New Scientist is included in the appropriate section in Nonstandard cosmologies it doesnt make any sense to include it here because none of the people who signed it had a creationist POV Creationists using aging steadystaters to declare there is a controversy is like creationists using punctuated equilibrium to advocate that no animals evolved on EarthThere may indeed be blatant POV in the article that needs to be removed Please try to illustrate some of these here for consideration  1424 26 Mar 2005 UTC

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
New Scientist is included in the appropriate section in Nonstandard cosmologies it doesnt make any sense to include it here because none of the people who signed it had a creationist POV Creationists using aging steadystaters to declare there is a controversy is like creationists using punctuated equilibrium to advocate that no animals evolved on EarthThere may indeed be blatant POV in the article that needs to be removed Please try to illustrate some of these here for consideration  1424 26 Mar 2005 UTC

