Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 251 (653717)
02-23-2012 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by hooah212002
02-23-2012 7:47 PM


Re: The Theory of Creation
You need to understand "Special Creation".
Mankind is a Special Creation, not evolved.
There are other specific kinds, for example the Dove and the Raven are different kinds.
The idea of any one single creation event for all animals or plants is anathema.
Each "kind" is a special creation, unrelated to all other created kinds.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by hooah212002, posted 02-23-2012 7:47 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 02-23-2012 8:38 PM jar has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 62 of 251 (653719)
02-23-2012 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
02-23-2012 8:12 PM


Re: The Theory of Creation
Preach on brutha jar!
I know what religionists say about their creaiton myth, what Mod said still doesn't explain why they continue to conflate evolution and abiogenesis. No one is telling them they have to accept either, just that they need to at least understand they are different theories that both would work independantly of one another.

"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 02-23-2012 8:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 02-23-2012 8:48 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 251 (653721)
02-23-2012 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by hooah212002
02-23-2012 8:38 PM


Re: The Theory of Creation
They react the way they do because both evolution and abiogenesis are not Special Creation.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 02-23-2012 8:38 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 64 of 251 (653722)
02-23-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Perdition
02-23-2012 1:14 PM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
Perdition writes:
Now, I'm not sure if this is what Buz means or not, but reading it simply as a sentience, it seems to be correct.
And
Perhaps I'm being too generous here with Buz, and knowing his posting history, it is a very large possibility, but for the moment, his sentence appears to be correct.
I'm not sure if this is intentional or not but given it is Perdition, there is a possibility of intentional. However, I would still be on the side of Buzsaw actually being sentient (although I don't have absolute proof due to a seeming lack of overwhelming evidence).
It still made me LMAO.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program. (sorry admins, would it be better if I put it in the humor thread?)

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Perdition, posted 02-23-2012 1:14 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(4)
Message 65 of 251 (653741)
02-24-2012 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Perdition
02-23-2012 3:47 PM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
That is certainly how I originally understood his argument, and it seems likely that that is indeed still what he means. But another possibility is that he just doesn't understand exactly what he's saying. If he understands the word abiogenesis, and biopoesis, to merely mean "life from non-life" as it is generally stated to mean, then his sentence, taken out of context*, is correct.
However, neither abiogenesis nor its, as far as anyone can tell, identical synonym, biopoesis, means merely "life from non-life." A key component of both (ie, the one) is "through natural processes." Buz is assuming the exact same position that I've seen so many other creationists assume in the past, that abiogenesis is the atheistic explanation, which is completely different from their supernaturalistic explanation.
I think that a very large part of the question is that Buz, Chuck, Portillo, and other creationists apply an entirely different definition to "evolution" than we normals do. For us, evolution is biological evolution only, the natural consequences of life doing what life naturally does. But for them, "evolution" is something entirely different, a complete atheistic worldview that demands the inclusion of abiogenesis -- the standard meaning, not your redefinitions. A large part of my position is that, if they are indeed redefining the terminology out from under us, they must at least inform us of just exactly what their definitions are. But then, that would work against their standing operating procedures of trying to generate confusion.
Biological evolution does not require abiogenesis; it only requires that life exists -- regardless of however life may have possibly arisen, be it by natural or supernatural means, biological evolution would have still operated as we have observed it to operate. Creationist evolution does require abiogenesis and creationist evolution cannot exist unless abiogenesis is found to exist. But then creationist evolution doesn't exist, what with it being a strawman figment of creationist imagination.
Here's an analogy that might help. About 13 years ago, a local creationist activist once presented an argument presented at a local creationist club's presentation which he expanded upon. At question was depletion of the ozone layer due to CFC's (refrigerants), which are heavy molecules. This was an attempt at discrediting science as performing "bad science" by claiming that this was a case where scientists falsely extrapolated lab results to the real world. He repeated a number of "unanswerable" questions that he personally took to the "experts": air-conditioning salesmen at a trade show. 13 years ago, after 15 minutes on Google, I was able to present to him the FAQ pages of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the real experts in this subject which not only answered each and every one of his "unanswerable" questions, but also stated unequivocably demonstrated that the presence of CFC's in the upper atmosphere has been directly and empirically sampled and measured. His entire claim was and had always been completely and utterly false.
Finally a few months ago, I was able to get him to remove that demonstrably false claim from his web site. His last defense was the issue of how those heavy CFC molecules were able to migrate into the atmosphere. Fluid dynamics is well understood, even by mechanical engineers (which this particular creationist is by trade and training). For that matter, nickel particles are even heavier than CFC molecules and it was those nickel particles rising up in the Far East industrial areas and contaminating Pettersson's 1960 samples that led to creationist Dr. Henry Morris' false moondust claims (though Harold Slusher's misrepresentation of a 1967 NASA document contributed -- http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/moondust.html).
Here's his last redoubt. Despite my own and NOAA's statements that fluid dynamics would have transported those CFC molecules, he held fast to this position: if he personally could not understand how those CFC molecules had gotten up to the upper atmosphere, then those CFC molecules were not there. Even though direct atmospheric samples taken by sounding rockets directly and empirically detected those CFC molecules at those altitudes and in those concentrations. His final attempt at a defense: if he cannot personally understand it, then it does not exist.
I believe that that is the kind of magical thinking that our creationists are trying to employ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Perdition, posted 02-23-2012 3:47 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 02-24-2012 5:35 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 73 by Perdition, posted 02-24-2012 11:22 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 83 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 3:56 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 66 of 251 (653744)
02-24-2012 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Modulous
02-23-2012 7:36 PM


Re: The Theory of Creation
Modulous writes:
I think it might help to try and put oneself in the shoes of the creationist for a little while.
I've been trying to do this for some years and it's one of the main reasons I participate in these sorts of debates. I find it really hard to understand the irrational, a real struggle.
The nearest I get to understanding it is when I force myself to read sites and papers that I know to be nonsense. The mind rebels and it's a real hard task to switch the cognitive dissonance off and examine the claims neutrally and critically, without the preformed bias.
It must be impossibly hard if, instead of a belief in evidence and critical thinking, your world view is fomed and held in place by a belief in a personal god that loves you, probably through personal revelation. Consider the below from Chuck when I asked him to put his beliefs aside and consider the abiogenesis/evolution issue as a logical puzzle, not an ephalump trap.
Message 363 I have to assume that the TOE is true in order for me to answer this question. I do not. To me this is a strawman. If I don't believe the TOE is true nor feel the evidence supports it then this question is irrelevant and only a gotcha question from the stand point of the evolutionist. Once they show evidence for abiogenesis then they can ask this question. You can't have it one way for you and another for creationists.
Chuck finds it actually impossible to examine a concept that is a threat to his core belief. Literally, probably impossible. On my occasional trips to the more outrageous creationist sites, the ones where they don't just get things wrong but also lie to make their propaganda, I suspect I get just a fraction of the mind revolt that a pure creationist gets when confronted by evidence against a young earth or a global flood or evolution.
It's a bit of a puzzle how to break that mental barrier because the better the evidence against the belief, the bigger and stronger the barriers against accepting, or even considering it.
The only time I've seen a creationist's mind change was by another, less extreme, believer. Discussing evidence from atheists is often seen to be the same as discussing it with Satan.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 02-23-2012 7:36 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(8)
Message 67 of 251 (653746)
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Edited.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Trixie, posted 02-24-2012 4:23 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2012 4:56 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2012 7:36 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2012 9:52 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 74 by Taq, posted 02-24-2012 12:15 PM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 02-24-2012 1:35 PM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2012 2:16 PM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 77 by jar, posted 02-24-2012 3:42 PM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 79 by dwise1, posted 02-24-2012 3:51 PM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 81 by Meddle, posted 02-24-2012 10:14 PM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 68 of 251 (653751)
02-24-2012 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
I think you're right to concentrate on finding your Creation Hypothesis, rather than trying to knock down alternatives. Oeof the reasons that Creationists haven't lasted here is that they try to argue science with practicing scientists and they just can't cut it.
You'ven had to try to argue against geology, chemistry, molecular biology etc with specialists in these areas. The reason that people specialise is because they have to know a subject in such depth that there is no way they can have the same depth of knowledge in a such wide range of subjects in a single lifetime.
For a non-scientist to take on all of these specialists is well-nigh impossible, since they just don't have the knowledge required.
I would suggest that, as you form your Creation Hypothesis, you take note of those things that are physically impossible. Be guided by the science. You may find yourself in a position where your only option is to invoke a miracle by God. That's fine, but remembetha then takes you out of the realm of science unless you can provide physical, scientific evidence that indicates that it happened. For example, if you claim a miraculous world-wide flood, you don't have to explain the mechanism since you're claiming a miracle, but you do have to show the geological evidence that a world-wide flood occurred. If you have to invoke a miracle which subsequently removed the evidence, you have nothing. If you want to claimthat the geology which indicates that a world-wide flood never happened is flawed, you'll have to be ready to show why that geology is flawed and you'll need to have a good grasp of the science to do that.
In this particular thread I think we see that it's a misunderstanding of what the ToE is for that has led to claims that it must include origins of life. Yet the ToE only ever intends to explain why every life form isn't identical, why there is diversity.
We're still looking for an answer to the question of how evolution would be different if life arrived here on an asteroid or abiogenesis occurred on Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 69 of 251 (653761)
02-24-2012 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
I'm going to try to focus more on a Creation theory and presenting that the best I can instead of trying to expose other theories that try to explain the diversity of life or how it originated.
This sounds very interesting. I'll be glad to see this.
My whole problem with the TOE and abiogenesis is that they are seperated when (as Modulous pointed out) the Bible isn't. I can't seem to wrap my brain around seperating it all when it comes to life, how it works, how it came to be, where it is going.
Well, as I explained, it's because we know some things but not others.
When Newton came up with his theory of gravity, he did not also provide a theory about the origin of matter. He had no clue.
Darwin himself used the same analogy; confessing his ignorance, he wrote: "It is mere rubbish to talk about the origin of life; one might as well talk about the origin of matter".
Now, as you point out, the Bible purports to answer both questions. It claims to explain both the origin of life and the origin of species. God did them both by magic.
But why should scientists imitate this? Should they not rather tell the truth, and say: "We understand this, but we don't understand that"? This is, after all, true, or, since you are a creationist, let us at least say that they think that it's true. So obviously they should say it: "We understand evolution, we're fairly clueless about abiogenesis". That's just the case, it's how the cookie crumbles, and it would not be at all to their credit if they said something else which wasn't true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 70 of 251 (653776)
02-24-2012 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by dwise1
02-24-2012 2:27 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
dwise1 writes:
A large part of my position is that, if they are indeed redefining the terminology out from under us, they must at least inform us of just exactly what their definitions are. But then, that would work against their standing operating procedures of trying to generate confusion.
In their defense (sort of, as this defense is somewhat like a left-handed complement), I don't think creationists are *trying* to foster confusion. Views at such great odds with reality are necessarily the product of confused minds (or at least of ignorant minds), so of course their arguments create confusion. This confusion works to their advantage, and since being ignorant and confused is not the same thing as being stupid they of course continue to use the simple tactic of merely talking about their confused ideas.
School boards and legislatures can become convinced of any a number of loony ideas, especially when voting constituencies are involved, so these confused ideas *are* dangerous in social, cultural or educational contexts, but not in science. The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is obvious to probably all legitimate biologists, and I'll bet much less than 1% of scientists in fields as far from biology as could possibly be, such as cosmology or quantum theory, are confused on this point.
Shifting now to more directly address the topic, virtually all creationists accept microevolution. For them God created life, and only after life was created could microevolution, evolution within kinds, begin. So creationists obviously understand, were they to think things through, that the creation of life is one thing and microevolution is quite another.
For scientists, life came about through natural processes, and only after life was created could evolution begin. The only difference is that scientists accept both micro and macroevolution. We all understand that the creation of life, whether by natural or supernatural processes, is not the same thing as evolution. Buz, Chuck, Portillo, et. al., will continue to direct their efforts to trying to maintain their confusion, but like many ideas in the creationist portfolio, it runs counter to reality, and in this case even to simple consistency.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 02-24-2012 2:27 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 251 (653793)
02-24-2012 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
My whole problem with the TOE and abiogenesis is that they are seperated when (as Modulous pointed out) the Bible isn't. I can't seem to wrap my brain around seperating it all when it comes to life, how it works, how it came to be, where it is going.
Well, at Thanksgiving dinner, do you swallow an entire turkey whole, or take bites?
The separation is a digestion problem. We solve it by specialization - biochemists do biochemistry, zoologists study animals, botanists study plants, doctors - at least some of them - are biologists who study the human body and its problems. You don't go to the proctologist for an eye exam.
It's obviously not all separate, but we study it separately because regardless of your position on evolution, even the least problem in the life sciences is of such a magnitude that it takes several lifetimes of study to elucidate - even as we stand at the pinnacle of an enormous pile of solved problems and uncovered facts, like the fact that DNA is the molecule of heredity (it took 100 years or more to find that out.)
I came here not so much to try and argue against the TOE or abiogenesis but try and establish a Creation theory.
Um, well, good luck with that. Here's the problem - your competing Creation theory has to be at least as explanitory as the theory of evolution, and if all of us evolutionists here were to collaborate on a list of everything explained by evolution, we could labor full-time on that list for ten years and not be finished. Evolution has enormous explanitory power, such that Theodosius Dobzhansky famously stated that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." If that sounds a bit religious to you, it's because he was religious. In the same essay, he wrote:
quote:
Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.
You may very well be the genius who is able to create an intellectually-rigorous theory of special creation by the Christian God, but you'd have to explain to me how you're going to do that all by yourself, with no life sciences training whatsoever, all by arguing on an internet debate forum. How do you expect that to work, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 251 (653801)
02-24-2012 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
Hi Chuck77
My whole problem with the TOE and abiogenesis is that they are seperated when (as Modulous pointed out) the Bible isn't. I can't seem to wrap my brain around seperating it all when it comes to life, how it works, how it came to be, where it is going.
It seems to me that abiogenesis is closer to creation than evolution, and that evolution is embodied in kinds and descent within kinds.
And the question then comes down to when and how many original species there were.
If that helps.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 73 of 251 (653808)
02-24-2012 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by dwise1
02-24-2012 2:27 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
However, neither abiogenesis nor its, as far as anyone can tell, identical synonym, biopoesis, means merely "life from non-life." A key component of both (ie, the one) is "through natural processes."
Are you sure Buz understands this? He seems to think that abiogenesis and primordial soup and cosmic ooze are the same things. The only way this makes sense, is if they are all placeholders for "life from non-life."
Now, I'm perhaps over thinking this in assuming his position makes sense. But, if you ignore the word abiogenesis, and substitute in "life from non-life" then his statement is true and makes sense. Again, maybe that's not what he means, but that's how I read it.
I think that a very large part of the question is that Buz, Chuck, Portillo, and other creationists apply an entirely different definition to "evolution" than we normals do. For us, evolution is biological evolution only, the natural consequences of life doing what life naturally does. But for them, "evolution" is something entirely different, a complete atheistic worldview that demands the inclusion of abiogenesis -- the standard meaning, not your redefinitions. A large part of my position is that, if they are indeed redefining the terminology out from under us, they must at least inform us of just exactly what their definitions are. But then, that would work against their standing operating procedures of trying to generate confusion.
This is probably true, however, if they are using words incorrectly due to their own confusion, then they may not be aware that they are redefining terms. The suspiscious thing, and where I believe you are probably right, is that even after it is explained to them what the words mean, they continue to use them incorrectly. This could indicate continued confusion, as in they didn't understand the explanation given to them, or it is an act of deception.
For some reason, I tend to see Buz as just extremely confused, not purposefully deceitful. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm giving him too much credit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 02-24-2012 2:27 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(7)
Message 74 of 251 (653810)
02-24-2012 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
I can't seem to wrap my brain around seperating it all when it comes to life, how it works, how it came to be, where it is going.
I think you already do separate it (*explained below), but find it difficult to do so because it defeats your argument. Just give up on the argument that not knowing how life started somehow falsifies evolution. I think this would solve most of your problems.
*Let's say that you are on a jury in a murder trial. A forensic scientist testifies that DNA found at the crime scene matches your client's DNA. You also learn that the fornesic scientist is also an atheist. During cross examination the defense attorney asks how the forensic scientist could use similarity in DNA when he never presented a theory for the origin of DNA itself. He tells the jury during closing statements that they should ignore the DNA evidence because the pre-requisite for DNA in the atheistic worldview is abiogenesis, and the atheist forensic scientist never explained how that could occur. He goes on to argue that abiogenesis is in fact impossible, therefore the DNA at the crime scene can not be used as evidence against his client. How effective do you think this argument would be? Wouldn't you be scratching your head wondering why a defense attorney would use such a crazy argument?
Also, I doubt that you would accept observed evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria as evidence of abiogenesis. If you will not accept evidence of evolution as evidence of abiogenesis then you are obviously already separating the two.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 75 of 251 (653813)
02-24-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
Hi Chuck,
Great post, but I'm going to comment on one thing:
I think ID has come a long way and so has Creationism...
ID and creationism have not "come a long way" in any scientific sense whatsoever. You're going to have to get your mind wrapped around that before you'll be able to make any real progress. Absent that realization you'll just continue to trudge through ID and creationist websites searching for genuine evidence that you'll never find. For the course you say you're now choosing, answers do not lie in those places.
The answers lie in a direction that I suspect does not interest you much: science. Most creationists come here out of a love of God, not science, and it's the rare creationist (or IDist, if you prefer) who has the love of science necessary for learning enough to hold his own in a scientific discussion.
Understanding science isn't easy. It takes time, effort and study, and the only way someone will stay the course through all that work is with great love and interest. Of those of us here who have developed an understanding and feel for science, I'm sure some came by it easily and naturally, but I'm sure many are like me who if it weren't for the love of discovering an understanding of how the universe works would never have read science for years and years and years before getting pretty good at thinking scientifically.
You're going to need your strong belief that the universe *was* created and that therefore evidence for it must exist, because only that will sustain you through the reams of scientific information you will be sifting through that contains no overt hints of design or a designer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024