Another Creationist Gets His Dumb ***** Kicked - Again

Religions > Atheism > Another Creationist Gets His Dumb ***** Kicked - Again

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Budikka666"
Date:	27 Aug 2006 10:04:31 AM
Object:	Another Creationist Gets His Dumb ***** Kicked - Again

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
Now gets his dumb ***** kicked again over his next book here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_0.html
Budikka
.

User: "FaceDancer"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	27 Aug 2006 06:05:58 PM

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed or taken seriously in the
science community. Talk.Origins is a known biased newsgroup, and thus
has no credibility.
It is akin to Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. One
does not look to Rush for an total analysis of american politics, and
one should not look at Talk.Origins as an analytical tool for serious
evolutionary biology.

Now gets his dumb ***** kicked again over his next book here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_0.html

Budikka

One website of many. Let me ask you this. What are your credentials in
biology?
Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell
Biology from the University of California at Berkeley. He has worked as
a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at
Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield,
California, an Dr. Wells has published articles in Development,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The
Scientist and The American Biology Teacher he has taught biology at
California State University in Hayward. I think that he as a Scientist
has the right to make any criticism he see fit on his level in his
field. I think you do not.
.

User: "TimK"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	27 Aug 2006 06:29:36 PM

"FaceDancer" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:44f22701$0$8146$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed ...

faqs peer reviewed?
Get a clue.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	30 Aug 2006 08:16:19 PM

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:29:36 GMT, "TimK" <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
alt.atheism

"FaceDancer" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:44f22701$0$8146$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed ...

faqs peer reviewed?
Get a clue.

You're asking way too much from the mental toddler, Tim.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "Steven J."
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	27 Aug 2006 06:54:22 PM

FaceDancer wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed or taken seriously in the
science community. Talk.Origins is a known biased newsgroup, and thus
has no credibility.

Jonathan Wells has stated _ipse dixit_ that he got a degree in
developmental biology simply in order to have the credentials to
discredit "Darwinism." That is, his conclusions were formed in advance
of his aquiring the evidence (and, judging from P.Z. Myers's treatment
of Wells's writings on developmental biology itself, to some extent
*instead* of aquiring the evidence). If that doesn't constitute "known
bias" and having "no credibility," what on Earth possibly could (short
answer: nothing, which is why Jonathan Wells himself is not taken
seriously in the scientific community)?
If you're depending on arguments from authority (and on some subjects
all of us must), an authority who starts by making his mind up, and
then learning the facts and cherry-picking and distorting them to
support a view formed when he was ignorant, is probably not the
authority you want.
Of course, if you aren't totally dependent on arguments from authority,
you might want to actually read the FAQ, and the Panda's Thumb
articles, and examine their arguments for yourself. Never mind their
"bias," just examine their actual criticisms to see what merit they
have.

It is akin to Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. One
does not look to Rush for an total analysis of american politics, and
one should not look at Talk.Origins as an analytical tool for serious
evolutionary biology.

I think you are confusing a preference for certain political values or
constituencies over others, with a preference for actual facts over
distortions, lies, and blunders. The Talk.Origins Archive is not, of
course, a peer-reviewed journal (though a number of its authors have
published on similar matters in such journals), nor is it a graduate
seminar in evolutionary biology. Its authors do, however, tend to know
what they are talking about.

Now gets his dumb ***** kicked again over his next book here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_0.html

Budikka

One website of many. Let me ask you this. What are your credentials in
biology?

Would it not be more important (even though the really crucial issue is
not credentials but the actual facts and reasoning supporting a
position) to question the credentials of the people writing the
articles? P.Z. Myers, at least, has a PhD in biology of his own, and
is not much impressed with the extent of Wells's work in the field.

Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell
Biology from the University of California at Berkeley. He has worked as
a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at
Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield,
California, an Dr. Wells has published articles in Development,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The
Scientist and The American Biology Teacher he has taught biology at
California State University in Hayward. I think that he as a Scientist
has the right to make any criticism he see fit on his level in his
field. I think you do not.

Oh, dear. If we're going to ban non-scientists from criticising the
work of scientists in their own fields, is there anyone other than
Wells who's going to be offering arguments against "Darwinism?"
Dembski is right out (a philosopher and, allegedly, a mathematician),
as is Behe (a scientist, but a biochemist rather than an actual
biologist). Pretty much everyone at Answers in Genesis or the
Institute for Creation Research is out, and Hugh Ross at Reasons to
Believe will have to limit himself to defending a unique Big Bang
against theories of a cyclic universe, and shut up about paleontology
and biology. I mean, ID proponents whine all the time about
"Darwinists" trying to shut up their critics, but no Darwinist ever
offered a suggestion to shut down the entire ID and creationist
movements as thoroughgoing as your suggestion that nonbiologists have
no right to offer criticisms of the theories of biologists.
And Wells will *still* be regarded, by virtually every biologist who
pays any attention to him at all, as a lightweight with no credibility
who's wrong on everything important he has to say.
-- Steven J.
.

User: "JabriolJade"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	27 Aug 2006 08:10:39 PM

Steven J. wrote:

FaceDancer wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

I think that he as a Scientist

has the right to make any criticism he see fit on his level in his
field. I think you do not.

Oh, dear. If we're going to ban non-scientists from criticising the
work of scientists in their own fields, is there anyone other than
Wells who's going to be offering arguments against "Darwinism?"

Actually, I think I am going to interrupt here. Many times I have
personally posted different opinions from many scientists. And the reply
I normally get is:
"So and So is not a biologist and knows scat" "and thus not qualified to
comment on evolution"
Here you have well educated Biologist. Micro biologist, and he has his
doubts on cetain findings in evolutionary biology. And you have a clown
like Budikaka making wild claim about Well's getting his ***** kicked.
So what is Budikaka credentials? You can't have it both ways... Either
non biologist who are scientist are qualified, but if they are not, then
us the laymen are less qualified to do so.
.

User: "Bobby Bryant"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	02 Sep 2006 05:34:50 PM

In article <jorIg.910$N84.801@trnddc08>,
JabriolJade <JabriolJade@mailinator.com> writes:

Steven J. wrote:

FaceDancer wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

I think that he as a Scientist

has the right to make any criticism he see fit on his level in his
field. I think you do not.

Oh, dear. If we're going to ban non-scientists from criticising the
work of scientists in their own fields, is there anyone other than
Wells who's going to be offering arguments against "Darwinism?"

Actually, I think I am going to interrupt here. Many times I have
personally posted different opinions from many scientists. And the reply
I normally get is:

"So and So is not a biologist and knows scat" "and thus not qualified to
comment on evolution"

Here you have well educated Biologist. Micro biologist, and he has his
doubts on cetain findings in evolutionary biology. And you have a clown
like Budikaka making wild claim about Well's getting his ***** kicked.

So what is Budikaka credentials?

He can read.

You can't have it both ways... Either non biologist who are
scientist are qualified, but if they are not, then us the laymen are
less qualified to do so.

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.

User: "Jabriol-Green"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	03 Sep 2006 06:51:55 AM

Bobby Bryant wrote:

In article <jorIg.910$N84.801@trnddc08>,
like Budikaka making wild claim about Well's getting his ***** kicked.

So what is Budikaka credentials?

He can read.

Many people with down syndrome can read. Can they understand what they read?
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	02 Sep 2006 05:59:17 PM

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:34:50 GMT,

(Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
- Refer: <eGnKg.20338$kO3.18878@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>

In article <jorIg.910$N84.801@trnddc08>,
JabriolJade <JabriolJade@mailinator.com> writes:

Steven J. wrote:

FaceDancer wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

I think that he as a Scientist

has the right to make any criticism he see fit on his level in his
field. I think you do not.

Oh, dear. If we're going to ban non-scientists from criticising the
work of scientists in their own fields, is there anyone other than
Wells who's going to be offering arguments against "Darwinism?"

Actually, I think I am going to interrupt here. Many times I have
personally posted different opinions from many scientists. And the reply
I normally get is:

"So and So is not a biologist and knows scat" "and thus not qualified to
comment on evolution"

Here you have well educated Biologist. Micro biologist, and he has his
doubts on cetain findings in evolutionary biology. And you have a clown
like Budikaka making wild claim about Well's getting his ***** kicked.

So what is Budikaka credentials?

He can read.

And think.
Which puts her 2 skills ahead of ALL creationists.

You can't have it both ways... Either non biologist who are
scientist are qualified, but if they are not, then us the laymen are
less qualified to do so.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Jabriol Now Posting as JabriolJade and FaceDancer	28 Aug 2006 08:16:37 PM

JabriolJade wrote:

I've never told you that. I've taken on your propositions, responded
to them, asked questions of you and...**YOU RUN AWAY**!! LoL! (See
below for a full list of things from which you've fled).

Here you have well educated Biologist. Micro biologist, and he has his
doubts on cetain findings in evolutionary biology.

If you watch a sports game and afterward someone asks you how it went
and you state, "the visiting team got its ***** kicked", do you have to
be a professional athlete to state that? Do you?
And do I have to be an expert to say you just got *your* ***** kicked in
this "exchange" (not that there will be actually *be* an exchange
because you will do what you *always* so when I face you down: snip and
run).

And you have a clown
like Budikaka making wild claim about Well's getting his ***** kicked.

So let's discuss it, Jabriol.
Name for me **ONE** paper which Wells or any other creationist has
published in a professional science journal such as _Nature_,
_Science_, _Journal of Molecular Evolution_, etc., which calls the
Theory of Evolution into serious question.
Can't do it?
I thought not.
Okay, then name for me **ONE** paper Wells or any other creationist has
published in a professional science journal such as _Nature_,
_Science_, _Journal of Molecular Evolution_, etc., which establishes
*any* theory which better explains the evidence than does the Theory of
Evolution.
Can't do it?
I thought not.
So why is that? Did you read the series of articles I referenced? Of
course not! So *you're* not qualified to discuss them, yet here you
are pontificating about it and having the patent hypocrisy to toss out
the straw man of calling me to task for "not being qualified"! LoL!
This from Andrea Bottaro who reviewed Chapter 9 of Wells's book of lies
at Panda's Thumb:
"Most damningly, in January 2002 "intelligent design" activists
initiated their own online journal "Progress in Complexity,
Information and Design", with the stated aim "to advance the
science of complexity by assessing the degree to which teleology is
relevant (or irrelevant) to the origin, development, and operation of
complex systems" (profoundly sounding jargon for "intelligent
design"), where they could have published any research free of
"censorship" or editorial pressures. Meant initially to be a
quarterly publication, as of today only 8 issues of the journal have
appeared in over 4 and a half years (the last in November 2005). None
of the articles published contains any research or scientific finding
based on "intelligent design". Neither have "intelligent
design" activists published any research papers in other venues
available to them, such as the peer-reviewed journal "Rivista di
Biologia/Biology Forum", which routinely harbors fringe
anti-evolution papers thanks to its editor, the Italian creationist
Giuseppe Sermonti, who was one of the pro-creationism "experts" at
the Kansas anti-evolution "show trial". Any "intelligent
design"-based research would definitely be welcome in Rivista-a
theoretical paper by Wells himself was published there several months
ago. Its absence speaks louder than any of Wells's unfounded
censorship accusations."
Andrea Bottaro, I believe, is an assistant professor of medicine with
interests in Biochemistry, Molecular and Cellular Biology. Is *he*
unqualified?
And why *is* it that creationists and IDiots aren't publishing, even in
their own journals? Is it because there's actually no such thing as
creation "science"?

So what is Budikaka credentials?

Well I can spell and my grammar beats yours. Go ask an English
professor.

You can't have it both ways... Either
non biologist who are scientist are qualified, but if they are not, then
us the laymen are less qualified to do so.

What credentials do I need to relate a reference which shows a liar
getting his ***** kicked? The article is written by Reed Cartwright, who
I believe has a PhD in Genetics. Is he unqualified, do you suppose?
Besides, I'm well qualified in distinguishing lies, since I've dealt
with yours for several years. That eminently qualifies me in detecting
them. Here's a list:
Jabriol Lies Series #1
http://tinyurl.com/2w7u9
Jabriol Lies Series #2
http://tinyurl.com/2l9rl
Jabriol Lies Series #3
http://tinyurl.com/27cvs
Jabriol Lies Series #4
http://tinyurl.com/33zrt
Jabriol Lies Series #5
http://tinyurl.com/2t944
Jabriol Lies Series #6
http://tinyurl.com/3776p
Jabriol Lies Series #7
http://tinyurl.com/82da6
Now, shall we look once again at the questions I have asked of you,
from which you are still running two years later? Let's!
Here are details questions relating *directly* to statements you've
made. You've never answered these questions (A brief summary of
unanswered qiestions follows):
1. A car is a living thing.
True or false?
2. Not counting living things, the universe is, in part, organic.
True or false?
3. This universe is the only example of a universe that we know of for
sure.
True/false?
4. We know for a fact that humans create cars, as can been seen from a
tour of any auto manufacturing plant.
True or false?
5. We have no known-for-a-fact examples of gods creating universes.
True or false?
6. If we know humans create cars, but we do not know that gods create
universes, trying to pretend that finding a car abandoned in the desert
leaves one in the same position, vis-a-vis its origins, as we are in
trying to understand the universe is an irredeemably braindead
proposition.
True or false?
7. In a thread started in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn on Sept 21,2003
you stated: "On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is
factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning
into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each
different type of living thing would reproduce only "according to its
kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into
being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished
bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and
highly complex, as living things are today."
(http://tinyurl.com/u62b)
That thread was titled "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis".
Posting such an article and/or believing we were created rather than
evolved is an open admission that you are in fact, a creationist.
True or false?
8. Regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of whether it was
or was not in the evolutionary line to birds, the archaeopteryx had
pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features and
therefore represents an example of a potential intermediate stage.
True or false?
9. The okapi, an animal alive and well today, and biologically related
to the giraffe is pretty much what a transitional giraffe could have
looked like.
True or false?
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faq s/faq-transitional.html summarises
discoveries pertaining to transitional fossils and contains over 70
references, many of which are to papers published in peer-reviewed
science journals.
True or false?
11. Something akin to a mouse could reasonably change 300 genes over 60
million years to become either human or a modern mouse.
True or false?
12. It is possible to clearly and scientifically define the Biblical
"kind" as used in the Noah's ark story in Genesis.
True or false?
13. There is a mechanism in genetics or biochemistry which prevents one
"kind" of organism varying into another "kind".
True or false?
14. Evolutionists hold that modern amphibians evolved from modern
fish.
True or false?
15. Evolutionists hold that modern reptiles evolved from modern
amphibians.
True or false?
16. Evolutionists hold that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles.
True or false?
17. Evolutionists hold that modern mammals evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?
18. Creationist letters published as a joke in a science publication
are of the same standing as peer-reviewed papers published in
recognized science journals.
True or false?
19. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that calls the Theory of
Evolution into serious question.
True or false?
20. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that establishes a better
theory to explain the distribution and variety of life on Earth today
than the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
21. There has been posted, in one place in a thread somewhere in these
news groups, a supported and referenced *list* of the colossal holes in
the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
22. It is hypocritical to demand peer-reviewed published evidence from
others in refutation of non-existent material favoring your own
arguments.
True or false?
23. References to long-dead dead topics such as "Piltdown man",
Nebraska "man", and Ramapithecus as a human ancestor are irrelevant to
the current state of the Theory of Evolution because no one but
creationists ever makes an issue of them any more.
True or false?
24. Certain creationists-in-denial will snip or ignore this entire
post because they cannot even handle a series of simple true/false
questions without realizing what a ***** they are.
True or false?
The last question is a little more difficult. It's multiple choice.
25. The match between human DNA and banana DNA is:
A. 95%
B. 75%
C. 60%
D. Greater than 50%
E. 50%
Please *support* your answer to question 25 with at least one
competent and intelligent reference that does not refer to a
non-existent article in _New Scientist_, is not a throw-away quotation,
and is not merely a headline from an article that has nothing otherwise
to do with the topic.
Still waiting on you answering these:
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #1
http://tinyurl.com/c75ql
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #2
http://tinyurl.com/cla6m
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #3
http://tinyurl.com/d5ku3
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #4
http://tinyurl.com/btmpg
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #5
http://tinyurl.com/7hkz9
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #6
http://tinyurl.com/9c8hp
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #7
http://tinyurl.com/cqanx
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #8
http://tinyurl.com/bqydk
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #9
http://tinyurl.com/dkmd3
And finally, let's put it to bed with a little deception of your own,
shall we?
Jabriol Misleading Quotes series #1
http://tinyurl.com/b3n6s
But any time you want to put up the best arguments for creation and
formally debate them with me, I'll be right here waiting. All you need
is two things:
1. The supported material
and
2. The guts.
Good luck on digging up either.
Budikka
.

User: "Rook5"
Title: Re: Jabriol Now Posting as JabriolJade and FaceDancer	29 Aug 2006 06:19:29 AM

Budikka666 wrote:

JabriolJade wrote:

I've never told you that. I've taken on your propositions, responded
to them, asked questions of you and...**YOU RUN AWAY**!! LoL! (See
below for a full list of things from which you've fled).

I am pleaseantly surprised that I have cause some sort of impresion on
yout brain, which is the size of a penaut.
As for posting as JabriolJade I Mentioned to Matt Siberstsein that I
will use the Jabriol moniker for TOE discussion.
As For FaceDancer who knows? It seem another Carolyn Gulley Sock. She
has full access to abuse greatnowhere.com as she see fit. FaceDancer
does fit her, since I think it is a shapeshifter from the Novel Doom or
Dune. And CArol does NYM shift on a daily basis.
As for your question I've anwerd them once, and you got embarrased.
such was the folly that it created amnesia, since you are quite fond of
asking them again.
oh well... Maybe you can up with question that an intelligfent person
would be interested in.
In the mean time:
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Jabriol Now Posting as Rook5 And Still Running Scared	29 Aug 2006 04:45:39 PM

Rook5 wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

JabriolJade wrote:

I've never told you that. I've taken on your propositions, responded
to them, asked questions of you and...**YOU RUN AWAY**!! LoL! (See
below for a full list of things from which you've fled).

I am pleaseantly surprised that I have cause some sort of impresion on
yout brain, which is the size of a penaut.

That would make it about ten times the size of your worthless *****.

As for posting as JabriolJade I Mentioned to Matt Siberstsein that I
will use the Jabriol moniker for TOE discussion.

Since you can find neither the guts nor the supported material to
actually discuss anything, that's a meaningless statement

As For FaceDancer who knows? It seem another Carolyn Gulley Sock. She
has full access to abuse greatnowhere.com as she see fit. FaceDancer
does fit her, since I think it is a shapeshifter from the Novel Doom or
Dune. And CArol does NYM shift on a daily basis.

No, it's you. You're a lying piece of *****. Deal with it. And answer
the questions.

As for your question I've anwerd them once

You have never "anwerd" them. Neither have you answered them. Quite
the opposite, in fact: you have repeatedly avoided answering them.

and you got embarrased.

Indeed I did - by the monumental stupidity you exhibited.

such was the folly that it created amnesia, since you are quite fond of
asking them again.

I will keep asking them until you actually answer them instead of
sidestepping them and then **LYING THAT YOU ANSWERED THEM AS YOU DID
AGAIN HERE**.

oh well... Maybe you can up with question that an intelligfent person
would be interested in.

That let's you out, you spineless coward.
Budikka
.

User: "Rook5"
Title: Re: Jabriol Now Posting as Rook5 And Still Running Scared	29 Aug 2006 05:17:27 PM

Budikka666 wrote:

Rook5 wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

JabriolJade wrote:

I've never told you that. I've taken on your propositions, responded
to them, asked questions of you and...**YOU RUN AWAY**!! LoL! (See
below for a full list of things from which you've fled).

I am pleaseantly surprised that I have cause some sort of impresion on
yout brain, which is the size of a penaut.

That would make it about ten times the size of your worth.......

insane fanatical ranting
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
.

User: "Bobby Bryant"
Title: Re: Jabriol Now Posting as JabriolJade and FaceDancer	02 Sep 2006 05:40:26 PM

In article <1156814197.597642.190260@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> writes:

Neither have "intelligent design" activists published any research
papers in other venues available to them, such as the peer-reviewed
journal "Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum", which routinely harbors
fringe anti-evolution papers thanks to its editor, the Italian
creationist Giuseppe Sermonti

IIRC, the Grand ID Bibliography does include one paper published there.
Whether it qualifies as a "research paper" is another question...
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.

User: "Steven J."
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	27 Aug 2006 08:40:17 PM

JabriolJade wrote:

Steven J. wrote:

FaceDancer wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

I think that he as a Scientist

has the right to make any criticism he see fit on his level in his
field. I think you do not.

Oh, dear. If we're going to ban non-scientists from criticising the
work of scientists in their own fields, is there anyone other than
Wells who's going to be offering arguments against "Darwinism?"

Actually, I think I am going to interrupt here. Many times I have
personally posted different opinions from many scientists. And the reply
I normally get is:

Don't be so modest. Many times, you have posted opinions different
from those of all sane human beings.

"So and So is not a biologist and knows scat" "and thus not qualified to
comment on evolution"

I would have thought the reply you normally get is, "don't you have a
chimpanzee that needs molesting?" But I would disagree that one needs
to be a biologist to know enough about evolution to comment on it.
Furthermore, one can be a biologist, and be mistaken about some aspects
of biology. But on your own account (and I will assume for the sake of
argument that it is correct), you are told both that so-and-so is not a
biologist, and that so-and-so is hopelessly ignorant of biology. The
former is not necessarily a disqualification; the latter is, and I
suspect the former is being used merely as a metonym for the
so-and-so's general ignorance of what he pontificates on.

Here you have well educated Biologist. Micro biologist, and he has his
doubts on cetain findings in evolutionary biology. And you have a clown
like Budikaka making wild claim about Well's getting his ***** kicked.

If another well-educated biologist shows that Wells has blatantly
edited quotes so that they say the opposite of what the person quoted
originally said, and that Wells is ignorant of relevant historical or
biological facts, just how well educated in biology do you have to be
to figure out that, in fact, Wells has had his fundament kicked?
Wells's education and credentials do not turn his lies into truths or
his errors into facts.

So what is Budikaka credentials? You can't have it both ways... Either
non biologist who are scientist are qualified, but if they are not, then
us the laymen are less qualified to do so.

Credentials are an indicator that strongly correlates to qualification
to speak on an issue, but they themselves are not what makes one
qualified to comment on something.
-- Steven J.
.

User: "Bobby Bryant"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	02 Sep 2006 05:36:21 PM

In article <1156729217.391896.313550@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Steven J." <steven_j@altavista.com> writes:

Furthermore, one can be a biologist, and be mistaken about some
aspects of biology.

Especially if you allow your religious beliefs to trump the evidence.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.

User: "Jabriol-Green"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	03 Sep 2006 06:52:49 AM

Bobby Bryant wrote:

In article <1156729217.391896.313550@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Steven J." <steven_j@altavista.com> writes:

Furthermore, one can be a biologist, and be mistaken about some
aspects of biology.

Especially if you allow your religious beliefs to trump the evidence.

And their you have it. A biologist must be an atheist. If not he is no
good. Damaged goods no doubts.
.

User: "Cheeks _"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	31 Aug 2006 05:00:23 AM

FaceDancer wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed or taken seriously in the
science community. Talk.Origins is a known biased newsgroup, and thus
has no credibility.

It is akin to Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. One
does not look to Rush for an total analysis of american politics, and
one should not look at Talk.Origins as an analytical tool for serious
evolutionary biology.

Now gets his dumb ***** kicked again over his next book here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_0.html

Budikka

Degrees do not necessarily mean much. Look at our 'president' who
managed a BA (apparently before he killed whatever brain he had
with cocaine and alcohol..). GW is arguably one of the most ignorant
leaders on the planet, and clearly a creationist proponet.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	31 Aug 2006 09:42:22 PM

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:00:23 -0600, Cheeks <_> wrote:
- Refer: <44f6b313$1@nntp.zianet.com>

FaceDancer wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed or taken seriously in the
science community. Talk.Origins is a known biased newsgroup, and thus
has no credibility.

It is akin to Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. One
does not look to Rush for an total analysis of american politics, and
one should not look at Talk.Origins as an analytical tool for serious
evolutionary biology.

Now gets his dumb ***** kicked again over his next book here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_0.html

Budikka

Degrees do not necessarily mean much. Look at our 'president' who
managed a BA (apparently before he killed whatever brain he had

His daddy bought it for him.
Jabriol's father would buy one for him, were he able to save up enough
snout in prison.

with cocaine and alcohol..). GW is arguably one of the most ignorant
leaders on the planet, and clearly a creationist proponet.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	01 Sep 2006 04:49:36 PM

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:12:22 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:00:23 -0600, Cheeks <_> wrote:
- Refer: <44f6b313$1@nntp.zianet.com>

FaceDancer wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed or taken seriously in the
science community. Talk.Origins is a known biased newsgroup, and thus
has no credibility.

It is akin to Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. One
does not look to Rush for an total analysis of american politics, and
one should not look at Talk.Origins as an analytical tool for serious
evolutionary biology.

Now gets his dumb ***** kicked again over his next book here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_0.html

Budikka

Degrees do not necessarily mean much. Look at our 'president' who
managed a BA (apparently before he killed whatever brain he had

His daddy bought it for him.

I understand it was Grandpappy Prescott who paid for it.

Jabriol's father would buy one for him, were he able to save up enough
snout in prison.

with cocaine and alcohol..). GW is arguably one of the most ignorant
leaders on the planet, and clearly a creationist proponet.

--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	01 Sep 2006 05:53:07 PM

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:49:36 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <5mahf2d4hts23brgl9cn2cc0592vu427ci@4ax.com>

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:12:22 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:00:23 -0600, Cheeks <_> wrote:
- Refer: <44f6b313$1@nntp.zianet.com>

FaceDancer wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed or taken seriously in the
science community. Talk.Origins is a known biased newsgroup, and thus
has no credibility.

It is akin to Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. One
does not look to Rush for an total analysis of american politics, and
one should not look at Talk.Origins as an analytical tool for serious
evolutionary biology.

Now gets his dumb ***** kicked again over his next book here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_0.html

Budikka

Degrees do not necessarily mean much. Look at our 'president' who
managed a BA (apparently before he killed whatever brain he had

His daddy bought it for him.

I understand it was Grandpappy Prescott who paid for it.

Well then, ultimately it was the Third Reich, not the Fourth one that
stumped up the stolen funds, then?

Jabriol's father would buy one for him, were he able to save up enough
snout in prison.

with cocaine and alcohol..). GW is arguably one of the most ignorant
leaders on the planet, and clearly a creationist proponet.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	03 Sep 2006 11:03:14 AM

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:23:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:49:36 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <5mahf2d4hts23brgl9cn2cc0592vu427ci@4ax.com>

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:12:22 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:00:23 -0600, Cheeks <_> wrote:
- Refer: <44f6b313$1@nntp.zianet.com>

FaceDancer wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed or taken seriously in the
science community. Talk.Origins is a known biased newsgroup, and thus
has no credibility.

It is akin to Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. One
does not look to Rush for an total analysis of american politics, and
one should not look at Talk.Origins as an analytical tool for serious
evolutionary biology.

Now gets his dumb ***** kicked again over his next book here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_0.html

Budikka

Degrees do not necessarily mean much. Look at our 'president' who
managed a BA (apparently before he killed whatever brain he had

His daddy bought it for him.

I understand it was Grandpappy Prescott who paid for it.

Well then, ultimately it was the Third Reich, not the Fourth one that
stumped up the stolen funds, then?

I'm not sure. All I'm aware of is Prescott had several companies which
were seized by the US Gov. for violations of the 'trading with the
enemy' act. I don't know how much trade he did with them versus others.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	03 Sep 2006 04:17:10 PM

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 09:03:14 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <b2vlf25tbta2v2kbc4apv4p5mgu1f5ig92@4ax.com>

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:23:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:49:36 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <5mahf2d4hts23brgl9cn2cc0592vu427ci@4ax.com>

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:12:22 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:00:23 -0600, Cheeks <_> wrote:
- Refer: <44f6b313$1@nntp.zianet.com>

FaceDancer wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed or taken seriously in the
science community. Talk.Origins is a known biased newsgroup, and thus
has no credibility.

It is akin to Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. One
does not look to Rush for an total analysis of american politics, and
one should not look at Talk.Origins as an analytical tool for serious
evolutionary biology.

Now gets his dumb ***** kicked again over his next book here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_0.html

Budikka

Degrees do not necessarily mean much. Look at our 'president' who
managed a BA (apparently before he killed whatever brain he had

His daddy bought it for him.

I understand it was Grandpappy Prescott who paid for it.

Well then, ultimately it was the Third Reich, not the Fourth one that
stumped up the stolen funds, then?

I'm guessing that he sold WMDs to the Nazi's.
It runs in the family.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	06 Sep 2006 03:27:41 PM

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:47:10 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 09:03:14 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <b2vlf25tbta2v2kbc4apv4p5mgu1f5ig92@4ax.com>

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:23:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

[]

Degrees do not necessarily mean much. Look at our 'president' who
managed a BA (apparently before he killed whatever brain he had

His daddy bought it for him.

I understand it was Grandpappy Prescott who paid for it.

Well then, ultimately it was the Third Reich, not the Fourth one that
stumped up the stolen funds, then?

I'm guessing that he sold WMDs to the Nazi's.
It runs in the family.

It certainly wouldn't have been German Potato Salad and Sauerkraut.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	06 Sep 2006 09:33:40 PM

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:27:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <enbuf2ho0fp6lebq0t4bcj4kupv6nglm89@4ax.com>

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:47:10 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 09:03:14 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <b2vlf25tbta2v2kbc4apv4p5mgu1f5ig92@4ax.com>

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:23:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

[]

Degrees do not necessarily mean much. Look at our 'president' who
managed a BA (apparently before he killed whatever brain he had

His daddy bought it for him.

I understand it was Grandpappy Prescott who paid for it.

Well then, ultimately it was the Third Reich, not the Fourth one that
stumped up the stolen funds, then?

I'm guessing that he sold WMDs to the Nazi's.
It runs in the family.

It certainly wouldn't have been German Potato Salad and Sauerkraut.

No, that would be legal, ethical, and unprofitable.
That's not way for a Bush to behave.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	13 Sep 2006 08:29:44 PM

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:03:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:27:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <enbuf2ho0fp6lebq0t4bcj4kupv6nglm89@4ax.com>

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:47:10 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 09:03:14 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <b2vlf25tbta2v2kbc4apv4p5mgu1f5ig92@4ax.com>

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:23:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

[]

Degrees do not necessarily mean much. Look at our 'president' who
managed a BA (apparently before he killed whatever brain he had

His daddy bought it for him.

I understand it was Grandpappy Prescott who paid for it.

Well then, ultimately it was the Third Reich, not the Fourth one that
stumped up the stolen funds, then?

I'm guessing that he sold WMDs to the Nazi's.
It runs in the family.

It certainly wouldn't have been German Potato Salad and Sauerkraut.

No, that would be legal, ethical, and unprofitable.
That's not way for a Bush to behave.

As the Bush family's demonstrated for over twenty years.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	18 Sep 2006 07:15:18 PM

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:29:44 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <53chg2pdasqbopgrefqtrscq1m6soheja1@4ax.com>

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:03:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:27:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <enbuf2ho0fp6lebq0t4bcj4kupv6nglm89@4ax.com>

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:47:10 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 09:03:14 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <b2vlf25tbta2v2kbc4apv4p5mgu1f5ig92@4ax.com>

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:23:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

[]

Degrees do not necessarily mean much. Look at our 'president' who
managed a BA (apparently before he killed whatever brain he had

His daddy bought it for him.

I understand it was Grandpappy Prescott who paid for it.

Well then, ultimately it was the Third Reich, not the Fourth one that
stumped up the stolen funds, then?

I'm guessing that he sold WMDs to the Nazi's.
It runs in the family.

It certainly wouldn't have been German Potato Salad and Sauerkraut.

No, that would be legal, ethical, and unprofitable.
That's not way for a Bush to behave.

As the Bush family's demonstrated for over twenty years.

Bring on the Biblical Burning Bush!
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	28 Aug 2006 07:46:14 PM

FaceDancer wrote:
Hi Jabriol.

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed

Lie! They are peer-reviewed by other scientists who post material to
PT and t.o. This is not quite the same as the peer-review process for
professional journals, but it is peer-review.

or taken seriously in the
science community.

LoL! Where did you dig up that fairytale? Seriously, where? Is that
your opinion? Can you support it? Or are you simply parroting
creationist propaganda?
? Talk.Origins is a known biased newsgroup, and thus

has no credibility.

Among whom, pray tell? Among demonstrated frauds and liars (aka
creationists), perhaps?

And where *would* you look, pray tell? The panda's thumb and t.o. are
contributed to by working scientists in disciplines related to
evolution. These same people publish in professional science journals.
Are you claiming they are not qualified to discuss evolution?
No one is pretending that PT or t.o. is a professional science journal,
but that does not imply the material is not scientificly valid.
Besides, many of the articles (for example, Kathleen Hunt's material on
transitionals) is heavily supported by references, including references
to professionally published science papers, as has been pointed out to
you before, but from which you've quite predictably run away.
So, again, where would *you* look for "unbiased" material on the Theory
of Evolution? On Answers in Genesis, maybe?

Now gets his dumb ***** kicked again over his next book here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_0.html

Budikka

One website of many. Let me ask you this. What are your credentials in
biology?

What are yours? And what does this have to do with anything?

Name for me **ONE** paper which Wells or any other creationist has
published in a professional science journal such as _Nature_,
_Science_, _Journal of Molecular Evolution_, etc., which calls the
Theory of Evolution into serious question.
Can't do it?
I thought not.
Okay, then name for me **ONE** paper Wells or any other creationist has
published in a professional science journal such as _Nature_,
_Science_, _Journal of Molecular Evolution_, etc., which establishes
*any* theory which better explains the evidence than does the Theory of
Evolution.
Can't do it?
I thought not.

I think that he as a Scientist
has the right to make any criticism he see fit on his level in his
field. I think you do not.

I didn't make a criticism, I simply said he got his dumb ***** kicked.
And he did. I didn't kick his *****, nor did I claim that I did. A
professional working scientist kicked his *****,. Got that?
However, if you feel so powerful in this subject, I'd be delighted to
formally debate creation/ID vs. the Theory of Evolution. I accept
right now. Do you? Name your forum, post your material there showing
*positive support* for creation/ID (using Wells's material if you
wish), and I'll take it on.
Can you do it?
I thought not.
Buh-Bye.
Budikka
.

User: "Rook5"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	29 Aug 2006 06:24:07 AM

Budikka666 wrote:

FaceDancer wrote:

Hi Jabriol.

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed

Lie! They are peer-reviewed by other scientists who post material to
PT and t.o.

So now I am FaceDancer?
Scientist who post to TO?
HHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA yuk yuk
yukyuk.....HHHHHHHHHHa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
you made a funny.
TO faqs peered reviewed? by who? The grand Pumpkin? I will ask him
this october.
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Jabrio Gets his Dumb * kicked - Again	29 Aug 2006 04:47:41 PM

Rook5 wrote:
SSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPP!
Now that I snipped all the idiotic drivel, there's nothing left to
respond to. Too bad. Keep running you pathetic little chicken-*****
*****.
Budikka
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Another Creationist Gets His Dumb * Kicked - Again	05 Sep 2006 05:08:27 PM

On 28 Aug 2006 17:46:14 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Budikka666"
<budikka1@netscape.net> in
<1156812374.168932.160680@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

FaceDancer wrote:

Hi Jabriol.

Budikka666 wrote:

Jonathan Wells, the dummy who wrote "The Icons of Evolution" and got
his dumb ***** kicked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

First the T.O faqs are not peered reviewed

Lie! They are peer-reviewed by other scientists who post material to
PT and t.o.

No, that is not what peer reviewed means. No, the T.O. FAQs are not
peer reviewed. But don't accept my word, ask in talk.origins.

This is not quite the same as the peer-review process for
professional journals, but it is peer-review.

It is a review process, but calling it peer review will lead to
confusion.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

Page 1 of 3

Post reply

Dumb Designers Change Tack Again
Atheists proved once again they are dumb idiots and whiners
Dumb and Dumber The U.S. Army lowers recruitment standards � again.
Joey "The Pope" Ratz Makes a Dumb-***** of Himself - Again.
Really Dumb Theist Poster?
1 Dumb Little Solar Sytem in your Dumb Little Head
Re: Young Dumb and Republican
Re: Young Dumb and Republican

CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE DUMB LIBERAL
Jeb Bush dumb as a rock, too
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE DUMB LIBERAL
Aladdin expels Ronstadt after dumb-stupid liberal political remarks. Another liberal bites the dust!
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE DUMB LIBERAL
Re: How to Play Dumb and Make It Work!
Tim Robbins, Hyper-Super-Leftist LIBERAL DUMB-*****!

Topics

Bible

Abortion

Atheism

Depression

Physics

Education

Philosophy

Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus

Politics-USA

Politics

Politics-Misc

Politics-Republicans