And how do bible quotes have anything to do the chimp/human genetic gap, or for biology what so ever?
You also mentioned one of your sources was 'Richard Milton'. He seems to have a rather colorful set of theories just about everythying scientific. None of it is mainsteam. Some of it is down right on the strange side. Hr does not seem to have any biological training either.
The same goes for Dr Gene Scott too.
What peer reviewed biologial article did either of those write? What training and degrees in science did they earn?
Here is Dr Park's seven signs of Bogus science gave a group of federal judges when they asked abotu the relability for expert testemony
quote:
The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
It looks like both Richard Milton and Gene Scott fall into a number of these catagories. Given that, why should we accept your source as providing valid information?
™ Version 4.2