Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 30, 2007

On 30 Maj, 22:07, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180513708.967942.322...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 30, 2:36 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > Did you read the entire article? I read it and the author, David Buckna,

> > > done an excellent job. He mentioning the bias that advocates of creation

> > > science have had to deal with in getting their articles published in

> > > journals. In some cases, they even had to alter their articles to get them

> > > published.

>

> > That's normal. That's why it's called "peer review". Are you so

> > ignorant as to believe that any scientist can get papers published

> > without having to pass through the peer review process? It's that

> > very process that keeps science honest. If religion had a peer review

> > process then your entire religion would have been a non-starter.

>

> > > One of the editors even mentioned that they did not print

> > > letters from the advocates of creation science. I was pleased to learn

> > > that some of the advocates of creation science have been able to get their

> > > articles published. Do you admit that some of the advocates of creation

> > > science know just as much about science as the advocates of evolution?

>

> > Knowing about science and actually doing science are not the same

> > thing. The scientific method begins with a testable hypothesis that

> > can then be either demonstrated or shown to be false by experiment.

> > If a creationist proposes God as his hypothesis then he would have to

> > be willing to test whether God exists and accept the conclusion of

> > whatever experiment he has been able to design. You can't be a

> > scientist and follow any dogmatic belief and religious beliefs are

> > dogmatic beliefs, ie beliefs that people are expected to uphold

> > regardless of what the evidence might say.

>

> > Martin

>

> I understand. However, there should NOT be a bias in favor of evolution

> and against creation science. The bias should be in favor of the

> scientific method.

> Jason- Skjul tekst i anf

May 30, 2007

In article <1180513196.850666.246360@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 12:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <e967i.12614$RX.12...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,

> >

> > b...@nonespam.com wrote:

> > > Jason wrote:

> > > > In article <koiui4-0qe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > > >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:08:03 -0700, Jason wrote:

> >

> > > >>> Martin,

> > > >>> The person that wrote this article truly understands how

atheists think.

> > > >> "Each and every atheist believes that something came from nothing"

> >

> > > >> Since I'm an atheist and do not believe that, then your statement

is, as

> > > >> is easily predictable based on the fact _you_ made it, a lie.

> >

> > > >> Any more lies to spew?

> >

> > > > Do you believe that it is possible for a living cell to evolve from

> > non-life?

> >

> > > Meaningless question. Non-living things do not evolve, only living

> > > things do. So, as has been pointed out to you before, the question has

> > > no validity.

> >

> > It's possible to answer a meaningless question so what is your answer?

>

> It's a meaningless question because you will just ignore any answer he

> writes. I resent being asked to answer a question, spending hours

> writing my answer and then getting ignored until finally after I've

> posted my response five times you reply with "I read it" but don't

> respond to anything I said. What's the point of bothering with you?

>

> Martin

Martin,

I read conflicting information at various sites. I read one article that

was written by an advocate of evolution about a week ago. He was

discussing experiments that were done related to trying to get one celled

life forms to evolve from ameno acids. He done some calculations and

figured out that it would take several hundred more years before he

expected cells (not primitive cells) to form from amino acids. My memory

is not perfect but I do recall reading that article. When I read other

articles that say something different--I don't know which of the

conflicting articles to believe. That is the reason I do not usually

comment related to new articles.

Jason

May 30, 2007

In article <465d3e5b$0$4665$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher

Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote:

> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

> news:Jason-2905072336340001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > In article <1180501773.837383.112070@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> >> On May 30, 12:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>

> >> > 29 May 2007

> >> > Do Creationists Publish in

> >> > Notable Refereed Journals?

> >> > David Buckna

> >> >

> >> > Creation =B3Scientists=B2?

> >> > Many critics perpetuate false claims to the effect that no

> >> > genuine

> >> > scientist would be a creationist. The Institute for Creation Research

> >> > refutes this myth here, as does Answers in Genesis here.

> >> > In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles

> >> > Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research

> >> > Society Quarterly =B3has contributed a single article to any reputable

> >> > scientific journal=B2 (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn=B9t be

> >> > bothered=

> >> to

> >> > glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science

> >> > bibliographic source.

> >>

> >> > Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist

> >> > and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on

> >> > developmental anomalies in fruit flies (=B3Developmental genetics of

> >> > homoeosis,=B2 Advances in Genetics, 16 [1976], 179-248). Herpetologist

> >> > Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle

> >> > systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology,

> >> > Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.

> >>

> >> <snip>

> >>

> >> So if they are getting papers published then what are they complaining

> >> about? The fact is that they get papers published when they do

> >> science and they don't get papers published when they try to spread

> >> religious dogma. You've just proven our point, Jason. Way to go!

> >>

> >> Martin

> >

> > Martin,

> > Did you read the entire article? I read it and the author, David Buckna,

> > done an excellent job. He mentioning the bias that advocates of creation

> > science have had to deal with in getting their articles published in

> > journals. In some cases, they even had to alter their articles to get them

> > published. One of the editors even mentioned that they did not print

> > letters from the advocates of creation science. I was pleased to learn

> > that some of the advocates of creation science have been able to get their

> > articles published. Do you admit that some of the advocates of creation

> > science know just as much about science as the advocates of evolution?

> >

>

> Jason,

>

> Like in all things, if you do not do the homework you do not get the gold

> star. In this case, they had to do some actual research in the field of

> study and that was the basis of their paper, their homework, which was then

> published in the Journals, they got the gold stars. This is not a matter of

> bias but a matter of people wanting to be lazy, get something for nothing,

> and claim it is bias. When you do not do anything that is worthy of

> publishing of course it will not be published first you have to do the hard

> part the homework. When the creationists start to do their homework then we

> will start to consider listening to what they have to say until then do not

> whine that no one is interested in your complaints.

I agree with most of your points. It's harder for the advocates of

creation science to get well written articles published in journals. There

should not be bias but there is bias. One of the authors (mentioned in the

article) had to alter the conclusion that was in the original article

since it was related to creation science. After he made the required

change to satisfy the editors, the article was published in the journal.

Please answer this question: If another author had a conclusion that was

related to evolution--do you believe the editors would have required him

to alter the conclusion? Do you believe that journal editors should have a

bias against authors of articles that are advocates of creation science.

Jason

May 30, 2007

In article <1180513708.967942.322010@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 2:36 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > Did you read the entire article? I read it and the author, David Buckna,

> > done an excellent job. He mentioning the bias that advocates of creation

> > science have had to deal with in getting their articles published in

> > journals. In some cases, they even had to alter their articles to get them

> > published.

>

> That's normal. That's why it's called "peer review". Are you so

> ignorant as to believe that any scientist can get papers published

> without having to pass through the peer review process? It's that

> very process that keeps science honest. If religion had a peer review

> process then your entire religion would have been a non-starter.

>

> > One of the editors even mentioned that they did not print

> > letters from the advocates of creation science. I was pleased to learn

> > that some of the advocates of creation science have been able to get their

> > articles published. Do you admit that some of the advocates of creation

> > science know just as much about science as the advocates of evolution?

>

> Knowing about science and actually doing science are not the same

> thing. The scientific method begins with a testable hypothesis that

> can then be either demonstrated or shown to be false by experiment.

> If a creationist proposes God as his hypothesis then he would have to

> be willing to test whether God exists and accept the conclusion of

> whatever experiment he has been able to design. You can't be a

> scientist and follow any dogmatic belief and religious beliefs are

> dogmatic beliefs, ie beliefs that people are expected to uphold

> regardless of what the evidence might say.

>

> Martin

I understand. However, there should NOT be a bias in favor of evolution

and against creation science. The bias should be in favor of the

scientific method.

Jason

May 30, 2007

In article <1180512904.634018.154690@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 12:14 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > Someone else challenged me to find proof that there was a bias against the

> > advocates of creation science that submit articles to journals. I googled

> > "rejected creation science articles". I found this article and learned

> > some things I did not know. I hope that you will also learn some things

> > that you did not know related to bias.

>

> Jason,

> I've already responded to this post. Perhaps your newsreader isn't

> receiving all my posts. As I have already pointed out, the fact that

> advocates of creationism have been able to get papers published PROVES

> that there is NO bias against creationists and demonstrates without a

> doubt that IF they were to produce actual science then they would get

> published. I never said that no creationist has ever had his name on

> a scientific paper: in fact, if they have Ph.D.s then they would have

> been required to publish something during their Ph.D. program,

> something related to their thesis topic. Often all that is needed is

> for them to participate in an ongoing research program at the

> institute where they studied. What makes them now frauds, however, is

> the claim that they are scientists doing "creation science" when there

> is no such thing as "creation science". Creationism assumes apriori

> the existance of a supernatural being and offers no testable

> mechanisms for how life on Earth began. With nothing to test, there

> is no research to be done and all that they can try to do is refute

> the claim of scientists doing actual research in the fields of

> evolution and abiogenesis.

>

> The fact that they haven't had any papers published in their chosen

> "field of research" means that they haven't been able to refute any of

> the claims that actual researchers have made. Note that actual

> researchers don't agree on all points so it is always possible for two

> papers to get published in the same journals making completely

> different and contradictory claims: there are plenty of examples of

> this in all journals in all fields of research, which demonstrates

> that there is absolutely NO bias towards one opinion, not as long as

> both sides are backed by actual evidence (which creationism isn't).

> Journals typically publish both sides of an ongoing debate because

> that is what their readers want: scientists want to know what research

> is "on the cutting edge" and very often cutting edge ideas are

> controversial as there is some question as to what is true and what

> isn't. Evolution just isn't a controversial issue anymore among

> respected scientists and creationist have a long way to go before they

> can change this. Instead, they are losing ground every day as

> experiment after experiment confirms what real scientists had already

> suspected and the god of the gaps grows smaller and smaller until it

> becomes clear that no gods exist.

>

> Martin

Martin,

Of course, you are correct. I mentioned the 90 people in the two books

that have Ph.D degrees. I re-read the details about the two books. I was

under the impression that they were all scientists. However, one book is

about 50 scientists and the other book is about 40 people that have Ph.D

degrees. I have not read the books but it's my guess that most of those

people are in fields unrelated to creation science. Lot of people (and I

hope that you are not part of that group) are under the impression that

the advocates of creation science are not also advocates of most aspects

of evolution. The reason that is important is because it means that the

advocates of creation sciene can work in many different "science related"

fields on the same teams as the advocates of evolution. Think about

it--how often does a person's beliefs about abiogenesis effect the outcome

of various types of experiments. I heard about one professor that was an

advocate of creation science. He taught college courses for about a dozen

years and stated that he never taught creation science to any of the

students. If he had not admitted that he was an advocate of creation

science--I doubt that anyone on staff would have known it. There was a

biology professor in a christian college that I attended. He was not my

professor since I was not able to get into his class since it was already

full. He knew as much about evolution as you know. He taught evolution to

his students. He had one session where he taught the basics of creation

science. He told his students that they were not required to attend that

session and that tests would not be related to anything that was related

to that lecture. I attended that lecture and the lecture hall was FULL. I

visited his office and he told me that he accepted most aspects of

evolution theory. His only area of disagreement was in relation to

abiogenesis and common descent. He told me that he taught the primordial

soup concepts but made it clear to the students that there was no evidence

that the first living cells evolved in a primordial soup. My professor (an

advocate of evolution) told us that he believed that the first living

cells did evolve in the primordial pond.

Jason

May 30, 2007

In article <1180528020.475090.229050@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 30 Maj, 06:14, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1180490913.993436.208...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On May 30, 10:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > In article <1180486688.526020.30...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

Martin

> snip>

> > Martin,

> > Someone else challenged me to find proof that there was a bias against the

> > advocates of creation science that submit articles to journals. I googled

> > "rejected creation science articles". I found this article and learned

> > some things I did not know. I hope that you will also learn some things

> > that you did not know related to bias.

>

> What you learned is that you were wrong, that scientists who are known

> as advocates of creation science do have their work published in peer-

> reviewed articles; so much for your claim of bias. Furthermore none

> of the work published provided support for creation science, which

> provides you with no evidence of any actual research done in that

> area. Based on your above post, however, you learned absolutely

> nothing and continue to tell the same lies as before. You are very

> strange.

> snip

Re-read the article. Bias was discussed in the article. The editors

required one of the authors to remove the creation science information

that was in the article. Do you honestly believe that the editors would

have required another author to remove the evolution information that was

in their article. Get real.

May 30, 2007

In article <f3jnlr$r7f$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <PM77i.4542$u56.48@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,

> > bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <S367i.12613$RX.5882@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,

> >>> bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> >>>

> >> It looks like they were doing good science. It is worth noting that

> >> none of the papers published concerned "creation science."

> >

> > Good point. However, all articles written by advocates of evolution are

> > not related to evolution.

> >

>

> Huh? What are you babbling about?

> Wrong! There are a whole bunch of articles related to evolution.

>

> And even if you missed out a word (and wanted to say: "Not all articles

> written [...] are related to evolution), it would rather prove the

> point. The points we were making, that is. Not yours.

>

> Tokay

Re-read the article--Bias is mentioned in various sections of the article.

May 30, 2007

In article <1180511916.424313.319790@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 2:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <PM77i.4542$u56...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,

> >

> > b...@nonespam.com wrote:

>

> > > It looks like they were doing good science. It is worth noting that

> > > none of the papers published concerned "creation science."

> >

> > Good point. However, all articles written by advocates of evolution are

> > not related to evolution.

>

> But the papers on evolution get published because they are actual

> science whereas creationism is not. Creationism apriori assumes the

> existance of God, something 1) for which there is no evidence and 2)

> which intelligent people know full well doesn't exist. You're not

> doing science if you're doing creationism: you're just spreading fairy

> tales.

>

> Martin

Martin,

Do you agree or disagree that there is a bias against authors that are

advocates of creation science? An author was required to change a

conclusion that was related to creation science. Do you believe that

another author would have been required to change a conclusion that was

related to evolution. That's a double standard and BIAS.

Jason

May 30, 2007

In article <1180553948.131598.92290@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 30 Maj, 22:07, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1180513708.967942.322...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On May 30, 2:36 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > > Did you read the entire article? I read it and the author, David Buc=

> kna,

> > > > done an excellent job. He mentioning the bias that advocates of creat=

> ion

> > > > science have had to deal with in getting their articles published in

> > > > journals. In some cases, they even had to alter their articles to get=

> them

> > > > published.

> >

> > > That's normal. That's why it's called "peer review". Are you so

> > > ignorant as to believe that any scientist can get papers published

> > > without having to pass through the peer review process? It's that

> > > very process that keeps science honest. If religion had a peer review

> > > process then your entire religion would have been a non-starter.

> >

> > > > One of the editors even mentioned that they did not print

> > > > letters from the advocates of creation science. I was pleased to learn

> > > > that some of the advocates of creation science have been able to get =

> their

> > > > articles published. Do you admit that some of the advocates of creati=

> on

> > > > science know just as much about science as the advocates of evolution?

> >

> > > Knowing about science and actually doing science are not the same

> > > thing. The scientific method begins with a testable hypothesis that

> > > can then be either demonstrated or shown to be false by experiment.

> > > If a creationist proposes God as his hypothesis then he would have to

> > > be willing to test whether God exists and accept the conclusion of

> > > whatever experiment he has been able to design. You can't be a

> > > scientist and follow any dogmatic belief and religious beliefs are

> > > dogmatic beliefs, ie beliefs that people are expected to uphold

> > > regardless of what the evidence might say.

> >

> > > Martin

> >

> > I understand. However, there should NOT be a bias in favor of evolution

> > and against creation science. The bias should be in favor of the

> > scientific method.

> > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

> >

> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>

> Classic Jason! You say you understand and then write something that

> shows you don't.

Re-read the article. Bias was mentioned in various sections of the article.

May 30, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <f3jnlr$r7f$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <PM77i.4542$u56.48@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,

>>> bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <S367i.12613$RX.5882@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,

>>>>> bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

>> [snip]

>>

>>>> It looks like they were doing good science. It is worth noting that

>>>> none of the papers published concerned "creation science."

>>> Good point. However, all articles written by advocates of evolution are

>>> not related to evolution.

>>>

>> Huh? What are you babbling about?

>> Wrong! There are a whole bunch of articles related to evolution.

>>

>> And even if you missed out a word (and wanted to say: "Not all articles

>> written [...] are related to evolution), it would rather prove the

>> point. The points we were making, that is. Not yours.

>>

>> Tokay

>

> Re-read the article--Bias is mentioned in various sections of the article.

>

How about you re-read what you wrote?

>>> Good point. However, all articles written by advocates of evolution are

>>> not related to evolution.

Here it is again. Nothing about bias. Nothing. THAT was what I was

referring to as nonsense. It stays nonsense.

Besides, The article was talking about "creationists". You babbled some

nonsense about "advocates of evolution not writing articles related to

evolution".

Tokay

--

There is no substitute for good manners, except, perhaps,

fast reflexes.

May 30, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-3005071302390001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <465d3e5b$0$4665$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher

> Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote:

>

>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> news:Jason-2905072336340001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> > In article <1180501773.837383.112070@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

>> > Martin

>> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On May 30, 12:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >>

>> >> > 29 May 2007

>> >> > Do Creationists Publish in

>> >> > Notable Refereed Journals?

>> >> > David Buckna

>> >> >

>> >> > Creation =B3Scientists=B2?

>> >> > Many critics perpetuate false claims to the effect that no

>> >> > genuine

>> >> > scientist would be a creationist. The Institute for Creation

>> >> > Research

>> >> > refutes this myth here, as does Answers in Genesis here.

>> >> > In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles

>> >> > Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research

>> >> > Society Quarterly =B3has contributed a single article to any

>> >> > reputable

>> >> > scientific journal=B2 (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn=B9t be

>> >> > bothered=

>> >> to

>> >> > glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science

>> >> > bibliographic source.

>> >>

>> >> > Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch

>> >> > creationist

>> >> > and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on

>> >> > developmental anomalies in fruit flies (=B3Developmental genetics of

>> >> > homoeosis,=B2 Advances in Genetics, 16 [1976], 179-248).

>> >> > Herpetologist

>> >> > Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on

>> >> > turtle

>> >> > systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology,

>> >> > Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.

>> >>

>> >> <snip>

>> >>

>> >> So if they are getting papers published then what are they complaining

>> >> about? The fact is that they get papers published when they do

>> >> science and they don't get papers published when they try to spread

>> >> religious dogma. You've just proven our point, Jason. Way to go!

>> >>

>> >> Martin

>> >

>> > Martin,

>> > Did you read the entire article? I read it and the author, David

>> > Buckna,

>> > done an excellent job. He mentioning the bias that advocates of

>> > creation

>> > science have had to deal with in getting their articles published in

>> > journals. In some cases, they even had to alter their articles to get

>> > them

>> > published. One of the editors even mentioned that they did not print

>> > letters from the advocates of creation science. I was pleased to learn

>> > that some of the advocates of creation science have been able to get

>> > their

>> > articles published. Do you admit that some of the advocates of creation

>> > science know just as much about science as the advocates of evolution?

>> >

>>

>> Jason,

>>

>> Like in all things, if you do not do the homework you do not get the gold

>> star. In this case, they had to do some actual research in the field of

>> study and that was the basis of their paper, their homework, which was

>> then

>> published in the Journals, they got the gold stars. This is not a matter

>> of

>> bias but a matter of people wanting to be lazy, get something for

>> nothing,

>> and claim it is bias. When you do not do anything that is worthy of

>> publishing of course it will not be published first you have to do the

>> hard

>> part the homework. When the creationists start to do their homework then

>> we

>> will start to consider listening to what they have to say until then do

>> not

>> whine that no one is interested in your complaints.

>

> I agree with most of your points. It's harder for the advocates of

> creation science to get well written articles published in journals. There

> should not be bias but there is bias.

The only Bias is that it has to be science and not religion or phiolosphy.

If they write actual papers based on the scientific evidence then it will be

reviewed on it's merits. The key is it must be actual research and not just

the Bible says it and I believe it.

One of the authors (mentioned in the

> article) had to alter the conclusion that was in the original article

> since it was related to creation science.

If you wish to provide a citation of this supposed modifcation feel free,

but it sounds more like a matter of poor research methods and poor

conclusions based not on facts but on beliefs.

After he made the required

> change to satisfy the editors, the article was published in the journal.

> Please answer this question: If another author had a conclusion that was

> related to evolution--do you believe the editors would have required him

> to alter the conclusion?

If the conclusion could not be backed by factual evidence you bet and they

have done so many times and all the time that is the peer review process.

Do you believe that journal editors should have a

> bias against authors of articles that are advocates of creation science.

> Jason

>

They have a bias against poor research not based on factual evidence it is a

difference.

May 30, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-3005071404080001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <1180553948.131598.92290@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

>

>> On 30 Maj, 22:07, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > In article <1180513708.967942.322...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

>> > Martin

>> >

>> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > > On May 30, 2:36 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >

>> > > > Did you read the entire article? I read it and the author, David

>> > > > Buc=

>> kna,

>> > > > done an excellent job. He mentioning the bias that advocates of

>> > > > creat=

>> ion

>> > > > science have had to deal with in getting their articles published

>> > > > in

>> > > > journals. In some cases, they even had to alter their articles to

>> > > > get=

>> them

>> > > > published.

>> >

>> > > That's normal. That's why it's called "peer review". Are you so

>> > > ignorant as to believe that any scientist can get papers published

>> > > without having to pass through the peer review process? It's that

>> > > very process that keeps science honest. If religion had a peer

>> > > review

>> > > process then your entire religion would have been a non-starter.

>> >

>> > > > One of the editors even mentioned that they did not print

>> > > > letters from the advocates of creation science. I was pleased to

>> > > > learn

>> > > > that some of the advocates of creation science have been able to

>> > > > get =

>> their

>> > > > articles published. Do you admit that some of the advocates of

>> > > > creati=

>> on

>> > > > science know just as much about science as the advocates of

>> > > > evolution?

>> >

>> > > Knowing about science and actually doing science are not the same

>> > > thing. The scientific method begins with a testable hypothesis that

>> > > can then be either demonstrated or shown to be false by experiment.

>> > > If a creationist proposes God as his hypothesis then he would have to

>> > > be willing to test whether God exists and accept the conclusion of

>> > > whatever experiment he has been able to design. You can't be a

>> > > scientist and follow any dogmatic belief and religious beliefs are

>> > > dogmatic beliefs, ie beliefs that people are expected to uphold

>> > > regardless of what the evidence might say.

>> >

>> > > Martin

>> >

>> > I understand. However, there should NOT be a bias in favor of evolution

>> > and against creation science. The bias should be in favor of the

>> > scientific method.

>> > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>> >

>> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>>

>> Classic Jason! You say you understand and then write something that

>> shows you don't.

>

> Re-read the article. Bias was mentioned in various sections of the

> article.

>

Yes, it was mentioned but it does not mean bias was proven that is the

issue.

May 30, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-3005071349210001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <1180528020.475090.229050@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

>

>> On 30 Maj, 06:14, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > In article <1180490913.993436.208...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

>> > Martin

>> >

>> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > > On May 30, 10:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > > > In article <1180486688.526020.30...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

> Martin

>> snip>

>> > Martin,

>> > Someone else challenged me to find proof that there was a bias against

>> > the

>> > advocates of creation science that submit articles to journals. I

>> > googled

>> > "rejected creation science articles". I found this article and learned

>> > some things I did not know. I hope that you will also learn some things

>> > that you did not know related to bias.

>>

>> What you learned is that you were wrong, that scientists who are known

>> as advocates of creation science do have their work published in peer-

>> reviewed articles; so much for your claim of bias. Furthermore none

>> of the work published provided support for creation science, which

>> provides you with no evidence of any actual research done in that

>> area. Based on your above post, however, you learned absolutely

>> nothing and continue to tell the same lies as before. You are very

>> strange.

>> snip

>

> Re-read the article. Bias was discussed in the article. The editors

> required one of the authors to remove the creation science information

> that was in the article. Do you honestly believe that the editors would

> have required another author to remove the evolution information that was

> in their article. Get real.

>

If the writter presents any information within an article be it the body of

the work or the conclusion and it is not backed with factual evidence they

would have to revise the article in order to make it match the facts it

matters not at all if they advocate creation or evolution.

May 30, 2007

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:

>In article <1180513708.967942.322010@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On May 30, 2:36 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > Did you read the entire article? I read it and the author, David Buckna,

>> > done an excellent job. He mentioning the bias that advocates of creation

>> > science have had to deal with in getting their articles published in

>> > journals. In some cases, they even had to alter their articles to get them

>> > published.

>> That's normal. That's why it's called "peer review". Are you so

>> ignorant as to believe that any scientist can get papers published

>> without having to pass through the peer review process? It's that

>> very process that keeps science honest. If religion had a peer review

>> process then your entire religion would have been a non-starter.

>> > One of the editors even mentioned that they did not print

>> > letters from the advocates of creation science. I was pleased to learn

>> > that some of the advocates of creation science have been able to get their

>> > articles published. Do you admit that some of the advocates of creation

>> > science know just as much about science as the advocates of evolution?

>> Knowing about science and actually doing science are not the same

>> thing. The scientific method begins with a testable hypothesis that

>> can then be either demonstrated or shown to be false by experiment.

>> If a creationist proposes God as his hypothesis then he would have to

>> be willing to test whether God exists and accept the conclusion of

>> whatever experiment he has been able to design. You can't be a

>> scientist and follow any dogmatic belief and religious beliefs are

>> dogmatic beliefs, ie beliefs that people are expected to uphold

>> regardless of what the evidence might say.

>>

>> Martin

>I understand. However, there should NOT be a bias in favor of evolution

>and against creation science. The bias should be in favor of the

>scientific method.

You'd be better off if you would shut up and not post again until such time as

you can actually understand what you read. (Free clue: creation science is

an oxymoron.)

--

Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas

chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273

LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)

NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA

May 30, 2007

On 29 mayo, 21:57, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 29 Maj, 07:24, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:> On Mon, 28 May 2007 20:26:09 -0700, AT1 <notyourbusin...@godblows.net>

> > wrote:

> > - Refer: <PdKdnVSZW5_EAMbbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdn...@comcast.com>

>

> > >Jason wrote:

>

> snip

>

> > >That would have been so much more of a zinger were you able to spell a

> > >simple four-letter word correctly.

>

> > Jason is a good Xtian.

> > He does not know any four letter words.

>

> And he has the amazing ability to lie and feel morally superior

> simultaneously.

>

His is lying in the name of god.

Bramble

May 31, 2007

On May 31, 3:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180514437.317608.17...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 30, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > I did not download the article but I read it.

>

> > Wait. How can you read the article without downloading it to your

> > computer? Do you mean you didn't "print it out"? I didn't either.

> > It isn't necessary. If you had actually read the article you would

> > have been able to answer questions about what you had read. You

> > obviously didn't read the article even though you said you did.

> I meant that I did not save the article or print out the article. I am a

> speed reader. I speed read the article. My memory is not as good as it was

> when I was your age. As the song says, "what a drag it is getting old."

> I have a question for you. While I was in high school, we looked at

> one-celled creatures under microscopes. They were called parameciums and

> amoebae. Do you honestly believe that mankind evolved from a one

> celled-life form? You could never convince me that it could ever happen.

Then go away. Seriously. You've just convinced me that I am wasting

my time with you.

Martin

May 31, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <1180513708.967942.322010@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> On May 30, 2:36 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>> Did you read the entire article? I read it and the author, David Buckna,

>>> done an excellent job. He mentioning the bias that advocates of creation

>>> science have had to deal with in getting their articles published in

>>> journals. In some cases, they even had to alter their articles to get them

>>> published.

>> That's normal. That's why it's called "peer review". Are you so

>> ignorant as to believe that any scientist can get papers published

>> without having to pass through the peer review process? It's that

>> very process that keeps science honest. If religion had a peer review

>> process then your entire religion would have been a non-starter.

>>

>>> One of the editors even mentioned that they did not print

>>> letters from the advocates of creation science. I was pleased to learn

>>> that some of the advocates of creation science have been able to get their

>>> articles published. Do you admit that some of the advocates of creation

>>> science know just as much about science as the advocates of evolution?