quote:
I still cannot believe many of you do not see the religious nature of evolution. Only until this is recognised can this debate go on.
OK, Evolution is religious in nature.
"PhD" stands for Pretty holy Disciple.
Now that we've accepted that this part of Biology is actually a religion, perhaps you can now explain how Creationist papers are, in fact, scientific, unlike the clear and obvious deeply religious nature of Biology.
I will now paste Loudmouth's lovely list from his post #26 here, as it is perfect for you to use as a checklist.
So, for you to support your assertion that creationist papers are being unjustly rejected you must show how these papers avoid the following pitfalls:
1. The theory has to be testable and potentially falsifiable.
2. Is not contradicted by other observations.
3. If there is a contradiction, explain how the falsifying data is actually in error.
4. The theory has to be supported by evidence that is repeatable, regardless of religion or ideology held by other scientists.
5. Makes predictions about future observations.
If you can do this, then I will agree that there is an unjust bias.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-16-2004 01:35 AM
™ Version 4.2