"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

This is getting to be a bit of tit for tat, JB, and I have no illusions
of getting you to support evolving life, and though I was once a
creationist of sorts when I was young, that ship has long sailed in my
case.

Then you are in agreement with Carl Marx, who left seminary school after
reading Darwin's theory

If creation science is going to be science, it is going to have to
produce some science.

Creation Science is only scientific in it's view and interpretation of the
problems with macro evolution interpretation. It deals with review of
existing science that has been found lacking. It is not concerned
specifically with productivity nor in generating fraudulent science for the
purpose of satisfying grant requirements.

I'd love to see some peer reviewed cites of the creationist research,
but none seem to be forthcoming. If you have any, let me know, and I'll
read and discuss them wit ya.


So till then we'll just have to disagree.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Your pre-conceived peers can't be trusted because of overt and hysterical
censorship by threats of character assassination and blacklisting. Evidence
that supports alternate conclusions exists outside of your search limits so
are dismissed with prejudice.