some of those questions for consideration.
You provided abstracts with no details. You could have just as easily quoted an abstract from any another conspiracy theorist site that make outlandish claims with no backing data. Without the underlying data there is no way to see if there isn't another side of the story. Other examples in his book have been shown to be from questionable sources. How do we know the examples you showed are not actually sourced from the Weekly World News? You need to provide data, not just abstracts.
4. I provided information to look into the mater (with names and dates and places), if desired.
You provided no sources for your abstract.
5. You raised the claim that the Evolution theory is protected form fraud and such by the Peer Review process.
Peer Review does protect from some fraud, but not all of it. Fortunately the vast majority of scientists are honest working men and women who work to root out fraud within science. This has been demonstrated time and time again. The difference with Creationists is that they continue to use misconceptions and misquotes even after the dishonesty has been exposed.
6. I provided information that shows that the Peer Review process is flawed and not the safety net you claim.
The peer review process is not perfect, but it has a purpose. Cremo's work would have never passed peer review - even if it was anonymous - because the research is so shoddy. I know of no peer reviewed scientific papers that have used the Weekly World News as a credible source.
rem
Edited by - rem on 6 November 2002 14:7:6
Realist:
"the only point where creationists can try to question evolution is the 'creation' of the first cell."
Really? No other issues? Good for you!
I am sorry you dont have a answer for the creation of the first cell yet.. Let me know when you do!
REM:
Im sorry! Based on your definition and standards regarding the treatment of others, you are an Evolution Fundamentalist. As such, your words, actions, and beliefs are truly suspect.
So, lets just gloss over your points and focus on you, REM
hehe
Edited by - thichi on 6 November 2002 14:4:4
"A book review is not a Peer Review"
REM: who said it was? Focus...........
well facts are facts.
ThiChi,
I'm trying to have a civil discussion here, but you are making that very difficult.
I'm not an Evolution Fundamentalist. I don't have any emotional investment in the theory. If it's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong. I am only against distortion of facts and shoddy research. If you want to accuse me of being a "Scientific Method Fundamentalist", then so be it. I take that as a compliment, though I am not closed to the notion of other methods of gaining knowledge being advantageous so long as they are proven to work. So far, the scientific method is the only one that works and is self correcting.
True religious fundamentalists, on the other hand, do have a high emotional stake in their world view. There is no objectivity and there is a clear propensity for them to twist and misinterpret facts to protect that world view. There is ample evidence of this on any Creationist web site and they are never corrected. You have not been able to document one time this has happened without being corrected by the scientific method on the Evolution side. Fraud is detestable to scientists, but it seems to be the modus operandi of religious fundamentalists when it comes to science.
Also, even though I question Cremo's objectivity, I have actually looked into his claims and found them lacking. They were not lacking because of his fundamentalist views, but because his data is bad. Knowing a person is a fundamentalist is just a red flag so you are alert that the person is not necessarily objective and so you are sure to scrutinize their claims - just as you should any claim. In practice, though, it's difficult to scrutinize every single claim, so the rule of thumb, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is used. Fundamentalists usually make extraordinary claims, but they never seem to have the evidence to back them.
Also, my point about a book review not being a peer review is quite clear. Think about it. People who write book reviews are usually just giving a surface critique. They are not methodically looking through all of the supporting data. On the surface the book seems to be well written and makes sense, but if the conclusions are based on bad data, then it is of no value. Unfortunately, the people who reviewed the book did not look at the data. 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.
rem
"You provided no sources for your abstract."
One of many examples:
"Cremo, Michael A. (1999) "Forbidden Archeology of the Paleolithic: How Pithecanthropus Influenced the Treatment of Evidence for Extreme Human Antiquity" Presented at the "History of Archeology Session" at the European Association of Archaeologists Conference, Bournemouth, UK, September 15-18, 1999."
""I'm not an Evolution Fundamentalist. "" LOL
fundamentalism (fŭn ' də-mĕn'tl-ĭz ' əm)
n.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
"well facts are facts."
Yea, how about when the facts change every three months?
