Well, I am very late coming onto this thread, and when I do, I find a real fist fight going on...
Nicmarlo...I also question what you said in your post #128...you said, "No I doubt. I don't believe the crap I read in Science Journals, they won't print what scientists report who don't go along with their one way evolution ideas."...I know that there must be all sorts of reasons why a science Journal will turn down a particular article, but I am not sure that I would really believe that a science journal would turn down an article, simply because it ran counter to the theory of evolution, if the science behind the counter evolution theory was good...if the science or the techniques used were questionable then I can see the reason why a science journal might turn down such an article...
So, I would really like to see some facts of what sorts of articles were turned down, and for what reason...I am not looking to get into this ongoing argument, that seems to be going on, but I am looking for information...
First of all, I don't participate in these threads, for the same reason I don't get on religion threads. As I've been repeatedly called a liar for other of my statements, my posting history will bear this out. Because I don't participate on these threads, I usually just lurk (hence, the reason why I won't particpate, as the obnoxiousness and rudeness is unbelievable...as you have witnessed thus far on this thread.) The point being, because I am not interacting, and just reading, I do not have at my recall, the numerous posts I've seen in the past regarding those specific articles/studies that would not be published in the Science Journal...nor do I have at my recall, the specific articles I've read on the web concerning works that other scientists considered as credible and reliable, but, nevertheless were refused publishing in journals. What I do recall reading was that refusal was due to the conclusions not fitting within the agenda of the editors/boards, not because of it being due to "junk" science.