Creation vs. Evolution (Earth, Eden, genesis, eternal, bible)

[inca]

Shut yourself up! I provided the name of the scientist. If you wanna know something more do homework or are that skeptical it's your business. I'm not writing to you. I ignore what you solicite, got it? Besides only the owner of this site has the capacity to shut me or the moderator. If he's showed enough patience to bear us (even you), who do you think you are to ask me to stop???? If other participant disagrees or agrees with me I will answer. You're no one and know nothing! Don't you get tired or bored to write the same thing over and over that my statements are ridiculous. Don't you have 1% brain even to make a different "scientific argument"? Keep on writing, no answer for you...only smiling. Don't deserve even a single laugh.

[inca]

Shut yourself up! I provided the name of the scientist. If you wanna know something more do homework or are that skeptical it's your business. I'm not writing to you. I ignore what you solicite, got it? Besides only the owner of this site has the capacity to shut me or the moderator. If he's showed enough patience to bear us (even you), who do you think you are to ask me to stop???? If other participant disagrees or agrees with me I will answer. You're no one and know nothing! Don't you get tired or bored to write the same thing over and over that my statements are ridiculous. Don't you have 1% brain even to make a different "scientific argument"? Keep on writing, no answer for you...only smiling. Don't deserve even a single laugh.

[Green Gaia]

***MOD POST***

Stop the personal attacks and get back to the topic of this thread, please. :roll:

[Green Gaia]

***MOD POST***

Stop the personal attacks and get back to the topic of this thread, please. :roll:

[(Q)]

I provided the name of the scientist.

So what? You made a claim and didn’t back it up.

If you wanna know something more do homework or are that skeptical it's your business

That’s not the way it works. If you make an extraordinary claim, you have to back it up with extraordinary evidence. If you can’t then your claim is useless.

Don't you get tired or bored to write the same thing over and over that my statements are ridiculous.

Yes. So, why not try to make sense, instead?

Don't you have 1% brain even to make a different "scientific argument"?

There is a big difference between science, which is what we are supposed to be talking about, and pseudoscience, which is what you are talking about. You don’t know anything about science to warrant a “scientific argument.” The rest of us have to continuously remind you of that.

[(Q)]

I provided the name of the scientist.

So what? You made a claim and didn’t back it up.

If you wanna know something more do homework or are that skeptical it's your business

That’s not the way it works. If you make an extraordinary claim, you have to back it up with extraordinary evidence. If you can’t then your claim is useless.

Don't you get tired or bored to write the same thing over and over that my statements are ridiculous.

Yes. So, why not try to make sense, instead?

Don't you have 1% brain even to make a different "scientific argument"?

There is a big difference between science, which is what we are supposed to be talking about, and pseudoscience, which is what you are talking about. You don’t know anything about science to warrant a “scientific argument.” The rest of us have to continuously remind you of that.

[inca]

Mr.Maize or whoever: I would apreciate whenever you decide to get rid of my messages you could also get rid of other "ofense" as well. I say and repeat I won't back my statements to Q. I'm not chatting with him. WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP HIM SINCE HE'S NOT ADDING ANYTHING TO THE THEME IN SEVERAL PAGES BUT ADRESSES TO ME? This ain't happening with the rest of participants. All of us can be passionated but try to remain in the issue in spite of differences...except him.
Getting back on theme again, more science and not what Mr. who (?) considers "pseudo-science":
http://members.surfeu.at/dchakalov/intro.html
And I keep on wondering myself why would I have to answer a spoil person acting like a child demanding an answer whenever he wants. I keep on asking myself who would he consider a good example of knowing random probabilities, perhaps F.H.?

[inca]

This guy wrote this:
If, however, there is some immaterial, out-of-this-world ghost operating in our brain, which can change its "knowledge" instantaneously (Unruh, 1993; 1993a), being totally independent from the brain, then everything said here may be wrong, and we may not need to wary about how to interpret quantum mechanics (Fuchs and Peres, 2000).

[inca]

And he added: The only critical assumption is that there are no ghosts nor any other immaterial agents operating in our brain. Only matter can act on matter.
So I just wrote him asking how come he knows if a "cherub" is not made by matter as well and is trapped in Planck dimension? How come he knows if the medium used is something in Hertz frequence or perhaps with the influence of chemical structures as psylocibine in mushrooms or Ayahuasca similar to serotonine or other hallucinogenic stuff acting like a key-lock in the brain? How come he explains that people who are not squizophrenic have witnessed odd experiences in ancient megalithic temples or why anthropologists and Dr. Dan Burisch, Ph.D in Molecular Biology and Biological System would expose themselves and their reputation to ridiculous with things like these:
www.cyberspaceorbit.com/kerub.htm
http://solder.ath.cx/Burisch/billh/ganesh.htm
http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/ma...arcahuasi.html
www.jornalinfinito.com.br/series.asp?cod=80
www.jornalinfinito.com.br/series.asp?cod=81
www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/180/hallucin.html
His humble response was "I can't answer". But even before that I had to explain the physics we read in books look like metaphysic, Descartes or Imanuel Kant philosophy. We don't know if gravity is a real force with real gravitons or if it's an illusion due to the deformation of the universe; we read the beginning was a "soup" of leptons, etc; a metaphoric expansion of the balloon in the Big Bang, we don't know if we're gonna end in a Big Rip or Big Crunch which is pretty much like Big Day and Big Night of Brahma swelling himself and then getting his own Big Crunch, we don't know what is the almost 80 % "nothingness" and "vacuum" of the universe and have a bunch of contradictory theories but they call it "science"...and then others say (in Scientific American) everything is an illusion like Matrix hollogram created by binary or other codes saying the "visible" Universe has at least 10 followed by 100 zeros bits of entropy. So, he was humble enough to admit. That happens with real scientists and not amateurs who think they can discuss about science. And you know what? I don't have to write all the details to satisfy the curiosity of someone allowed to nag. I don't have to say my information is based upon professor from Poland, professor from Theoretial Physics at Hebrew Univ of Jerusalem, recipient of Rothschild Prize, Jacob D. Bekenstein and also info from John Wheeler. I don't have to provide every single site or name or page of the book to satisfy the skepticism that went to cynical field long ago. I DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ALL THE NAMES AND DATA EVERYTIME COS SOMEONE WANTS THE INFORMATION WHENEVER HE PLEASES "I want it now, I want it fast". Now what? Do I have to write the scientists personal e-mail to satisfy somebody's "interest in science" or the stupid messages the moderator allowed him?

[Green Gaia]

Inca, if he is upseting you that much, that you must make 3 posts in a row just to fuss about it, perhaps you need to walk away from the thread and find something else to talk about. Or, here's a novel idea, IGNORE HIM.

Personal insults will not be tolerated and I will delete them if you cross the line again. Now, back on topic, please.