Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On May 31, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180579251.037007.263...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > I have not seen the evidence. I thought about the amoebas and various > other one celled creatures we looked at under microscopes when I was in > high school. I was fascinated by those one celled creatures. After reading > one of your interesting posts, I thought about the possibility of mankind > evolving from a one celled life form. I have seen no evidence indicating > that it happened that way. It would take billions and billions of years > and still might not happen. One celled creatures like amoebas have been on > this earth for millions of years, I have not seen evidence indicating that > they have evolved into multi-celled life forms. It appears to me that if > they have not evolved in several million years, why would I believe that > other one celled life forms evolved into mankind during those several > million years. Just because you believe it happened, don't expect me to > believe it. You don't have to believe anything but you should stop LYING, saying that no evidence supporting evolution exists. The genetic code in mankind is the same found in monkeys, birds, lizards, fish, frogs, insects, plants, etc. and, yes, even in single celled creatures. An animal cell is an animal cell is an animal cell and even that can be shown to have developed from ordinary bacteria through viral eukaryogenesis and endosymbiosis. When a mountain of evidence supports a theory, faith is not required. When absolutely NO evidence supports a hypotheisis, a great deal of faith is required to believe it. You are the one who requires faith, not us. Don't lecture us on believing anything without evidence: it is pure hypocrisy on your part. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On May 31, 1:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180580639.377592.70...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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... > > > > > Do you believe that journal editors should have a > > > > > bias against authors of articles that are advocates of creation science. > > > > > They have a bias against poor research not based on factual evidence. > There 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. > > Do you think that the 40 doctorate-holding scientists mentioned in the > book entitled, "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton would agree > that creationism is NOT supported by evidence? It either is supported by evidence or it isn't. And it isn't. It isn't a matter of opinion. No experiment has ever been conducted to demonstrate the existance of any god -nor could any experiment ever be conducted to test anything supernatural- let alone test the hypothesis that any god was responsible for the creation of any form of life on Earth, let alone man. What they may believe is irrelevant: it doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence supporting creationism. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180580853.524170.81300@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I disagree. When I learned about the primordial pond in 1971, one of the students asked the professor a very important question. The question was: "Is there any evidence indicating that the first living cells evolved in the primordial pond?" The professor stated, "No, just accept it." I have no reason to accept it without evidence. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180580639.377592.70320@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 > > > >> >> > =A9 David Buckna. All Rights Reserved. > > > > > >> >> > 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 Do you think that the 40 doctorate-holding scientists mentioned in the book entitled, "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton would agree that creationism is NOT supported by evidence? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180579251.037007.263540@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I have not seen the evidence. I thought about the amoebas and various other one celled creatures we looked at under microscopes when I was in high school. I was fascinated by those one celled creatures. After reading one of your interesting posts, I thought about the possibility of mankind evolving from a one celled life form. I have seen no evidence indicating that it happened that way. It would take billions and billions of years and still might not happen. One celled creatures like amoebas have been on this earth for millions of years, I have not seen evidence indicating that they have evolved into multi-celled life forms. It appears to me that if they have not evolved in several million years, why would I believe that other one celled life forms evolved into mankind during those several million years. Just because you believe it happened, don't expect me to believe it. Even Darwin--I think that it's in the last chapter of his famous book--believed that God created plants and animals and then that evolution took over. That's much easier for me to believe than to believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life form. jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On May 31, 3:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180589009.623007.230...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 31, 1:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180580639.377592.70...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > Do you believe that journal editors should have a > > > > > > > bias against authors of articles that are advocates of > creation science. > > > > > > > They have a bias against poor research not based on factual evidence. > > > There 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. > > > > Do you think that the 40 doctorate-holding scientists mentioned in the > > > book entitled, "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton would agree > > > that creationism is NOT supported by evidence? > > > It either is supported by evidence or it isn't. And it isn't. It > > isn't a matter of opinion. No experiment has ever been conducted to > > demonstrate the existance of any god -nor could any experiment ever be > > conducted to test anything supernatural- let alone test the hypothesis > > that any god was responsible for the creation of any form of life on > > Earth, let alone man. What they may believe is irrelevant: it doesn't > > change the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence supporting > > creationism. > The only evidence that I have seen is in relation to the fossil record. Not true. You've also been told about comparative anatomy, comparative biochemistry and the observed diversification of animals and plants, both in the wild and in domestication, the latter of which has happened over the course of human history and is beyond question: a poodle and a great dane are both dogs but selective breeding has made them into quite different looking animals. Nobody claims that their god created every conceivable breed of dog and yet we clearly see how a single species can produce multiple forms. Similar examples exist throughout nature and, because animals living in different parts of the world do not get a chance to interbreed, what we end up with is different species, ie speciation, the driving force behind evolution, can be inferred from a direct study of zoology, without even looking at the fossil record. The fossil record is just the icing on the cake: it demonstrates what Darwin already suspected. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On May 31, 3:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > There are at least 90 people that know just as much about science as you > know. Apparently they do not. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <dcs7i.12702$RX.6014@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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 > >>>>> =A9 David Buckna. All Rights Reserved. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > > They might be beautifully written, eloquent, poetic and grammatical. But > if they do not contain valid science they won't get published. > > There > > should not be bias but there is bias. > > There isn't a bias, except against bad or invalid science. > > 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 creationism were scientifically valid, it would not need to have its > conclusions revised. The fact that the conclusion had to be revised > prior to publication is an indication that there might have been some > decent science going on, but the author came to incorrect conclusions > based on the evidence. I don't blame her for being miffed: what writer > likes editors? > > 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 it were an invalid conclusion, yes. > > Do you believe that journal editors should have a > > bias against authors of articles that are advocates of creation science. > > Only to the extent that they try to publish bad science. Have you considered that it may have been a valid conclusion related to creation science? The author of the article must have believed his conclusion was valid--otherwise--he would not have included it in the original version of the article. I do not blame the author for being upset when he was ordered to change the conclusion. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180589009.623007.230250@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 31, 1:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180580639.377592.70...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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... > > > > > > > Do you believe that journal editors should have a > > > > > > bias against authors of articles that are advocates of creation science. > > > > > > > They have a bias against poor research not based on factual evidence. > > There 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. > > > > Do you think that the 40 doctorate-holding scientists mentioned in the > > book entitled, "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton would agree > > that creationism is NOT supported by evidence? > > It either is supported by evidence or it isn't. And it isn't. It > isn't a matter of opinion. No experiment has ever been conducted to > demonstrate the existance of any god -nor could any experiment ever be > conducted to test anything supernatural- let alone test the hypothesis > that any god was responsible for the creation of any form of life on > Earth, let alone man. What they may believe is irrelevant: it doesn't > change the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence supporting > creationism. > > Martin Martin, The only evidence that I have seen is in relation to the fossil record. Two different books have been written by advocates of creationism in relation to the fossil record. One of the authors discusses the complete absence of any true evolutionary transitional forms in the fossil record. I have read one of those books. I suggest that you read the last paragraph of Chapter 14 of Darwin's famous book--he discusses something about life being "breathed into a few forms or into one." Darwin also mentioned the "Creator" in that same chapter. It was apparent to me that Darwin believed in God and was familiar with the lst chapter of Genesis and probably believed it was true but I am not 100 percent certain. I typed Darwin God into the google search engine and was able to find lots of evidence indicating that Darwin (at least during several years of his life) was a Christian. I don't know whether or not he was Christian during the last several years of his life. There was one site indicating that Darwin may have had a deathbed confession of his love of God. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180588981.121184.229710@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 31, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180579251.037007.263...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > I have not seen the evidence. I thought about the amoebas and various > > other one celled creatures we looked at under microscopes when I was in > > high school. I was fascinated by those one celled creatures. After reading > > one of your interesting posts, I thought about the possibility of mankind > > evolving from a one celled life form. I have seen no evidence indicating > > that it happened that way. It would take billions and billions of years > > and still might not happen. One celled creatures like amoebas have been on > > this earth for millions of years, I have not seen evidence indicating that > > they have evolved into multi-celled life forms. It appears to me that if > > they have not evolved in several million years, why would I believe that > > other one celled life forms evolved into mankind during those several > > million years. Just because you believe it happened, don't expect me to > > believe it. > > You don't have to believe anything but you should stop LYING, saying > that no evidence supporting evolution exists. The genetic code in > mankind is the same found in monkeys, birds, lizards, fish, frogs, > insects, plants, etc. and, yes, even in single celled creatures. An > animal cell is an animal cell is an animal cell and even that can be > shown to have developed from ordinary bacteria through viral > eukaryogenesis and endosymbiosis. > > When a mountain of evidence supports a theory, faith is not required. > When absolutely NO evidence supports a hypotheisis, a great deal of > faith is required to believe it. You are the one who requires faith, > not us. Don't lecture us on believing anything without evidence: it > is pure hypocrisy on your part. > > Martin Martin, There are at least 90 people that know just as much about science as you know. At least 40 of them have Ph.D degrees in various fields of science. They probably have seen the same evidence that you have seen. They continue to be advocates of creationism. I will continue to be an advocate of creationism until I am 100 percent sure that you are correct and that those 90 people are wrong. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180588130.684307.78270@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 31, 1:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180580853.524170.81...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > >> > 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. > > > > > > > >> 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. > > > I disagree. > > I don't give a rat's ass anymore. You've admitted to being closed > minded. Just because you are closed minded doesn't mean scientists > are. You have denied time and time again that there is any evidence > supporting evolution or abiogenesis. We show you the evidence and yet > you continue deny that it exists. That constitutes lying. The onus > is on you to prove that anything supernatural exists, let alone your > god, and then further prove that your god had anything whatsover with > the existance of any living thing whatsoever, let alone mankind. You > have NO evidence at all. You haven't even tried to present any: all > you've done is reject the evidence presented to you by us while all > the while claiming that there is a bias against creationism. You've > already told us that nothing will change your mind. What could be > more biased than that? Please don't lecture others about bias: it's > pure hypocrisy when you do that. > > Martin Martin, I have suggested several books for you to read but I doubt that you have read them. The evidence that I have is in those books. I have referred you to the ICR website and I doubt that you visited it. You are correct, I will not change my mind until I have concrete evidence that causes me to change my mind. Jason Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 30 Maj, 22:49, 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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 30 Maj, 22:55, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180511916.424313.319...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 30 Maj, 23:04, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180553948.131598.92...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 Maj, 01:44, bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 Maj, 03:33, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <465df23b$0$4718$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher > > > > > > Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-3005071349210001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > 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. > > > 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. Only those that fulfill the requirements of scientific research. Submit an article advocating creation science that does the same, and it will be printed. So far that has not happened. You can call that bias if you like, but you are the one showing bias. > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 Maj, 03:41, 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 > > >> >> > =A9 David Buckna. All Rights Reserved. > > > >> >> > 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. > Your opinion is based on nothing. You insist that there is bias, but base it on what you think people would do not on what they have done. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 Maj, 03:46, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. > 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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 Maj, 03:58, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <dt6s53ht46hk6916ggekb1lon0d2qcf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:33:22 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3005071833220...@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <465df23b$0$4718$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher > > >Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-3005071349210001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > 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. > > > >> 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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 Maj, 04:33, 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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 Maj, 07:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180580100.479603.269...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 > > Martin, > If you submitted an article re: evolution to the editor of the ICR > newsletter and it was rejected, do you think that bias would have been > involved? They are on record as being biased, furthermore, and more importantly, their newsletter is not a peer-reviewed journal. > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 Maj, 07:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:33:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3005071933010...@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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: > > > ... > > > >> >> > 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. > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from living cells..- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 Maj, 07:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180580853.524170.81...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 > > I disagree. When I learned about the primordial pond in 1971, one of the > students asked the professor a very important question. The question was: > "Is there any evidence indicating that the first living cells evolved in > the primordial pond?" The professor stated, "No, just accept it." > > I have no reason to accept it without evidence. > > Jason- And you insanely refuse to accept the evidence provided for you. Quote
Guest Masked Avenger Posted May 31, 2007 Posted 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? >> 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 > It has been a long time since I've seen anyone as Cloth-eared as you Jason ......... It has been repeatedly pointed out to you ......... yet you continue to ignore it ....... I'll make it as simple as possible ....... because you seem such a simpleton ........ EVOLUTION follows the 'Scientific Method' therefore .... it is Science and is accepted as such, it has mountains of research and conclusions that ALL point to the Fact that it happened .... and is still happening. CREATION SCIENCE does NOT follow the 'Scientific Method' therefore it is NOT Science ...... it has absolutely NO research or testable hypothesis .....it purely an act of faith masquerading as 'science' .....the closest it comes is pseudo science ...... -- MA ....Yoiks .... and away ..... Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity .............. and I'm not sure about the Universe .......... - A. Einstein Does Schr Quote
Guest Masked Avenger Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: < snip > > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from living cells. > Do you have any evidence 'god' created anything ? I mean real evidence ... not fairy tales .... Are you saying that mankind didn't evolve from anything ? ........ -- MA ....Yoiks .... and away ..... Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity .............. and I'm not sure about the Universe .......... - A. Einstein Does Schr Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.