Scientists 'see new species born'

BBC News Online science editor ^ | 2004 June | By Dr David Whitehouse

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Funny, you've been the one insulting everyoe.

And no, I won't bugger off. "


Don't ping me anymore. You are beneath me.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You can't handle insults.....fancy that.....Would have never guessed.....

A thin skinned bully who can't take his own medecine."

I handle them fine. I have no patience though for those who make statements and are too timid to back them up.

[andysandmikesmom]

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...

[Lakeshark]

I have no patience

Agreed, no debate required.

[nicmarlo]

You said that anti-evolutionists where not allowed to publish. Are you backing down from this statement?

Where did I say that?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I have no patience

---

"Agreed, no debate required."

How typical of a creationist to lie about what someone said. I actually said,

"I have no patience though for those who make statements and are too timid to back them up."

Does lying make you think your God will love you any more? Do you consider OK if you are Lying For The Lord? Is this the best you can do?

[Darksheare]

"You are beneath me."

This from a guy who can't make up his mind:


"Mind your own business."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1525629/posts?page=273#273

"This is an open forum and people are allowed to post about whatever is posted."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1525629/posts?page=285#285

"Mind your own business."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1525629/posts?page=298#298

[Darksheare]

"I handle them fine."

Funny, post 341 says otherwise.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Where did I say that?"

Here:

"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."(nicmarlo, post 128)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Second warning: Don't post to me.

[Lakeshark]

You have no idea if what you're saying is true or not. You lashed out your thoughts and words that you can't possibly have any backing for or defend. You are the epitome of what you have charged nicmarlo with. You are still classless, clueless, and crude. Obvious to anyone reading what you say. Why would anyone want to discuss anything with such an ass?

But just keep digging, pal.

[Darksheare]

Then leave nicmarlo alone.

[Darksheare]

See his post 350.
If he doesn't leave nics alone, it is no dice.

[nicmarlo]

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...

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.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You have no idea if what you're saying is true or not. You lashed out your thoughts and words that you can't possibly have any backing for or defend."

No, I can defend my words, and am willing to do so. Can you?

"You are still classless, clueless, and crude. Obvious to anyone reading what you say. Why would anyone want to discuss anything with such an ass?

But just keep digging, pal."

Because I ask those who make claims to back them up? How odd.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Then leave nicmarlo alone."


3rd warning; next has consequences. DON'T POST TO ME.

[nicmarlo]

THAT: (Your words): You said that anti-evolutionists where not allowed to publish. Are you backing down from this statement?

IS NOT:

THAT: (My words): "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."(nicmarlo, post 128)

[Lakeshark]

Then prove and defend your words to me in post #346.

I'll be waiting, genius.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" First of all, I don't participate in these threads, for the same reason I don't get on religion threads."

Are you saying your posts here are a mirage? What do you mean you don't post on these threads, YOU DID post 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."

Is THAT your answer? You don't REMEMBER? Then why did you make a very specfic statement to the contrary?

[andysandmikesmom]

Interesting...well, I should be able to 'google' or 'askjeeves', and find some information on what you have said, and then need time to read any articles about this, and then make up my own mind...

thanks for the reply....