Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 166 of 224 (13076)
07-08-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Fred Williams
07-08-2002 5:19 PM


Fred Williams writes:

No, evolution absolutely requires, it demands, the appearance of new algorithms to program for new useful features.
A example of a new algorithm developing from random mutation was provided in Message 142.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Fred Williams, posted 07-08-2002 5:19 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Fred Williams, posted 07-09-2002 7:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 167 of 224 (13077)
07-08-2002 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by edge
07-07-2002 3:46 PM


quote:
Yes, Fred, your (perhaps not so) favorite bonehead geologist here still wondering how you apply Gitt Information to biological systems.
It’s perhaps worth belaboring my point. My primary goal here is to show that information is devastating to evolution even if we ignore the Gitt nail-in-the-coffin definition of information. Using less stringent requirements for information, such as the corollaries I gave Mark and Joe Meert, evolutionists are still left without a chair when the music stops!
quote:
What conscious mind is sending the message from organism to organism?
You misunderstand what Gitt is saying. The information was already programmed in the genome by the Sender (Jesus Christ) at the point of creation. From that point on, the information slowly deteriorates over time, and eventually you get people who start believing in fairytales!
quote:
And unfortunately, I have been exposed to too many numerical models of complex natural systems that utterly fail to represent reality.
LOL! It’s because you are a geologist!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by edge, posted 07-07-2002 3:46 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by edge, posted 07-08-2002 6:08 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 172 by derwood, posted 07-09-2002 10:03 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 168 of 224 (13079)
07-08-2002 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Fred Williams
07-08-2002 5:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
It’s perhaps worth belaboring my point. My primary goal here is to show that information is devastating to evolution even if we ignore the Gitt nail-in-the-coffin definition of information. Using less stringent requirements for information, such as the corollaries I gave Mark and Joe Meert, evolutionists are still left without a chair when the music stops!
LOL! A typical creationists ploy. Create a definition and then find out that, miraculously, evolution cannot happen! I think this is called stacking the deck, Fred.
quote:
What conscious mind is sending the message from organism to organism?
Fred: You misunderstand what Gitt is saying. The information was already programmed in the genome by the Sender (Jesus Christ) at the point of creation. From that point on, the information slowly deteriorates over time, and eventually you get people who start believing in fairytales!
No, I understand quite well. However, are you sure that a nonmental relay is valid for transmission of information (according to edge-information, this is not possible). And I still do not see who the reciever is.
And so, we have no choice but to deteriorate? How gloomy a philosophy you have. And I thought it was the evolutionists who base their world view on death and destruction, and ever declining standards.
quote:
And unfortunately, I have been exposed to too many numerical models of complex natural systems that utterly fail to represent reality.
Fred: LOL! It’s because you are a geologist!
Yeah, I know, I'm always having to clean up someone else's mess ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Fred Williams, posted 07-08-2002 5:32 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-08-2002 6:34 PM edge has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 169 of 224 (13080)
07-08-2002 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by edge
07-08-2002 6:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
Fred: You misunderstand what Gitt is saying. The information was already programmed in the genome by the Sender (Jesus Christ) at the point of creation ...
Edge: No, I understand quite well. However, are you sure that a nonmental relay is valid for transmission of information (according to edge-information, this is not possible). And I still do not see who the reciever is.

Oh Edge, did you deliberately misunderstand Fred?
He means simply that the flow of information is from a "Sender (Jesus Christ)" to a receiver he does not specify and the channel is the genome. This is a tremendous breakthrough for creationism and apologetics in general, because in information theory the roles of sender and channel condition can be reversed. All we need to do is keep the channel condition constant - for the genome, this could be by cloning - and we can examine the state of the sender.
According to Information Theory, Dolly the Sheep may indeed be the the Lamb of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by edge, posted 07-08-2002 6:08 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by derwood, posted 07-09-2002 10:06 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 170 of 224 (13084)
07-08-2002 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Fred Williams
07-08-2002 5:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:
You have said in another thread that information science is the dagger in the heart of evolution. How can this be so, when the raw material of evolution, the beneficial mutation, isn’t considered new information anyway, by your own definition?
Fred:
No, the problem is the subjective use of the term beneficial. As I stated earlier, many evolutionists claim the sickle-cell mutation is beneficial, and therefore must represent new information. Yet I know of no info scientist in the world who believes sickle-cell represents an increase in information. I also pointed out that creation info theorists such as Spetner would accept a bonafide beneficial mutation (one that is beneficial to the population), as increased information. I’ll repeat my point again for emphasis sake, even this less stringent requirement cannot be met by evolutionists. Evolutionists drudge up a few questionable examples, yet there should be literally billions of examples that meet Spetner’s requirement if evolution were true.

The problem is most definitely not the subjective use of the term beneficial. I have given you a hypothetical example, that is directly beneficial to the organism in the next generation, is it new information, or not?
Sickle cell trait shows a phenotypic gain & loss of function. Now, if Gitts definition won’t allow a new function to = new information, then how can you claim that function loss = information loss, whilst maintaining the same standards?
I’m talking about a hypothetical scenario, where a new function is gained via a mutation. Whether it is beneficial to the organism there & then is irrelevant. For example, an enzyme that digests cellulose in a carnivore may not immediately benefit the species, but in a few generations during a famine may decide whether a few organisms live or die. You can say it’s only new info at that stage, I really don’t mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

No evolution absolutely requires, it demands, the appearance of new algorithms to program for new useful features. How did we get to feathers from scales? To sonar from no sonar? From single-cell to human? It is incorrect for you to say that evolution merely requires new/altered function. It need the additional program space, plus the algorithm (that’s why informed evolutionists try to argue gene duplication/subsequent mutation & selection).

1/ OK, what is the nature of the algorithm that is required to produce new information that goes beyond mutation/phenotypic function gain?
2/ Does evolution absolutely require new algorithms to produce new features? My earlier question asked would you consider an addition or deletion of a nucleotide from a gene new information, if it produced something useful for an organism? That is, that the protein (or RNA, for that matter) has changed. You said no.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the nylon digesting bacteria, ( http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm ), where the addition of a single thymine produces an enzyme that digests nylon in a gene sequence. Here an organism has a new feature, now, either,
1/ a new algorithm has produced a new feature, fulfilling your definition of new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature, or,
2/ a new feature occurred without a new algorithm, making your statement wrong. In this case it comes back to new function not requiring new information, & therefore evolution not requiring new information, as you define it.
Scales to feathers, molecules to man. Evolutionary theory predicts it happened via many small incremental mutations that add/delete/improve function, rather than saltational events. If you are saying that these increments do not represent information, then so be it, but information science then cannot prohibit evolution.
It seems to me that both you, & Gitt, in defining new information, have divorced new phenotypic functionality from new information. Any phenotypic gain of function isn’t new information, but it seems that any phenotypic loss of function is information loss!!??
Information, as you define it, still seems irrelevant to me regarding evolution.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Fred Williams, posted 07-08-2002 5:19 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 07-08-2002 10:04 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 178 by Fred Williams, posted 07-09-2002 8:43 PM mark24 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 171 of 224 (13109)
07-08-2002 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by mark24
07-08-2002 7:14 PM


Mark writes:

Now, if Gitts definition won’t allow a new function to = new information, then how can you claim that function loss = information loss, whilst maintaining the same standards?
I think you've reduced the key contradiction to its crux. Fred says Gitt-information rules out information gain, but if function loss == information loss, then by necessity function gain == information gain. Since we can demonstrate function gain, Gitt-information theory is falsified.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by mark24, posted 07-08-2002 7:14 PM mark24 has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 172 of 224 (13159)
07-09-2002 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Fred Williams
07-08-2002 5:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
BLAH INFORMATION BLAH GITT BLAH EXPERT
Gitt 'information', which I shall call Schitt information, is totally made up creationist nonsense.
Williams the electrical engineer creationist calls himself an 'expert' in information despite admitting to contributing nothing to the field nor engaging in any higher-education on the matter and so has latched onto whatever he can to desperately try to prop up his "the bible is 100% accurate" pap.
Best bet?
Ignore him. I think I will try that from now on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Fred Williams, posted 07-08-2002 5:32 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 173 of 224 (13160)
07-09-2002 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Mister Pamboli
07-08-2002 6:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
According to Information Theory, Dolly the Sheep may indeed be the the Lamb of God.

LOL! Good one!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-08-2002 6:34 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 174 of 224 (13161)
07-09-2002 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Fred Williams
07-08-2002 5:19 PM


quote:
Fred:
...(that’s why informed evolutionists try to argue gene duplication/subsequent mutation & selection).
Are these the dsame "informed evolutionists" that 'know' functional is the same thing as genic?
Williams tactic: In case you haven't noticed, Williams will try to insult via claiming that those that are "informed" would agree with him.
In the past, he has used this tactic and it backfired. He is just trying to make people think that he knows more than he really does.
It is a tactic, and nothing more. Best bet is to ignore his references to "informed" anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Fred Williams, posted 07-08-2002 5:19 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Admin, posted 07-09-2002 10:56 AM derwood has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 175 of 224 (13164)
07-09-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by derwood
07-09-2002 10:10 AM


Rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines says, "Argue the position, not the person." Pointing out mistakes and fallacies in chains of argument and calling attention to non-sequiturs should be sufficient.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by derwood, posted 07-09-2002 10:10 AM derwood has not replied

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 224 (13175)
07-09-2002 6:05 PM


This information argument never ceases to amaze me. Under the Creationist scenario:
1. 2 people, starting 6-10,000 years ago, give rise to a worldwide population of over 6 billion people of incredible variety.
2. 2 wolf-like animals walked off an ark 4,000 years ago and gave rise to wolves, coyotes, an incredible variety of dogs, etc.
What do both of these examples have in common? Both would fall under the no new information created domain. That’s right, we now have Chinese, Germans, Indians, Nigerians, Arabs, Native Americans, etc., all hypothetically derived from a founding population of 2, and no new information was created in the process. Once there were few alleles, now there are many. Yet there was no increase in information. As I have said before, evolution is able to proceed nicely under this Creationist definition of information.
FK
P.S. Mr. Williams, I hope you get a chance to respond to the guest book entry I left for you at your web site.

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Fred Williams, posted 07-10-2002 1:24 PM Fedmahn Kassad has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 177 of 224 (13183)
07-09-2002 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Percy
07-08-2002 5:29 PM


quote:
A example of a new algorithm developing from random mutation was provided in Message 142.
There are several problems with your simulation. It shares the same shortcomings as Dawkins simulation, plus some of the failings of Genetic Algorithms.
1) The chance of success is unity. So even using the Shannon information (the lowest level), your simulation fails to produce new information randomly.
2) You have a pre-determined target. Therefore, any information your simulation produces can only be actuated in the presence of already existing information. That is, by higher intelligence — you. You have programmed the simulation to stop at the pattern you like. Thus, randomness did not produce information, intelligence did.
3) A minor point since the above already invalidate your argument: As it relates to reality, your simulation (like genetic algorithms and Dawkin’s simulation) employs strict truncation selection, which is extremely unrealistic and simply does not occur in nature.
I should also note that your simulation did not develop a new algorithm. It developed a pre-determined pattern. An algorithm is the same as subroutine, if that helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 07-08-2002 5:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 07-09-2002 9:35 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 178 of 224 (13186)
07-09-2002 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by mark24
07-08-2002 7:14 PM


quote:
The problem is most definitely not the subjective use of the term beneficial. I have given you a hypothetical example, that is directly beneficial to the organism in the next generation, is it new information, or not?
What hypothetical example did you give me?
What if the mutation is directly beneficial to the organism in the next generation, yet it is not beneficial to the population as a whole? Sickle-cell again rears its ugly head. The problem most definitely is the subjective term beneficial and the importance of considering the population as a whole within a range of possible environments (within reason). For example, it may appear beneficial for an offspring to lose the gene for hair via mutation in an increasingly hot environment. But if the gene for long hair over time completely vanishes from the population then information is clearly lost! Yet by your definition information was gained. Do you see the problem with your logic, and why a clear definition of beneficial is necessary?
quote:
Sickle cell trait shows a phenotypic gain & loss of function.
No it shows a phenotypic loss for the population as a whole, and a phenotypic gain only in an unhealthy environment.
quote:
Now, if Gitts definition won’t allow a new function to = new information, then how can you claim that function loss = information loss, whilst maintaining the same standards?
Quite easily. By your logic, if your computer explodes into a ball of fire, and you toast marshmellows over it, then it must be new information since its got a new function!
As it pertains to our discussion, what Gitt information says is that it is impossible to have a new algorithm (subroutine) arise in the genome without a sender (ie a Programmer).
quote:
I’m talking about a hypothetical scenario, where a new function is gained via a mutation. Whether it is beneficial to the organism there & then is irrelevant.
My marshmellow analogy shows that it is quite relevant!
quote:
For example, an enzyme that digests cellulose in a carnivore may not immediately benefit the species, but in a few generations during a famine may decide whether a few organisms live or die. You can say it’s only new info at that stage, I really don’t mind.
No, it’s not new info if it is already pre-programmed information that is idle. You are now getting very close to the third of three common objections I get on the information problem!
BTW, why didn’t evolution select for cellulose since it is so readily abundant?
quote:
I’m sure you’ve heard of the nylon digesting bacteria, ( http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm ), where the addition of a single thymine produces an enzyme that digests nylon in a gene sequence. Here an organism has a new feature
Is it a useful feature, or is it bad (something we can roast marshmellows over)?
quote:
, now, either,
1/ a new algorithm has produced a new feature, fulfilling your definition of new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature, or,
No, I said the feature has to be useful. Why did you leave useful out? And it’s not a new algorithm, it’s a deviation of a current algorithm. It makes the organism heterozygous at that locus. That means if one has a selective advantage over the other and gains a foothold in the population, then the less fit allele might be driven to extinction over time. Is the net result a positive gain of information, or a negative gain? Those are the types of questions that need to be asked. It's also why evolutionists posit gene duplication, then mutation, to get new information in the genome.
quote:
2/ a new feature occurred without a new algorithm, making your statement wrong. In this case it comes back to new function not requiring new information, & therefore evolution not requiring new information, as you define it.
That’s not how I defined it. I never said that new function requires new information. I said that new useful functions, such as sonar development, require new programming (new algorithm, ie new information) in the genome.
quote:
Evolutionary theory predicts it happened via many small incremental mutations that add/delete/improve function,
Ah, therein lies the problem! Even if beneficial mutations occur, you cannot earn pennies and spend dimes and expect to make money. Science has shown overwhelmingly that genomes are deteriorating. The pace is downward, not upward.
quote:
rather than saltational events.
Evolutionary theory never predicted this! The data rejected it, so the evolutionary theory accommodated it! That’s one of the big problems with the evo theory (it’s hard to call it a theory when it’s really a low-grade hypothesis), it predicts nothing and accomodates everything. If saltational events had been found, then you would be saying that evolution predicted it all along!
quote:
If you are saying that these increments do not represent information, then so be it, but information science then cannot prohibit evolution.
Information science prohibits evolution because of what evolution claims, that huge amounts of information have accumulated via random mutation and blind selection. Evolution also claims that the genetic code arose naturalistically. Information science also says that this is impossible.
The problem is, even with watered down definitions of information, you still can’t win. Dr Lee Spetner documents this well in his book ‘Not by Chance’. You talk about small incremental mutations, yet you can’t even find one bonafide example of an increment (unless you of course define increment loosely so that it could be a decrement!
quote:
Information, as you define it, still seems irrelevant to me regarding evolution.
Join a big crowd of evolutionists who are right there with you in the crowd of denial. Brushing aside the problem does not make it go away. Evolution is a fairytale, folks! (that was for Scotty
)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by mark24, posted 07-08-2002 7:14 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 07-09-2002 10:46 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 187 by derwood, posted 07-10-2002 1:56 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 188 by mark24, posted 07-10-2002 2:14 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 194 by derwood, posted 07-11-2002 10:51 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 179 of 224 (13191)
07-09-2002 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Fred Williams
07-09-2002 7:48 PM


Fred Williams writes:

There are several problems with your simulation.
It's a model of evolution doing precisely what you said Gitt-information says is impossible, namely develop a new algorithm from random mutation.
Your specific objections appear to have little to do with information theory, which I thought was the basis of your objections to evolution, but addressing them anyway:

1) The chance of success is unity. So even using the Shannon information (the lowest level), your simulation fails to produce new information randomly.
First, this objection based upon Shannon misunderstands Shannon, whose work dealt with communication of information over channels and did not address the issue of new information. He *did* address the issue of what constituted communicating information, along the lines of saying that you can't tell someone something he already knows.
Second, the C++ program is just a model. Like any other model of natural processes you can modify and improve it to better model reality. If you'd like to the model to have a different probability of success then simply change it. One easy way is to reduce the number of terms for the next state of each bit from two to one.

2) You have a pre-determined target. Therefore, any information your simulation produces can only be actuated in the presence of already existing information. That is, by higher intelligence — you. You have programmed the simulation to stop at the pattern you like. Thus, randomness did not produce information, intelligence did.
First, if this had any validity it would rule out all modeling, from weather to flight paths of spacecraft to nuclear particle physics.
Second, it's just a model. The desired pattern can also be generated randomly, removing your irrelevant objection that it is predetermined.
Third, evolution also has a predetermined goal determined by the environment.
Fourth, no intelligence produced the coefficients, which are the equivalent of information in the model. They were generated randomly. The program has no idea what the right coefficients are, and certainly I have none.

3) A minor point since the above already invalidate your argument: As it relates to reality, your simulation (like genetic algorithms and Dawkin’s simulation) employs strict truncation selection, which is extremely unrealistic and simply does not occur in nature.
Then just change the model. It wouldn't affect the outcome other than to require more generations.

I should also note that your simulation did not develop a new algorithm. It developed a pre-determined pattern.
You already said this in point 2.

An algorithm is the same as subroutine, if that helps.
Thanks for the help, Fred. Always appreciated!
The bottom line is that random mutation combined with environmental, sexual and other types of selection are sufficient to generate new algorithms, and you can easily model this in computer simulations just like you can model scores of other natural processes. Obviously your interpretation of information theory has somewhere gone astray.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Fred Williams, posted 07-09-2002 7:48 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 180 of 224 (13200)
07-09-2002 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Fred Williams
07-09-2002 8:43 PM


Fred Williams writes:

As it pertains to our discussion, what Gitt information says is that it is impossible to have a new algorithm (subroutine) arise in the genome without a sender (ie a Programmer).
This is obviously false since it leads to contradictory conclusions, for instance that a new algorithm inserted by humans through gene splicing is information, while the identical algorithm added through random mutation is not information.

Quite easily. By your logic, if your computer explodes into a ball of fire, and you toast marshmellows over it, then it must be new information since its got a new function!
This is the same as roasting the organism over a fire to give it the new function of food, and is way outside the framework of the discussion, which was within a genomic context. Obviously Gitt cannot rationally argue that subtracting information causes function loss but that adding information cannot cause function gain. That makes no sense. After all, if you subtract information thereby removing its corresponding function, then restoring the information must restore the corresponding function.
Add to this the above mentioned contradictory conclusion of Gitt-information concerning what constitutes information and there's not much left.
You seem to have many restrictions having nothing to do with information theory. For example, the function must be useful. What could information theory possibly know or care about whether information is useful? Or that an algorithm is not a new algorithm if it represents a modification to a pre-existing algorithm instead of coming into being all at once like some form of immaculate conception.

Science has shown overwhelmingly that genomes are deteriorating.
It's okay to argue for your point of view, but let's keep the representations of science straight. This is your own evangelical view, and certainly nowhere remotely close to any accepted view within science.

Information science also says that this is impossible.
You say information science says this is impossible, but your views on information theory have been shown to lead to contradictions.

Join a big crowd of evolutionists who are right there with you in the crowd of denial. Brushing aside the problem does not make it go away. Evolution is a fairytale, folks! (that was for Scotty)
Join a big crowd of Creationists who are right there with you in the crowd of denial. Brushing aside the problem does not make it go away. Creationism is a fairytale, folks! (this one's for you, Fred).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Fred Williams, posted 07-09-2002 8:43 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Fred Williams, posted 07-10-2002 2:16 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024