>On Jun 27, 2:34 pm, roym...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>[...]

>>> Well, there really isn't any "technical stuff" on the creationists'
>>> side. Just a bunch of pseudoscientific double-talk designed to confuse
>>> the issue.

>>
>> Well, thanks for that.  I'ld like to think that it's sometimes helpful
>> to distinguish people at the folk level for being less informed than
>> those up to speed in their movement.
>>
>> So, given that there are credible scientists amongst the creationists,
>> do we know if any of their papers been published in Nature?

>
>What credible scientists would that be? ID does not use the
>scientific method. When someone tries to get non-science published as
>science that eliminates them from being credible scientists.
>
>Hypothesis: Our universe is less than 7,000 years old.
>
>Test: If our hypothesis were true then no star would have existed over
>7,000 years ago.
>
>Result: We have found that some stars existed 15,000,000,000 years
>ago.

>Non-scientific conclusion: Therefore we reject the null hypothesis.
>Obviously our test was wrong.
>
>
>House
>
>
>Because some of the . . . er . . . more delicate individuals were
>frightened by the Jayne Cobb reference. And no, I'm not a real Doctor
>but Hugh Laurie plays one on TV. ;-)