|
Author
|
Topic: Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?
|
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1378 days) Posts: 134 Joined: 09-09-2009
|
|
Message 61 of 167 (523777)
09-12-2009 3:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by Huntard
09-12-2009 2:15 PM
|
|
Re: God using evolution
Huntard writes: You confuse me Archy. Here you say evolution IS true. No I don't say that at all Huntard. I understand and fully appreciate the difference between rapid adaptation, and evolution which claims millions of years is required for even small changes to take place in a species; or at least they used to say that until 5 or 7 years ago when evo adopted the argument of rapid adaptation and called it rapid evolution. The only thing evolving faster than animals for that pseudo science are the definitions which frame the science itself. Any new observation which conflicts with once insisted upon facts are simply adopted by and promoted as more evidence that evolution is true. Here is an article which says it all and explains that it was Intelligent Design which first acknowledged the reality of Rapid Adaptation only to have it co-opted by evolutionists when they could no longer deny its reality, which they most assuredly did originally. Here's what I mean...
Rapid Adaptation of Finches not Evidence For Evolution
by Patrick Young, Ph.D.
The January 11th, 2002 issue of Science magazine reports on research confirming rapid adaptation of house finches in Montana and Alabama1,2 . The documents’ recount, (1) male and female finches grow differently both within and between populations, (2) males grow faster than females and have wider bills and longer tails in Alabama, and (3) females grow faster and are bigger overall in Montana3 . Both writings are proclaiming these finch adaptations are evidence for evolution. It appears the definitions used for evolution have undergone more mutations than the theory as a whole. Even the Columbus Dispatch and our proposed new Ohio Science Standards report the definition of evolution is "a change in gene frequency in a population over time". Evolutionists justify this by asserting a definition can be altered as more information is acquired about the theory. However, the definition is now too general and surreptitiously conceals fundamental flaws in the theory itself. Furthermore, the delineation incorporates observations unrelated to the concepts of Darwinian evolution and effectively results in a classic "bait and switch". A more appropriate definition for evolution is, a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world. This definition requires evolutionists to justify their claims of simplicity to complexity, life from nonlife, and common ancestry. The other definition seeks to include observed adaptations within species without a corresponding increase in genetic information. For an evolutionist to accomplish this, he must scientifically describe and observe the mechanism by which genetic information is increased via mutation. Since this has never been observed, and there is no viable mechanism, evolution is nothing more than philosophical ramblings. Biophysicist, Dr. Lee Spetner stated, "The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the neo-Darwin theory is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.4 Reporting finch adaptation as evidence for evolution is not unique. Finch evolution gained momentum when the research team of Peter and Rosemary Grant went to the Galapagos Islands in 1973. While observing the wide diversity of finches, they discovered that during an ordinary drought, the average beak length of some birds slightly increased. This preliminary data was then extrapolated to conclude after a certain number of droughts; a new species of finch could be created with a longer beak5. What they did not realize at the time, was during rainy seasons the beaks did not stay the same, they returned to normal. This type of intrinsic oscillation is an eloquent illustration of natural selection via adaptation but not evolution. The subject papers presented in Science magazine are excellent research examples demonstrating rapid adaptations within a species of bird. However, these adaptations utilize information previously existing in the genetic code of these creatures. The fact remains, they are still finches and they are still birds. Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by Huntard, posted 09-12-2009 2:15 PM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 62 of 167 (523785)
09-12-2009 3:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by Archangel
09-12-2009 11:40 AM
|
|
Re: God using evolution
Sorry, your comments still do not alter the accuracy of what I posted.
This is how evolution works, they explain their perspective in such a way that sounds good, but unless you look at what they assume and claim from the other point of view, you will miss the fact that you are being sold a bill of goods which defies logic and reality as reality works in the REAL WORLD. And I don't need you to tell me about evolution and fossil man. I studied the subject in grad school--half of my six years there. I've seen the empirical evidence.
So your secular humanist religion/philosophy, (and I say this not to insult, but to clarify that it isn't science,)... Nor does your definition of "science," designed to exclude any evolutionary sciences, have any meaning in the real world. It is as false as your attempt to paint evolutionary theory as a religion. In fact science is the opposite of religion. You're not doing too well. If you have any empirical evidence, now would be a good time to post it.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 11:40 AM | | Archangel has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 63 of 167 (523786)
09-12-2009 4:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Archangel
09-12-2009 3:12 PM
|
|
Re: God using evolution
Archangel writes: No I don't say that at all Huntard.
See, your statements are very confusing. On the one hand you claim evolution happens, on the other you say it doesn't. Very weird, and very confusing. Or are you saying that organisms don't adapt, even though one post ago you said they did.
I understand and fully appreciate the difference between rapid adaptation, and evolution
Since there isn't any difference at all, at least, not to science, I'd say it's you who are confused.
which claims millions of years is required for even small changes to take place in a species
No it doesn't, and never did.
Any new observation which conflicts with once insisted upon facts are simply adopted by and promoted as more evidence that evolution is true.
Yes, that's how science works, it adopts itself to suit the evidence, something creationists loathe to do.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 3:12 PM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1378 days) Posts: 134 Joined: 09-09-2009
|
|
|
Message 64 of 167 (523789)
09-12-2009 4:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by Coyote
09-12-2009 3:59 PM
|
|
Re: God using evolution
Coyote writes: Sorry, your comments still do not alter the accuracy of what I posted. Not if you are in denial, and reject everything I say out of hand, it doesn't. All you are doing is evading having to deal with my arguments by claiming my arguments are moot. Not very impressive defense of your philosophy at all if you are as educated as you claim to be and have scientific facts on your side.
And I don't need you to tell me about evolution and fossil man. I studied the subject in grad school--half of my six years there. I've seen the empirical evidence. That bluster and piece of paper may impress you Coyote, but to me it represents the seminary education of a secular humanist cult. And if you have this empirical evidence so readily at hand, why aren't you posting any of it? I'll tell you why. Because you know it isn't absolutely tested/proven evidence with controls in laboratory conditions at all. It is based on massive assumptions based on forced conclusions which are supported by FAITH only, and it requires more faith than I need to accept that my supernatural and intelligent God created all that is in this perfectly symbiotic and self supporting chain of life.
Nor does your definition of "science," designed to exclude any evolutionary sciences, have any meaning in the real world. It is as false as your attempt to paint evolutionary theory as a religion. In fact science is the opposite of religion. Actually, it isn't false at all. It just goes against the secular humanist status quo. What I find interesting is that you aren't actually refuting anything I say. All you're doing is what every other evolutionist does in response to my common sense arguments and that is to attack my position while proving nothing at all.
You're not doing too well. If you have any empirical evidence, now would be a good time to post it. Like they say down south, I'm cadillacin. Especially since you haven't refuted anything I have said or defended anything you believe in a factual manner at all with all of your alleged edumacation. This here innorant christian is doin jus fine in comparison.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by Coyote, posted 09-12-2009 3:59 PM | | Coyote has replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 65 of 167 (523791)
09-12-2009 4:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by Archangel
09-12-2009 4:39 PM
|
|
Irrelevant sniping hidden
This here innorant christian is doin jus fine in comparison. No, you're looking a complete tool. But carry on, it's entertaining  {Irrelevant sniping hidden. This message did nothing to move the debate and had no valid reason for existing. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. Subtitle also changes. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Very minor tweak.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 4:39 PM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 66 of 167 (523793)
09-12-2009 4:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Blissful
08-19-2009 6:17 PM
|
|
I have many scientist friends who are evangelical Christians - indeed, I was still just about one myself when I first arrived at EvC. None of them doubt evolution for a second. But each has their own way of shoe-horning standard evangelical doctrine into the obvious physical nature of the Universe, and I would say that it is a bit of a juggling act to reconcile the two without slipping into more liberal theology. The common way of dealing with this is pure cognitive dissonance - simply partition your thinking.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Blissful, posted 08-19-2009 6:17 PM | | Blissful has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 68 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 6:31 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 67 of 167 (523804)
09-12-2009 5:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by Archangel
09-12-2009 4:39 PM
|
|
Re: God using evolution
Just to address some of your baseless comments:
That bluster and piece of paper may impress you Coyote, but to me it represents the seminary education of a secular humanist cult.
You paint yourself as a zealot with such comments. Science is not a cult; don't know if we can say the same about you and your co-believers. You are presenting an argument that would probably not be accepted by the vast majority of Christians.
And if you have this empirical evidence so readily at hand, why aren't you posting any of it? The evidence would take up the whole website and many more. It takes up whole floors in libraries, and many museums around the world. And any summaries I post you would just hand-wave away.
I'll tell you why. Because you know it isn't absolutely tested/proven evidence with controls in laboratory conditions at all.
Where did you get the mistaken idea that all of science has to be "proven" under laboratory conditions? That is nonsense. Or creation "science."
It is based on massive assumptions based on forced conclusions which are supported by FAITH only, and it requires more faith than I need to accept that my supernatural and intelligent God created all that is in this perfectly symbiotic and self supporting chain of life. More nonsense. The theory of evolution is a well-tested theory supported by massive amounts of evidence--evidence to which you have deliberately blinded yourself. But to return to my original post: there is no empirical evidence for deities. None, nada, zip. Edited by Coyote, : Correct boo-boo Edited by Coyote, : And can't spell today either
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 4:39 PM | | Archangel has replied |
|
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1378 days) Posts: 134 Joined: 09-09-2009
|
|
|
Message 68 of 167 (523810)
09-12-2009 6:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by cavediver
09-12-2009 4:52 PM
|
|
cavediver writes: I have many scientist friends who are evangelical Christians - indeed, I was still just about one myself when I first arrived at EvC. None of them doubt evolution for a second. But each has their own way of shoe-horning standard evangelical doctrine into the obvious physical nature of the Universe, and I would say that it is a bit of a juggling act to reconcile the two without slipping into more liberal theology. The common way of dealing with this is pure cognitive dissonance - simply partition your thinking.
I will neither make excuses for, nor attempt to justify the corruption of the creation account your so called evangelical christians participate in by watering down Genesis in order to marry it with this secular humanist and corrupted world view for how man came to become the apex life form on Earth. That isn't my job as you folks can make your own excuses for corrupting the truth. I also find it impossible to partition my thinking when that isn't how information works in life. Various sciences must come together in unison and in unity in order for their combined results to effectively prove this so called science. I knew that evolution was a pseudo science when I took evo 101 in college and was told on day one that asking questions which conflict with the so called accepted conclusion isn't allowed. When the professor couldn't answer my most basic questions from my way of thinking, I knew right off this science was a farce. If it can't stand scrutiny then it doesn't deserve to be trusted or believed in and it surely doesn't deserve to be taught to young people as a valid and proven science at all. Not one of you so called intellectuals have responded to the science discussed in this article below, at all. And neither can you deny that the definition for evolution which I must debate against changes with every different evolutionist I face in debate. Your so called evolutionary doctrines are as flighty and inconsistent as your science itself is. And that is because you must change details, facts, assumptions and conclusions at every turn when we ask common sense questions if what you said previously is held to a literal standard.
Rapid Adaptation of Finches not Evidence For Evolution
by Patrick Young, Ph.D.
The January 11th, 2002 issue of Science magazine reports on research confirming rapid adaptation of house finches in Montana and Alabama1,2 . The documents’ recount, (1) male and female finches grow differently both within and between populations, (2) males grow faster than females and have wider bills and longer tails in Alabama, and (3) females grow faster and are bigger overall in Montana3 . Both writings are proclaiming these finch adaptations are evidence for evolution. It appears the definitions used for evolution have undergone more mutations than the theory as a whole. Even the Columbus Dispatch and our proposed new Ohio Science Standards report the definition of evolution is "a change in gene frequency in a population over time". Evolutionists justify this by asserting a definition can be altered as more information is acquired about the theory. However, the definition is now too general and surreptitiously conceals fundamental flaws in the theory itself. Furthermore, the delineation incorporates observations unrelated to the concepts of Darwinian evolution and effectively results in a classic "bait and switch". The reason you can't dispute or refute the truth in this statement is because it is absolutely irrefutable and an indisputable truth in regard to how evolution works. But this isn't how real science works. Real science is testable, repeatable and provable with controls in a laboratory. But all you can do is take new scientific discoveries which tell us that something was observed, claim it as a fact and then make all kinds of wild assumptions regarding the how and why of it when you have no clue regarding that aspect of what it is you have just discovered through observation.
A more appropriate definition for evolution is, a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world. This definition requires evolutionists to justify their claims of simplicity to complexity, life from nonlife, and common ancestry. Yet, nobody here even attempted to defend against the obvious and undeniable conflict and contradiction of evolution which this paragraph outlines, just as nobody took on the contradictions I exposed in my initial posts above. It seems like those who follow this philosophy are trained to ignore common sense facts as they blindly defend the party line.
The other definition seeks to include observed adaptations within species without a corresponding increase in genetic information. For an evolutionist to accomplish this, he must scientifically describe and observe the mechanism by which genetic information is increased via mutation. Since this has never been observed, and there is no viable mechanism, evolution is nothing more than philosophical ramblings. Biophysicist, Dr. Lee Spetner stated, "The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the neo-Darwin theory is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.4 Reporting finch adaptation as evidence for evolution is not unique. Finch evolution gained momentum when the research team of Peter and Rosemary Grant went to the Galapagos Islands in 1973. While observing the wide diversity of finches, they discovered that during an ordinary drought, the average beak length of some birds slightly increased. This preliminary data was then extrapolated to conclude after a certain number of droughts; a new species of finch could be created with a longer beak5. What they did not realize at the time, was during rainy seasons the beaks did not stay the same, they returned to normal. This type of intrinsic oscillation is an eloquent illustration of natural selection via adaptation but not evolution. The subject papers presented in Science magazine are excellent research examples demonstrating rapid adaptations within a species of bird. However, these adaptations utilize information previously existing in the genetic code of these creatures. The fact remains, they are still finches and they are still birds. Forbidden The bolded paragraph above answers why nobody wanted to deal with this linked article, because it exposes very concisely why adaptation has nothing to do with evolution, much less macroevolution which this pseudo science will cling to in a vain attempt to justify that which cannot be proven by any means possible in the real world. What really offends me about this so called science is that it depends on the gullibility and ignorance of people to believe what is so absolutely unprovable. (WHICH I CAN OUTLINE FOR YOU IN CLEAR TERMS IF YOU LIKE!) And then to add insult to injury, it is you very deceived and gullible victims of this pseudo scientific lie who condescendingly and sanctimoniously talk down to we creationists as if we are morons. It's like living in bizarro world. Edited by Archangel, : No reason given. Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by cavediver, posted 09-12-2009 4:52 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 69 of 167 (523813)
09-12-2009 6:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by Archangel
09-12-2009 6:31 PM
|
|
When the professor couldn't answer my most basic questions from my way of thinking, I knew right off this science was a farce.
Perhaps it was your questions, and your way of thinking, that were the farce in a science class. You certainly have provided nothing here of scientific merit. All you can do is post articles from creationist websites or literature, and expound on your worldview--one which most likely is shared by very few Christians. But none of that addresses the topic. And that topic, in turn, hinges on the existence of deities--for which there is absolutely no evidence. And you claim that the theory of evolution is on shaky ground? Heinlein was right: Belief gets in the way of learning. Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 6:31 PM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 70 of 167 (523814)
09-12-2009 6:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by Archangel
09-12-2009 6:31 PM
|
|
When the professor couldn't answer my most basic questions from my way of thinking, I knew right off this science was a farce. Does this mean you're the handsome youth in Jack Chick's tract "Big Daddy?" Does "real science" exclude all of Fred Hoyle's work on stellar nucleosynthesis because we can't make a star in the lab? Are supernovae something other than exploding stars?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 6:31 PM | | Archangel has replied |
|
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1378 days) Posts: 134 Joined: 09-09-2009
|
|
|
Message 71 of 167 (523817)
09-12-2009 7:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by Coyote
09-12-2009 5:40 PM
|
|
Re: God using evolution
Coyote writes: You paint yourself as a zealot with such comments. Science is not a cult; don't know if we can say the same about you and your co-believers. You are presenting an argument that would probably not be accepted by the vast majority of Christians. I'm not a zealot at all, nor am I an apologist for all christians or even for the christian church. And neither am I saying or implying in any way that SCIENCE is a cult in any way. I VERY CLEARLY CALLED EVOLUTION A CULT. IN TYPICAL FASHION, AS EVOLUTION OPPONENTS ALWAYS DO, YOU HAVE MISQUOTED ME IN ORDER TO IMPLY THAT I AM ANTI-SCIENCE WHEN I AM NOTHING OF THE SORT. Science is the reason that we have attained the technological advances we have attained in just my lifetime of 56 years. From medicine to electronics, to mechanical advances to the discoveries in plastics, metallurgy and ceramics, not to mention the advances the application of these materials have led to. It is mind boggling. There is a passage in my bible which states that "in the last days men will be as gods are", and these leaps forward show that promise has been fulfilled in reality in this generation THROUGH REAL AND LEGITIMATE SCIENCE. So don't take my rejection of your pseudo science which is based on a foundation of unproven and unprovable assumptions going all the way back to the so called evolution of original life from that primordial ooze, to attempt to label me as a science rejecting religious zealot who denies all science cuz it's evil or some other foolishness. Because I'm typing to you on a macbook computer. I also enjoy all of the feature benefits on my new iphone 3GS, am constantly converting my home to smart technology as an ongoing project, and enjoy all of the technological advances this countries position of wealth and opportunity avails me. But I reject lies and unproven allegations, and yes, I even defend against them as they promote a false belief system which cannot be proven no matter how many times you call it science. What's that saying that's become so popular in politics lately? You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. So it is with the label of calling the false cult of evolution a science. It's still a false cult.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by Coyote, posted 09-12-2009 5:40 PM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1378 days) Posts: 134 Joined: 09-09-2009
|
|
|
Message 72 of 167 (523818)
09-12-2009 7:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by Coragyps
09-12-2009 6:49 PM
|
|
Coragyps writes: Does "real science" exclude all of Fred Hoyle's work on stellar nucleosynthesis because we can't make a star in the lab? Are supernovae something other than exploding stars? Now you're just being your typical sanctimonious and condescending self while once again not responding to anything I have actually forwarded. HOW TYPICAL! And no, I have no problem with Hoyles CONTRIBUTIONS to stellar nucleosynthesis. But where would he have been without Burbidge? Are off topic questions while never responding to the direct questions I raise the best you can do? Is this what you people call debating evolution? It doesn't matter where I go, all I get is the same off topic and unrelated derailments as the meat of every argument I offer is ignored.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by Coragyps, posted 09-12-2009 6:49 PM | | Coragyps has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 81 by Coragyps, posted 09-12-2009 9:12 PM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 4094 days) Posts: 87 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: 03-28-2009
|
|
|
Message 73 of 167 (523819)
09-12-2009 7:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by Archangel
09-12-2009 7:11 PM
|
|
Re: God using evolution
Science is the reason that we have attained the technological advances we have attained in just my lifetime of 56 years. From medicine to electronics, to mechanical advances to the discoveries in plastics, metallurgy and ceramics, not to mention the advances the application of these materials have led to. It is mind boggling. The medical advances you have seen and will see in your lifetime rely directly on biology. With out our understanding of the biological sciences the medical advances would not be possible, period. And as Dobzhansky said "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." As a biologist in the biomedical field I know this quotation couldn't be more true.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 7:11 PM | | Archangel has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 77 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 8:33 PM | | SammyJean has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 74 of 167 (523820)
09-12-2009 7:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by Archangel
09-12-2009 7:11 PM
|
|
Re: God using evolution
You reject the scientific method, and yet claim you are pro-science? You just pick and choose the results you like, and reject the results you disagree with because of religious belief, and claim to be pro-science? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Science is what follows the scientific method, whether you like the results or not. Religion seems to be just the opposite; religion is a system where you acquire a belief somehow and then seek to justify it by picking and choosing whatever fits with that belief, while avoiding, at all costs, empirical evidence and anything else that might contradict that belief. You have been doing a fine job in that regard. But back to the original topic (again). If one wants to propose that god/God/gods created evolution, shouldn't there be some evidence presented that such deities even exist? The fact that there are some 4,000 world religions, with probably in excess of 40,000 subdivisions or sects, suggests that there is no empirical evidence anywhere in the religious realm. But if you want to present some empirical evidence feel free to do so.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 7:11 PM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1378 days) Posts: 134 Joined: 09-09-2009
|
|
|
Message 75 of 167 (523821)
09-12-2009 8:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by Coragyps
09-12-2009 6:49 PM
|
|
Coragyps writes: Does this mean you're the handsome youth in Jack Chick's tract "Big Daddy?" No, unlike evolution and comic characters, I am real. How sad that your belief in the fairy tale of evolution makes it impossible for you to tell the difference between what is real and fiction. Chick.com: Big Daddy?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by Coragyps, posted 09-12-2009 6:49 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2