[tallhappy]

Thank you. But I was well aware of the sites hosting the photos. One is talk.origins which is the flip side of one of those creationist web sites -- an evangelistic and not scientific site. MOS I was not familar with and chose the MOS picture to address first because it seemed to be perhaps more solid in terms of science. Yet from post 64 which Coyoteman graciously pointed me too I see MOS only references a broad-topic book (a lay book as well is my impression) for the cast photo and also references t.o. in their same set of references.

I am talking about the actual scientific background in terms of peer review and the like. Not much later packages put together by axe-grinders.

[Ichneumon]

One is talk.origins which is the flip side of one of those creationist web sites -- an evangelistic and not scientific site.

Oh look, tallhappy doesn't understand the difference between "evangelistic" and scientific. Talk.origins discusses the scientific evidence and research, and strives to follow scientific guidelines about how to evaluate such things. It's scientific. Since tallhappy can't find fault with their material on a scientific basis, he resorts to trying to hand-wave them away with cutesy inaccurate labels like "evangelistic".

I always find it amusing when folks who try to denigrate science do so by labeling it a "religion" in some way -- aren't they aware that they're tacitly admitting that they think there's something "inferior" about religion?