1 edit
Originally posted by KeplerThat was included to demonstrate and spport the statement below:
Perhaps your memory is failing you. Part of that enormous pile of dribble you posted was this:
"In the 70s and early 80s, physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn’t publish openly creationist conclusions. hey are posted by creationists because you tell us. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
"In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent ‘the range of opinions ’. e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones."
I just wanted to make it clear that there is a bias that results in prejudical treatment of creationist scientist.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou posted it, I replied to it. Your not liking that fact is neither here nor there to me.
That was included to demonstrate and spport the statement below:
[b]"In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is tr ...[text shortened]... e it clear that there is a bias that results in prejudical treatment of creationist scientist.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd rightfully so, since creationists are not in the slightest interested in actually forwarding science, quite the opposite in fact. They want to discredit any science that refutes the fairy tales of the bible. They want to destroy science not build up actual scientific truth, they just want us to all go back in time when no one knew squat about the real world and therefore the biblical fantasy world could rule un-contested by mere facts and also put you on the stretcher rack if you disagreed.
That was included to demonstrate and spport the statement below:
[b]"In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is tr e it clear that there is a bias that results in prejudical treatment of creationist scientist.
That is their ultimate goal, send us back 1000 years into the dreaded time of the inquisition where people who thought for themselves were executed summarily.
They come into an issue with a stated agenda. Real science does not do that. Real science and real scientists come in with one agenda: Finding the fundamental cause of whatever they are working on, not to attempt to destroy 200 years of known discovery in their vain attempt to show creationistic fantasy as if it were real.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou seem proud of your prejudices.
And rightfully so, since creationists are not in the slightest interested in actually forwarding science, quite the opposite in fact. They want to discredit any science that refutes the fairy tales of the bible. They want to destroy science not build up actual scientific truth, they just want us to all go back in time when no one knew squat about the real w ...[text shortened]... years of known discovery in their vain attempt to show creationistic fantasy as if it were real.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseBirth of a Bunny
Hey, show me a bunny from 100 million years ago and we will be forced to chuck the whole evolution thing. Show me the money. You have nothing but words from a man made book from 3000 and 2000 odd years ago. Again, a one trick pony.
Evolution of a bunny
Giant bunny fossil found
Fossils due to flood.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen are you ever going to learn
Birth of a Bunny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImOJvtA-2OU
Evolution of a bunny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOHiOJ7wjzU
Giant bunny fossil found
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbh-L8iJiOo
Fossils due to flood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAgNxQCc2CI
The Instructor
that You Tube is not populated
by academic experts?
Originally posted by PhrannyYes, it is science. However, it also has some religious connotations and implications.
It would be nice if the religious arguments/questions were placed on the "spirituality" forum rather than here with science. Intelligent Design and creationism is not science.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsI spend all day surrounded by scientists and haven't met a single one who takes creationism seriously. Perhaps you are creatively applying the word "many". Not that it matters whether scientists in general take it seriously - obviously, the ones who matter in this case are the ones who are experts in the field of biology.
Many scientists consider it science.
The Instructor
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, the ones that matter are the ones that are experts in creation science.
I spend all day surrounded by scientists and haven't met a single one who takes creationism seriously. Perhaps you are creatively applying the word "many". Not that it matters whether scientists in general take it seriously - obviously, the ones who matter in this case are the ones who are experts in the field of biology.
The Instructor