Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 31, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <dt6s53ht46hk6916ggekb1lon0d2qcfsb5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:33:22 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-3005071833220001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>> In article <465df23b$0$4718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher

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

>>>

>>>> "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.

>>> It was my impression that the editors of the journal were advocates of

>>> evolution and as a result did not want any of the authors of the articles

>>> to discuss or even mention creation science.

>> You are confused about what they don't want. They don't want

>> pseudo-science and anti-scientific nonsense in their science journals.

>> If any of the so-called creation science folks actually offered real

>> science in support of their religious doctrines, they would have a

>> chance of being published.

>>

>>> If you note the titles of all

>>> of the articles that were mentioned--none of the articles appear to be

>>> related to creation science. It's my guess that many science journals have

>>> articles related to evolution.

>> That's because evolution is science and 'creation science' is not.

>

> The scientists that are advocates of creation science would disagree with you.

>

Those aren't scientists; those are quacks.

--

AT1

http://www.godblows.net

May 31, 2007

On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:58:25 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-3005071858250001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <dt6s53ht46hk6916ggekb1lon0d2qcfsb5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:33:22 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-3005071833220001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

....

>> >If you note the titles of all

>> >of the articles that were mentioned--none of the articles appear to be

>> >related to creation science. It's my guess that many science journals have

>> >articles related to evolution.

>>

>> That's because evolution is science and 'creation science' is not.

>

>The scientists that are advocates of creation science would disagree with you.

They might start out trying to con me into believing them, but they

would fail and quit. There are a handful of scientists who reject the

scientific evidence for evolution because of their religious faith, yet

manage to do science in related areas, but they are not actually doing

any research to show that 'creation science' is true. They know it is

not. The rest of your 90 aren't doing anything related to the history of

life on earth, so their opinions are of very little value.

How much have these liars stolen from you?

May 31, 2007

In article <465df23b$0$4718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher

Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote:

> "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.

It was my impression that the editors of the journal were advocates of

evolution and as a result did not want any of the authors of the articles

to discuss or even mention creation science. If you note the titles of all

of the articles that were mentioned--none of the articles appear to be

related to creation science. It's my guess that many science journals have

articles related to evolution.

Jason

May 31, 2007

In article <465def83$0$9953$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher

Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote:

> "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.

We have a difference of opinion. For example, if I wrote an article and

mentioned creation science several times in the article, the journal

editors would probably tell me to rewrite the article and remove all

references to creation science. On the other hand, if you wrote an article

and mentioned evolution several times, I doubt that the ediitors would

tell you to remove all references to evolution. Do you see my point? There

is a bias in favor of evolution and against creation science. The reason

is because the editors and members of the peer review committee are

advocates of evolution.

Jason

May 31, 2007

In article <WZKdnd2en990icPbnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1

<notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote:

> 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?

> >> 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

> >

>

> I'm glad you're in favor of the scientific method. I hope you realize

> that blows your idea of a fantasy spirit god (creation science) out of

> the water.

No--it does not--I know of at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees in

various fields of science. They are all advocates of creation science.

Most of them are just as in favor of the scientific method as I am. In

most cases, our main disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis and common

descent. We (in most cases cases) support the aspects of evolution that

can be proved.

May 31, 2007

On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:30:44 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-3005071930440001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <0p7s53l5lkk24u29ja0qrebt4m0ocliorr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:58:25 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-3005071858250001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >In article <dt6s53ht46hk6916ggekb1lon0d2qcfsb5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:33:22 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> >> <Jason-3005071833220001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>

>> ...

>> >> >If you note the titles of all

>> >> >of the articles that were mentioned--none of the articles appear to be

>> >> >related to creation science. It's my guess that many science journals have

>> >> >articles related to evolution.

>> >>

>> >> That's because evolution is science and 'creation science' is not.

>> >

>> >The scientists that are advocates of creation science would disagree

>with you.

>>

>> They might start out trying to con me into believing them, but they

>> would fail and quit. There are a handful of scientists who reject the

>> scientific evidence for evolution because of their religious faith, yet

>> manage to do science in related areas, but they are not actually doing

>> any research to show that 'creation science' is true. They know it is

>> not. The rest of your 90 aren't doing anything related to the history of

>> life on earth, so their opinions are of very little value.

>>

>> How much have these liars stolen from you?

>

>None.

All of the money they have received, they have received under false

pretense, that makes it theft. Everyone who donated to them has been

stolen from.

May 31, 2007

On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:33:01 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-3005071933010001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <a57s539daat6ed7ur8fecr7s2g90tfsufu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:46:59 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-3005071846590001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >In article <WZKdnd2en990icPbnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1

>> ><notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote:

>> >

>> >> Jason wrote:

....

>> >> > 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

>> >> >

>> >>

>> >> I'm glad you're in favor of the scientific method. I hope you realize

>> >> that blows your idea of a fantasy spirit god (creation science) out of

>> >> the water.

>> >

>> >No--it does not--I know of at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees in

>> >various fields of science. They are all advocates of creation science.

>>

>> Then they are all liars. Creation science is a religious doctrine,

>> nothing else.

>>

>> Besides, the list you have is not a list of 90 scientists.

>>

>> >Most of them are just as in favor of the scientific method as I am. In

>> >most cases, our main disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis and common

>> >descent.

>>

>> So you reject evolution for no reason at all.

>>

>> >We (in most cases cases) support the aspects of evolution that can be proved.

>>

>> You keep using the word 'proved' in a scientific context. You keep

>> proving to us that you have no use for science at all. Science uses

>> evidence, when you use the word 'proof' you show that you are ignorant

>> of the scientific process, particularly when you demand 'proof'.

>>

>> Don't come back with more lies. Don't quote the ICR, CRS, AIG or

>> Discovery Institute. They are all enemies of science, liars, and

>> charletans. Not one of the people associated with them are scientists

>> any more, even the few who were actually trained in science. They are

>> now just con men, trying to get you to give them money.

>

>We support the aspects of evolution that have evidence.

Make up your mind. If you support the aspects of evolution that have

evidence then you support common ancestry and abiogenesis (which isn't

evolution, of course). If you reject common ancestry, you don't support

the aspects of evolution that have evidence. If you reject abiogenesis,

you reject science.

May 31, 2007

In article <dt6s53ht46hk6916ggekb1lon0d2qcfsb5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:33:22 -0700, in alt.atheism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-3005071833220001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <465df23b$0$4718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher

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

> >

> >> "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.

> >

> >It was my impression that the editors of the journal were advocates of

> >evolution and as a result did not want any of the authors of the articles

> >to discuss or even mention creation science.

>

> You are confused about what they don't want. They don't want

> pseudo-science and anti-scientific nonsense in their science journals.

> If any of the so-called creation science folks actually offered real

> science in support of their religious doctrines, they would have a

> chance of being published.

>

> >If you note the titles of all

> >of the articles that were mentioned--none of the articles appear to be

> >related to creation science. It's my guess that many science journals have

> >articles related to evolution.

>

> That's because evolution is science and 'creation science' is not.

The scientists that are advocates of creation science would disagree with you.

May 31, 2007

In article <0p7s53l5lkk24u29ja0qrebt4m0ocliorr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:58:25 -0700, in alt.atheism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-3005071858250001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <dt6s53ht46hk6916ggekb1lon0d2qcfsb5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:33:22 -0700, in alt.atheism

> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> <Jason-3005071833220001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>

> ...

> >> >If you note the titles of all

> >> >of the articles that were mentioned--none of the articles appear to be

> >> >related to creation science. It's my guess that many science journals have

> >> >articles related to evolution.

> >>

> >> That's because evolution is science and 'creation science' is not.

> >

> >The scientists that are advocates of creation science would disagree

with you.

>

> They might start out trying to con me into believing them, but they

> would fail and quit. There are a handful of scientists who reject the

> scientific evidence for evolution because of their religious faith, yet

> manage to do science in related areas, but they are not actually doing

> any research to show that 'creation science' is true. They know it is

> not. The rest of your 90 aren't doing anything related to the history of

> life on earth, so their opinions are of very little value.

>

> How much have these liars stolen from you?

None.

May 31, 2007

In article <a57s539daat6ed7ur8fecr7s2g90tfsufu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:46:59 -0700, in alt.atheism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-3005071846590001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <WZKdnd2en990icPbnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1

> ><notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote:

> >

> >> 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?

> >> >> 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

> >> >

> >>

> >> I'm glad you're in favor of the scientific method. I hope you realize

> >> that blows your idea of a fantasy spirit god (creation science) out of

> >> the water.

> >

> >No--it does not--I know of at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees in

> >various fields of science. They are all advocates of creation science.

>

> Then they are all liars. Creation science is a religious doctrine,

> nothing else.

>

> Besides, the list you have is not a list of 90 scientists.

>

> >Most of them are just as in favor of the scientific method as I am. In

> >most cases, our main disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis and common

> >descent.

>

> So you reject evolution for no reason at all.

>

> >We (in most cases cases) support the aspects of evolution that can be proved.

>

> You keep using the word 'proved' in a scientific context. You keep

> proving to us that you have no use for science at all. Science uses

> evidence, when you use the word 'proof' you show that you are ignorant

> of the scientific process, particularly when you demand 'proof'.

>

> Don't come back with more lies. Don't quote the ICR, CRS, AIG or

> Discovery Institute. They are all enemies of science, liars, and

> charletans. Not one of the people associated with them are scientists

> any more, even the few who were actually trained in science. They are

> now just con men, trying to get you to give them money.

We support the aspects of evolution that have evidence.

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.

Incidentally, you said that there was no evidence for either

abiogenesis or human evolution. There is evidence of both. You said

if you were presented evidence then you would become an

"evolutionist". You have been presented the evidence. You now say

that nothing could ever convince you. The conclusion that you've been

lying to us is inescapable.

Martin

May 31, 2007

On May 31, 2:41 am, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> said:

>

> >On May 28, 4:54 am, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> "James Brock" <j...@bellsouth.net> said:

> <...>

> >> Even agreeing on a "secular" definition of "faith" will not do,

> >> because Jason and other people of his ilk will equivocate for their

> >> god as readily as they will lie for it.

>

> >> Instead, all of you people who are paying so much attention to Jason

> >> should simply kill file him, as I have long since done. He is not

> >> about to change his mind.

>

> >It is morally wrong to give up hope on the mentally ill.

>

> What I see happening in response to Jason does not appear to be of

> therapeutic value. If anything, it seems to reinforce his delusions.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that the level of his ignorance

is a wake up call for people around him: one would have to be

incredibly ignorant to believe some of the things he says; this then

throws into doubt everything he ever says. If he wanted to ever prove

a point, it would be better if he never had opened his mouth because

he long ago lost all credibility.

Martin

May 31, 2007

On May 31, 4:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180512904.634018.154...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@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.

"Common descent" IS evolution. The formation of the "first living

cells" IS abiogenesis (or "chemical evolution"). As usual, your posts

makes no sense whatsoever.

Martin

May 31, 2007

On May 31, 4:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180528020.475090.229...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>

> gudl...@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.

Everything posted in a scientific article has to be backed up with

scientific evidence. Creationism is NOT science. You are the one

living in a fantasy, not us.

Martin

May 31, 2007

On May 31, 4:07 am, 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.

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

> and against creation science.

For the last time, there is no such thing as "creation science".

Martin

May 31, 2007

On May 31, 9:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <465def83$0$9953$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher

>

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

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

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

> > > In article <465d3e5b$0$4665$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher

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

>

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

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

> > >> > In article <1180501773.837383.112...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

> > >> > Martin

> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@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.

>

> We have a difference of opinion. For example, if I wrote an article and

> mentioned creation science several times in the article, the journal

> editors would probably tell me to rewrite the article and remove all

> references to creation science. On the other hand, if you wrote an article

> and mentioned evolution several times, I doubt that the ediitors would

> tell you to remove all references to evolution. Do you see my point? There

> is a bias in favor of evolution and against creation science. The reason

> is because the editors and members of the peer review committee are

> advocates of evolution.

Whether you write about creationism or evolution, in either case your

claims need to be supported by evidence. Evolution is supported by

evidence. Creationism isn't. It's that simple. It's only a bias in

favour of the scientific method.

Martin

May 31, 2007

On May 31, 4:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180528020.475090.229...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>

> gudl...@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.

Everything posted in a scientific article has to be backed up with

scientific evidence. Creationism is NOT science. You are the one

living in a fantasy, not us.

Martin

May 31, 2007

On May 31, 10:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <a57s539daat6ed7ur8fecr7s2g90tfs...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:46:59 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > <Jason-3005071846590...@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >In article <WZKdnd2en990icPbnZ2dnUVZ_t_in...@comcast.com>, AT1

> > ><notyourbusin...@godblows.net> wrote:

>

> > >> 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

>

> > >> I'm glad you're in favor of the scientific method. I hope you realize

> > >> that blows your idea of a fantasy spirit god (creation science) out of

> > >> the water.

>

> > >No--it does not--I know of at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees in

> > >various fields of science. They are all advocates of creation science.

>

> > Then they are all liars. Creation science is a religious doctrine,

> > nothing else.

>

> > Besides, the list you have is not a list of 90 scientists.

>

> > >Most of them are just as in favor of the scientific method as I am. In

> > >most cases, our main disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis and common

> > >descent.

>

> > So you reject evolution for no reason at all.

>

> > >We (in most cases cases) support the aspects of evolution that can be proved.

>

> > You keep using the word 'proved' in a scientific context. You keep

> > proving to us that you have no use for science at all. Science uses

> > evidence, when you use the word 'proof' you show that you are ignorant

> > of the scientific process, particularly when you demand 'proof'.

>

> > Don't come back with more lies. Don't quote the ICR, CRS, AIG or

> > Discovery Institute. They are all enemies of science, liars, and

> > charletans. Not one of the people associated with them are scientists

> > any more, even the few who were actually trained in science. They are

> > now just con men, trying to get you to give them money.

>

> We support the aspects of evolution that have evidence.

ie all of it.

Martin

May 31, 2007