Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 31, 2007

On 27 May 2007 21:17:27 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com>

wrote in alt.atheism

>On May 28, 6:47 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:57:58 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >Are you in favor of new nuclear power plants in America? I am.

>>

>> A nuclear power plant is good for 30 years. (After that we're just

>> playing catch with a bottle of nitro.) What happens them? Leave our

>> children (yours - mine is grown) with another problem we caused?

>

>It's better than burning coal.

Is it? The miles and miles of radioactive land surrounding Chernobyl

which will be uninhabitable for almost a thousand years. The genetic

defects in the children and lifelong monitoring of people in other

countries would argue otherwise. Then its like Al pointed out.

--

Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is

unable to believe things for which there is

no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of

a convenient means of feeling superior to others.

May 31, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <f3mjpn$jkv$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

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

>

>> 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.

>>>

>> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I

>> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I constantly ask

>> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils,

>> unreproducible complexity and "looks like")

>>

>> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the science.

>> So far: None, nada, zip, nil.

>>

>> Tokay

>

> They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR website.

> I know they advertise the books in their newsletters.

>

I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe

that to be false you must have other evidence.

Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I

am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be nothing more

but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See above.

Tokay

--

It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in

rats.

May 31, 2007

On May 6, 4:59 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

[...]

> I'll be delighted to examine any alternative you may have to the

> Theory of Evolution right here in these world-wide public fora.

The main alternative to the Theory of Evolution is Willful Ignorance.

The evidence is vast and readily available, here and elsewhere.

--

======================================================================

"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about

what I accept as reality."

--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)

======================================================================

Arturo Magidin

magidin-at-member-ams-org

May 31, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <f3mke4$jkv$00$6@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

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

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> 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

>>>>>>>>>>> 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

>>>

>> They failed to provide the evidence.

>>

>> They might say "I believe there is evidence". But where is it?

>>

>> Tokay

>

> In their books and articles. Visit the ICR website and you can read

> articles on many different subjects. They publish one major article in

> every newsletter.

> Jason

>

I read some of the articles. So far, all the same. The basic and

discarded errors. Nothing more. If that's all they can do, no wonder

they don't get into scientific journals.

Tokay

--

It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in

rats.

May 31, 2007

On 31 Maj, 15:43, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <f3abu2$be...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <f3a9gk$8p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> >>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

> >>>> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when

> >>>> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person

> >>>> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of

> >>>> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds

> >>>> like "situational ethics" to me.

> >>> Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide

> >>> bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I

> >>> have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you

> >>> understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash

> >>> children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia.

> >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on

> >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children."

>

> > That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash

> > children into becoming atheist.

>

> And theist parents or teachers could brainwash children into becoming

> theist.

>

> High Scoool and College Biology professors

>

> > could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life

> > despite the lack of proof that it happened.

>

> How many times do you have to be told that "life does not evolve from

> non-life." Evolution deals with the changes in life and NOT how it

> formed to begin with.

>

> Now are you going to lie yet again about "life evolving from non-life"?-

Of course he is. He ignores anything inconvenient to what he wishes

to believe.

May 31, 2007

On 31 Maj, 15:46, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> 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>,

>

>snip

> > 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?

> > Jason

>

> Yes. I would think so. But then, this newsletter is not a scientific

> publication.

And the organisation is on record as being biased.

>

> Tokay

>

> --

>

> It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in

> rats.- Skjul tekst i anf

May 31, 2007

On 31 Maj, 21:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180605964.134247.111...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

>

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > 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.c=

> > om>,

> > > > > Martin

> > > > >> snip>

> > > > >> > Martin,

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

> > inst

> > > > >> > the

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

> > > > >> > googled

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

> > rned

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

> > hings

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

>

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

> > wn

> > > > >> as advocates of creation science do have their work published in pee=

> > r-

> > > > >> 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 wou=

> > ld

> > > > > 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 bod=

> > y of

> > > > the work or the conclusion and it is not backed with factual evidence t=

> > hey

> > > > 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.

>

> I disagree. Due to the bias, the editors and members of the peer review

> committee would either not print the article in the journal or order me to

> re-write it and take out the creation science material.

You have no way of knowing that - except projection.

They actully

> ordered an author to remove the creation science material from one of his

> articles.

So you say, but you are a well-known liar.

In many cases, it's probably a judgement call related to whether

> or not an article fulfills the requirements of scientific research. If the

> people that are making the judgements are all advocates of evolution, it's

> easy to guess the results of the judgement calls.

>

And guesses are all you have, besides your rather silly lies.

May 31, 2007

On 31 Maj, 21:45, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180627943.271932.200...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

>

> bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On 31 mayo, 02:33, 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.

> > > Jason

>

> > there is not trouble for you, creationists, Jason. You can live

> > outside science building your own storyboard of creation. In the long

> > range, if you can convince enough ordinary scientists that god created

> > the Universe, and that Jesus the Christ is the son of god that died in

> > a cross, you had win. But you all beleivers are wasting your precious

> > time pissing us atheists here. We have become atheists, not because

> > of science, for using a primary logic. The only trouble you have with

> > scientists is that most of them are also atheists.

> > I think you can win your case the easiest by throwing out all the

> > regular stories written in the Bible, telling us this is all nonsense,

> > and that this god is an unpresentable god, that smells a lot of crime

> > and hate for humanity. You you have to invent a new sort of religion

> > quite different from those we know.

> > Bramble

>

> Bramble,

> Evolutionists that are atheists are in control and are now making the

> rules. We are fighting an uphill battle.

Fighting against reality can be difficult.

> Jason- Skjul tekst i anf

May 31, 2007

In article <1180605964.134247.111280@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> 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.c=

> om>,

> > > > Martin

> > > >> snip>

> > > >> > Martin,

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

> inst

> > > >> > the

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

> > > >> > googled

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

> rned

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

> hings

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

> >

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

> wn

> > > >> as advocates of creation science do have their work published in pee=

> r-

> > > >> 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 wou=

> ld

> > > > 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 bod=

> y of

> > > the work or the conclusion and it is not backed with factual evidence t=

> hey

> > > 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.

I disagree. Due to the bias, the editors and members of the peer review

committee would either not print the article in the journal or order me to

re-write it and take out the creation science material. They actully

ordered an author to remove the creation science material from one of his

articles. In many cases, it's probably a judgement call related to whether

or not an article fulfills the requirements of scientific research. If the

people that are making the judgements are all advocates of evolution, it's

easy to guess the results of the judgement calls.

Jason

May 31, 2007

On 31 Maj, 21:53, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180606898.110830.85...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

>

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > 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 le=

> > arned

> > > > > > > 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 kn=

> > own

> > > > > > as advocates of creation science do have their work published in pe=

> > er-

> > > > > > 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 wou=

> > ld

> > > > > 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=F8rselstegn -

>

> > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>

> Now, you should see my point--the editors and members of the peer review

> committees are on record as being biased.

No, they are not Jason. The editors of the news letter work for an

organisation founded to advocate creation science, i.e. they are on

record as being biased.

Even the members of peer review

> committees are also biased. One of the editors (mentioned in the article)

> actually indicated that she rejected for publicatian any letters that were

> written by advocates of creation science. That is a clear cut case of

> bias.

> It's normal for the advocates of evolution to have a bias against anyone

> that is an advocate of creation science. I once heard a college professor

> state that advocates of creation science were similar to the flat

> earthers.

>

Yes, that is true; they are. Flat Earthers would have a very

difficult time publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, and, according

to your logic (chortle!) that would prove the journals were biased.

May 31, 2007

In article <1180627943.271932.200750@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31 mayo, 02:33, 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.

> > Jason

>

> there is not trouble for you, creationists, Jason. You can live

> outside science building your own storyboard of creation. In the long

> range, if you can convince enough ordinary scientists that god created

> the Universe, and that Jesus the Christ is the son of god that died in

> a cross, you had win. But you all beleivers are wasting your precious

> time pissing us atheists here. We have become atheists, not because

> of science, for using a primary logic. The only trouble you have with

> scientists is that most of them are also atheists.

> I think you can win your case the easiest by throwing out all the

> regular stories written in the Bible, telling us this is all nonsense,

> and that this god is an unpresentable god, that smells a lot of crime

> and hate for humanity. You you have to invent a new sort of religion

> quite different from those we know.

> Bramble

Bramble,

Evolutionists that are atheists are in control and are now making the

rules. We are fighting an uphill battle.

Jason

May 31, 2007

On 31 Maj, 21:57, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f3mn38$t1...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>

> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <f3a9mp$8p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

> > >> Jason wrote:

> > >>> In article <f39qln$ok...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > >>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

> > >>>> Jason wrote:

> > >>>>> In article

>

> <1180158726.338881.255...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > >>>>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >>>>>> Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the

> > >>>>>> "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By

> > >>>>>> rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd

> > >>>>>> also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to

> > >>>>>> get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as

> > >>>>>> throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can

> > >>>>>> all be rescued.

>

> > >>>>>> Martin

> > >>>>> Martin,

> > >>>>> Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue

> > >>>>> regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries

> > >>>>> of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to

> > >>>>> control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone

> > >>>>> else on the lifeboat.

> > >>>> So if the old man on the lifeboat wants to be splashing water from the

> > >>>> ocean into the lifeboat, you should do likewise simply because you can't

> > >>>> stop him? Shouldn't you at least be doing what you can to bail some

> > >>>> water back OUT of the lifeboat even if he's splashing it back in as fast

> > >>>> as or faster than you can bail it back out?

> > >>> I am the only American in the boat and there are seven people on the boat

> > >>> that do not care about pollution. That guy from China is actually bragging

> > >>> about how much he loves pollution and CO2. They are splashing in the water

> > >>> much faster than I can spash it back out. After several hours, my arms get

> > >>> tired so I stop splashing. I give up.

> > >> That's your problem. You'd just give up rather than try and stop them.

>

> > > It's difficult for one person to win the battle against seven people.

>

> > But you don't want to even try. You don't even try to refrain from doing

> > what they're doing wrong, much less try to stop them.

>

> > "But, mommy, the other bullies were beating on Suzie and I couldn't stop

> > them so I beat on her as well."

>

> > The

> > > point is that the only way to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

> > > is if every country in the world takes major actions to reduce C02. If

> > > America is the only country that does it--the end result is that C02

> > > levels will continue to rise.

>

> > But not as fast.

>

> > The result in America is that our economy

> > > would be placed in jeopardy--if we endorsed the accord. Both Clinton and

> > > Bush realized this and that is the reason they did not endorse the

> > > accords. Countries like China may sign the accord but as you may

> > > know--communist countries don't usually abide by agreements that they have

> > > signed.

>

> > And if they didn't abide by it, we could enforce various sanctions such

> > as trade embargos, etc.

>

> That would start trade wars. We had some trade wars in the history of

> America and the end result was harm to our economy.- Skjul tekst i anf

May 31, 2007

On 31 Maj, 22:02, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f3mjpn$jkv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>

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

> > 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.

>

> > Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I

> > haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I constantly ask

> > for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils,

> > unreproducible complexity and "looks like")

>

> > IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the science.

> > So far: None, nada, zip, nil.

>

> > Tokay

>

> They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR website.

> I know they advertise the books in their newsletters.- Skjul tekst i anf

May 31, 2007

In article <1180606898.110830.85930@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> 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 le=

> arned

> > > > > > 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 kn=

> own

> > > > > as advocates of creation science do have their work published in pe=

> er-

> > > > > 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 wou=

> ld

> > > > 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=F8rselstegn -

> >

> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

Now, you should see my point--the editors and members of the peer review

committees are on record as being biased. Even the members of peer review

committees are also biased. One of the editors (mentioned in the article)

actually indicated that she rejected for publicatian any letters that were

written by advocates of creation science. That is a clear cut case of

bias.

It's normal for the advocates of evolution to have a bias against anyone

that is an advocate of creation science. I once heard a college professor

state that advocates of creation science were similar to the flat

earthers.

Jason

May 31, 2007

On 31 Maj, 22:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

>

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On 31 Maj, 07:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

snip

> > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from living cells=

> > .- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>

> > You have never seen a human?

>

> > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>

> When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a living cell.

> When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants and some

> animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in.-

I see. When you said you accepted evolution you were lying - how very

surprising!

May 31, 2007

In article <f3mn38$t1o$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <f3a9mp$8pn$4@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <f39qln$okd$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>> In article

<1180158726.338881.255070@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >>>>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>> Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the

> >>>>>> "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By

> >>>>>> rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd

> >>>>>> also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to

> >>>>>> get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as

> >>>>>> throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can

> >>>>>> all be rescued.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Martin

> >>>>> Martin,

> >>>>> Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue

> >>>>> regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries

> >>>>> of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to

> >>>>> control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone

> >>>>> else on the lifeboat.

> >>>> So if the old man on the lifeboat wants to be splashing water from the

> >>>> ocean into the lifeboat, you should do likewise simply because you can't

> >>>> stop him? Shouldn't you at least be doing what you can to bail some

> >>>> water back OUT of the lifeboat even if he's splashing it back in as fast

> >>>> as or faster than you can bail it back out?

> >>> I am the only American in the boat and there are seven people on the boat

> >>> that do not care about pollution. That guy from China is actually bragging

> >>> about how much he loves pollution and CO2. They are splashing in the water

> >>> much faster than I can spash it back out. After several hours, my arms get

> >>> tired so I stop splashing. I give up.

> >> That's your problem. You'd just give up rather than try and stop them.

> >

> > It's difficult for one person to win the battle against seven people.

>

> But you don't want to even try. You don't even try to refrain from doing

> what they're doing wrong, much less try to stop them.

>

> "But, mommy, the other bullies were beating on Suzie and I couldn't stop

> them so I beat on her as well."

>

> The

> > point is that the only way to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

> > is if every country in the world takes major actions to reduce C02. If

> > America is the only country that does it--the end result is that C02

> > levels will continue to rise.

>

> But not as fast.

>

> The result in America is that our economy

> > would be placed in jeopardy--if we endorsed the accord. Both Clinton and

> > Bush realized this and that is the reason they did not endorse the

> > accords. Countries like China may sign the accord but as you may

> > know--communist countries don't usually abide by agreements that they have

> > signed.

>

> And if they didn't abide by it, we could enforce various sanctions such

> as trade embargos, etc.

That would start trade wars. We had some trade wars in the history of

America and the end result was harm to our economy.

May 31, 2007

On 31 Maj, 22:00, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f3mnk7$t1...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>

> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <9ltoi4-ifc....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

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

>

> > >> [snips]

>

> > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:03:36 -0700, Jason wrote:

>

> > >>> It also shows that you don't understand what you read--I clearly stated

> > >>> (see above) that "I was guessing that it was about $300-$400. It may have

> > >>> been more".

> > >> Yet your "guess" shows you're either lying through your teeth, or

> > >> incredibly stupid, as even _you_ should be able to figure out that living

> > >> expenses run considerably higher than $100 per month.

>

> > >> Your "guess" demonstrates, quite adequately, that you are either so stupid

> > >> you believe that $100/month is sufficient, or you were simply lying about

> > >> paying all her expenses.

>

> > > You are making assumptions that may or may not be true. The home for unwed

> > > mothers was established by the pastor of a church that has over 2000

> > > members. It's possible that all of the staff members were volunteers.

>

> > Then those volunteers "paid" some of her expenses by donating time.

>

> > It's

> > > possible that most of the food and clothing was donated by church members.

>

> > Then those members "paid" some of her expenses by donating food.

>

> > > It's possible that the doctors that delivered the babies were church

> > > members that did not charge the church for their services.

>

> > Then some of those doctors "paid" some of her expenses by donating

> > medical services.

>

> > You did NOT pay all of her expenses yourself. You didn't even come

> > anywhere close to doing so.

>

> > If you are free

> > > to make assumptions, I am also free to make assumptions.

>

> > But I didn't make any assumptions.

>

> > The truth is that

> > > I gave the ministry the exact amount of money that they requested. They

> > > were in a much better position to determine how much money was needed than

> > > either you or I.

>

> > YOU were in a much better position to not lie to begin with when you

> > claimed to have paid ALL her expenses yourself.

>

> Yes, I should have stated that I paid all of the expenses that the

> ministry asked me to pay. I made the mistake of assumming that I paid all

> of her expenses but in reality, I paid a portion of the expenses that were

> needed to care for her until her baby was placed for adoption.- Skjul tekst i anf

May 31, 2007

In article <f3mnk7$t1o$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <9ltoi4-ifc.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> >> [snips]

> >>

> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:03:36 -0700, Jason wrote:

> >>

> >>> It also shows that you don't understand what you read--I clearly stated

> >>> (see above) that "I was guessing that it was about $300-$400. It may have

> >>> been more".

> >> Yet your "guess" shows you're either lying through your teeth, or

> >> incredibly stupid, as even _you_ should be able to figure out that living

> >> expenses run considerably higher than $100 per month.

> >>

> >> Your "guess" demonstrates, quite adequately, that you are either so stupid

> >> you believe that $100/month is sufficient, or you were simply lying about

> >> paying all her expenses.

> >

> > You are making assumptions that may or may not be true. The home for unwed

> > mothers was established by the pastor of a church that has over 2000

> > members. It's possible that all of the staff members were volunteers.

>

> Then those volunteers "paid" some of her expenses by donating time.

>

> It's

> > possible that most of the food and clothing was donated by church members.

>

> Then those members "paid" some of her expenses by donating food.

>

> > It's possible that the doctors that delivered the babies were church

> > members that did not charge the church for their services.

>

> Then some of those doctors "paid" some of her expenses by donating

> medical services.

>

> You did NOT pay all of her expenses yourself. You didn't even come

> anywhere close to doing so.

>

> If you are free

> > to make assumptions, I am also free to make assumptions.

>

> But I didn't make any assumptions.

>

> The truth is that

> > I gave the ministry the exact amount of money that they requested. They

> > were in a much better position to determine how much money was needed than

> > either you or I.

>

> YOU were in a much better position to not lie to begin with when you

> claimed to have paid ALL her expenses yourself.

Yes, I should have stated that I paid all of the expenses that the

ministry asked me to pay. I made the mistake of assumming that I paid all

of her expenses but in reality, I paid a portion of the expenses that were

needed to care for her until her baby was placed for adoption.

May 31, 2007

In article <f3mjpn$jkv$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

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

> 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.

> >

>

> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I

> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I constantly ask

> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils,

> unreproducible complexity and "looks like")

>

> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the science.

> So far: None, nada, zip, nil.

>

> Tokay

They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR website.

I know they advertise the books in their newsletters.

May 31, 2007

In article <1180606118.872081.306450@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> 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

> >

> > > >> >> > 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.

My opinion is based on the fact that they ordered an author to alter a

conclusion that mentioned creation science. The other proof is that one of

the editors actually stated that she refused to print any letters that

were written by the advocates of creation science.

Jason

May 31, 2007

In article <1180628630.517336.87370@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bramble

<leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31 mayo, 02:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

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

> >

>

> >

> > > 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.

> -----------------snipped excess--------------------