[APBaer]

"Nature and Science have a bias against publishing papers by incompetent, biased morons, it seems."

A pity really, since instead they drag their nutty ideas into FR where some post stuff like "the earth is 6,000 years old."

[sackofcatfood]

It's a valid claim if they have evidence and analysis to support it. If you have some time, pick up an issue of Scientific American. I have a hard time justifying publishing that and not some of the better creationist articles I've read. The important thing here is to let everybody have their say, not just people you *want* to have their say.

In advocating censorship of claims which conflict with the presently accepted paradigm, you are essentially just a modernized extension of the Spanish Inquisition.

Congratulations.

[stands2reason]

A pity really, since instead they drag their nutty ideas into FR where some post stuff like "the earth is 6,000 years old."

Hey, that assertion is scientific, and is in no way derived from religion. The fact that the Bible also implies that the earth is 6000 years old as well is pure coincidence.