In article <5144p4$j6t at nntp3.u.washington.edu>,
wnn at evolution.genetics.washington.edu says...
>>In article <513g0t$me5 at phaedrus.kralizec.net.au>,
>Brett Phillips <moggy at lisp.com.au> wrote:
>>In article <50vsv8$q8q at griffin.itc.gu.edu.au>, s843382 at its.gu.edu.au>>says...
>[lots of pro- and anti-creationism stuff on both sides deleted]
>>Great arguement Daniel, you have totally convinced me. Not to follow
>>view, but to prove your dogmatism. You really do believe that yours is
>>the only answer don't you? It ruins a good oportunity to have a decent
>>The "decent debate" should take place on talk.origins, of course. The
>newsgroup I read this on, bionet.molbio.evolution, is not for endless
>creation/evolution debating, and I think I can speak for most of our
>in asking that this discussion move to talk.origins. I would have edited
>the other newsgroups to which it was cross-posted except that they look
>whose readers would feel the same way.
>>It is a complete pain to have to wade through a lot of endless (and not
>debate about creationism to find the molecular evolution postings. I
>that we are on the road to a moderated news group if this keeps up. If
>creationist debaters keep ignoring the wishes of our readership by
>this group, then let's discuss how we can get it moderated.
One question: In what way was my original posting to do with Creation at
all? You totally missed my argument concerning Genetic Algorithms. Not
one section of my posting has anything to do with the Creation/Evolution
debate, so just cool down! Perhaps you should go back to the original
posting and read again.