Creation vs. Evolution II

[redfern]

A date they are now apparently assigning to be "tens of thousands of years earlier". Instead of 12,000 years, the date suddenly jumps to 50,000.

Did you actually read the article and try to understand it? You know - like the bit about 10,000 year old evidence found in the topmost layers of the cave floor, and then deeper layers showing evidence of much earlier habitation?

Unfortunately we don't know what exact results of the various tests were and the assumptions made in assigning the dates.

By “we” you must mean some community of which you are a member that elects to remain ignorant of the tests and dates. The article lists over 20 relevant technical scientific papers, and mentions the existence of numerous others.

Yes, as in some evidence of their humanity.

That’s it? You really think some ephemeral “evidence of their humanity” is scientific evidence that they lived recently, and descended from Adam and Eve? The article mentions more than half a dozen different scientific types of studies that have been done, all of which agree on dates far predating Eden.

Then, there is the evidence of the historical manuscripts and their trust worthiness... as divinely inspired and inerrant.

Lacking any scientific evidence that is even remotely credible, you (not unexpectedly) unabashedly fall back on your religious tomes. Thanks for a clear admission of how vacuous your scientific evidence was.

I do anthropomorphize sometimes also. But, I object to it when the term is used to imply all scientists agree...case closed.

On almost any scientific claim, if I were to look hard enough I could probably find “scientists” who disagree. In your case, as you have just clearly demonstrated, that disagreement is prompted by allegiance to a religious dogma, and not secular science.

I am a scientist, and when I say “science says” I am referring to the conclusions of “mainstream” scientists.

Scientists are as human as you and I. We all have that option of changing our beliefs.

Your wording implicitly includes you as a “scientist”, and says you can change your beliefs. Can you change your belief to accept Homo floresiensis as living tens of thousands of years ago?

 

[6days]

Did you actually read the article and try to understand it? You know - like the bit about 10,000 year old evidence found in the topmost layers of the cave floor, and then deeper layers showing evidence of much earlier habitation?

Thats not quite how I read it. They obtained different and uneven dates at different depths. That is the 'reason' they give for changing the date by 40,000 years. They called it an 'error of interpretation'.

By “we” you must mean some community of which you are a member that elects to remain ignorant of the tests and dates. The article lists over 20 relevant technical scientific papers, and mentions the existence of numerous others.

By "we"...I mean you and me both. *Unfortunately we don't know what exact results of the various tests were and the assumptions made in interpreting and assigning the dates. We don't know which test results were accepted as valid, and which were dismissed as anomalies. It would be of particular interest to see if they used C14 testing, (since they thought these fossils were 12,000 years) and if not, why not.

That’s it? You really think some ephemeral “evidence of their humanity” is scientific evidence that they lived recently, and descended from Adam and Eve?

Of course. One evidence evolutionists consider in assigning fossils a place on 'Darwins' tree is use of tools.

As to Adam and Eve... we can discuss evidence of them from the historical record, or venture into other fields such as genetics.

I am a scientist, and when I say “science says” I am referring to the conclusions of “mainstream” scientists.

I will then point out that what you mean is "most" scientists, however others disagree. Often the disgreement is even amongst evolutionists.

And... it doesn't hurt to point out, how often mainstream science is wrong .. and people just go along with what they were taught in school. One interesting example is how scientists once believed we had 24 chromosomes even though with their own eyes they counted 23...but, they went along with the mainstream.

 

[redfern]

They obtained different and uneven dates at different depths. That is the 'reason' they give for changing the date by 40,000 years. They called it an 'error of interpretation'.

Are you drawing your information from a completely different article than the one PJ linked to? Your use of quotes around “reason” and “error of interpretation” gives the impression those words are copied verbatim from the text. But nowhere in PJ’s article do I find the word “reason”, or the word “error”, or “interpretation”.

I do have suspicions of where you actually drew those from, but rather than me playing a guessing game as to your sources, how about you sharing with us whence those quoted words come?

By "we"...I mean you and me both.

Last time we were discussing some specific articles (on genetic entropy), I had the articles at hand, and in spite of a direct request that you show that you also had the article(s), you failed to show you were relying on anything beyond Sanford’s quote mines. Do you really want to pretend you have knowledge of what articles I have at hand?

It would be of particular interest to see if they used C14 testing, (since they thought these fossils were 12,000 years) and if not, why not.

Good question. The answer is readily available. Look it up, I did.

One evidence evolutionists consider in assigning fossils a place on 'Darwins' tree is use of tools.

Yup, from the article:

Stone tools in the cave used by the “hobbit” are from 190,000 to 50,000 years old.​

and

This team even went further by dating some of the stone tools and fossils using paleomagnetism (a method of determining the age of ancient sediments) and showed they were probably around 700,000 years old​

(I gave you a freebie there. See it?)

Often the disgreement is even amongst evolutionists.

As it pertains to the subject of PJ’s article, can you provide any scientific paper from an evolutionist that asserts that Homo floresiensis lived after Eden and descended from Adam and Eve?

You seem to want to dodge answering this question: Can you change your belief to accept Homo floresiensis as living tens of thousands of years ago?

 

[6days]

Are you drawing your information from a completely different article than the one PJ linked to? Your use of quotes around “reason” and “error of interpretation” gives the impression those words are copied verbatim from the text.

Yes... I have looked at PJ's link and others such as*https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

Do you really want to pretend you have knowledge of what articles I have at hand?

I'm assuming you don't since you didn't answer the questions.*

Good question. (C14 dating) The answer is readily available. Look it up, I did

What did you find -I see things such as "Floresiensis is that they survived as recently as 18,000 years ago as confirmed by radiocarbon (C14) dating" *

Stone tools in the cave used by the “hobbit” are from 190,000 to 50,000 years old.

*

Tools were mentioned as an evidence of their humanity. Evolutionists often try humanize ape fossils, and dehumanize human fossils as they did with these people. Some evolutionists suggested these peoole may not have had the intelligence to make and use tool, suggesting these tools had been made by humans other than these dwarf people. It's not unlike all the false claims once made about Neandertals.

As it pertains to the subject of PJ’s article, can you provide any scientific paper from an evolutionist that asserts that Homo floresiensis lived after Eden and descended from Adam and Eve?

Sure.... soon as you provide a scientific paper from any Biblical YEC scientist that asserts Homo floresiensis lived before Adam and Eve.*

You seem to want to dodge answering this question: Can you change your belief to accept Homo floresiensis as living tens of thousands of years ago?

I have said before that I am as biased as any atheist. They start with the belief that they must interpret evidence apart from a supernatural creation. I am biased too.... I start with the absolute truth of God's Word. You start with subjective truth and whatever the mainstream says. Subjective secular scientists have often had to eat crow and shift opinions closer to what Biblical scientists opinions.*

 

[MichaelCadry]

NOTE: It's been a long week to say the least. I asked the moderator to ban Silent Hunter and Hedshaker from this Thread. Silent Hunter said that there wasn't nothing I could do, but he was wrong. I'm glad to be rid of both of them indeed. Thank you tons, Sherman!! Now you can talk about things that matter here.

With Faith In God!!

Michael

 

[Lon]

Mmhmm.....so I'm to understand that Genesis is literal because you want it to be? Not because actual evidence leads you there.

Glad you can admit that, at least

Which makes MORE sense? Trusting in man, especially this century? You don't believe politicians, but then accept all things 'science' unabashedly? How about if a God exists and has communicated? (He has, I'm trying to get you to understand something by placing it in the hypothetical) Would you expect God to be infallible in communication? Would you question instead if infallible man may have gotten something wrong?

My point: ANY time there is a human factor, we have room for error. Science is fairly stable in producing medicine and engineering mechanics. Neither of these are Darwinian science. Some other science application is done calling it 'evolution' when it is really genetic engineering (purpose). Thus, even as scientists, we see a LOT of intelligent design and construction and we use intelligent design and construction to make science work for us. In that sense, there is a lot more design and purpose than 'evolving' going on in science these days. Science today functions on a design and purpose level. There is really no opposition to created design, then. Not when we are using it as the model for nearly all science we employ. The ONLY science opposed to that is Darwin education, that I can tell. We still don't know how old things are (we really don't). It seems to me things may be millions if not billions of years old. I 'think' that science observation (not necessarily science itself, because it cannot go backwards in time), leads to many more years than a few 100k. When I discuss this with theologians, it is for a different purpose, and that is to discover what the Bible says about the age of the earth, if at all. Back to the point: I believe science indoctrination today 'can' lead one away from theology and God and that is a grave mistake. Design and purpose are implicit in who we are as human beings. The person who no longer questions the purpose of his/her existence, has really ceased to meaningfully exist, and science doesn't matter after that.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Which makes MORE sense? Trusting in man, especially this century? You don't believe politicians, but then accept all things 'science' unabashedly? How about if a God exists and has communicated? (He has, I'm trying to get you to understand something by placing it in the hypothetical) Would you expect God to be infallible in communication? Would you question instead if infallible man may have gotten something wrong?

My point: ANY time there is a human factor, we have room for error. Science is fairly stable in producing medicine and engineering mechanics. Neither of these are Darwinian science. Some other science application is done calling it 'evolution' when it is really genetic engineering (purpose). Thus, even as scientists, we see a LOT of intelligent design and construction and we use intelligent design and construction to make science work for us. In that sense, there is a lot more design and purpose than 'evolving' going on in science these days. Science today functions on a design and purpose level. There is really no opposition to created design, then. Not when we are using it as the model for nearly all science we employ. The ONLY science opposed to that is Darwin education, that I can tell. We still don't know how old things are (we really don't). It seems to me things may be millions if not billions of years old. I 'think' that science observation (not necessarily science itself, because it cannot go backwards in time), leads to many more years than a few 100k. When I discuss this with theologians, it is for a different purpose, and that is to discover what the Bible says about the age of the earth, if at all. Back to the point: I believe science indoctrination today 'can' lead one away from theology and God and that is a grave mistake. Design and purpose are implicit in who we are as human beings. The person who no longer questions the purpose of his/her existence, has really ceased to meaningfully exist, and science doesn't matter after that.

I'm have no issue with the existence of God. I lean in neither direction there, and that has no bearing on whether evolution happens or doesn't.

I have seen the evidence myself. Not on computers, not in classrooms, but out there in person with knowledgable individuals explaining what this and that means geologically.

I know that since you likely haven't been walked through the evidence like I have that you think it's a bunch of guesswork, but you really couldn't be more wrong. The facts are that rock layers tell you a story, and if you know what to look for that story can be pretty detailed.

How do you think we look for oil?


And yes, our understanding of evolution has certainly helped us scientifically/technologically. We know that we have to create a new flu vaccine every year because it evolves at an insanely rapid pace. We've seen the rise of "super bugs" that result from natural selection in bacteria such as staphylococcus, making the surviving MRSA species much harder to kill

 

[Greg Jennings]

NOTE: It's been a long week to say the least. I asked the moderator to ban Silent Hunter and Hedshaker from this Thread. Silent Hunter said that there wasn't nothing I could do, but he was wrong. I'm glad to be rid of both of them indeed. Thank you tons, Sherman!! Now you can talk about things that matter here.

With Faith In God!!

Michael

Michael, may I ask why they were banned? I didn't see any "trolling" out of them

 

[Arthur Brain]

Which makes MORE sense? Trusting in man, especially this century? You don't believe politicians, but then accept all things 'science' unabashedly? How about if a God exists and has communicated? (He has, I'm trying to get you to understand something by placing it in the hypothetical) Would you expect God to be infallible in communication? Would you question instead if infallible man may have gotten something wrong?

My point: ANY time there is a human factor, we have room for error. Science is fairly stable in producing medicine and engineering mechanics. Neither of these are Darwinian science. Some other science application is done calling it 'evolution' when it is really genetic engineering (purpose). Thus, even as scientists, we see a LOT of intelligent design and construction and we use intelligent design and construction to make science work for us. In that sense, there is a lot more design and purpose than 'evolving' going on in science these days. Science today functions on a design and purpose level. There is really no opposition to created design, then. Not when we are using it as the model for nearly all science we employ. The ONLY science opposed to that is Darwin education, that I can tell. We still don't know how old things are (we really don't). It seems to me things may be millions if not billions of years old. I 'think' that science observation (not necessarily science itself, because it cannot go backwards in time), leads to many more years than a few 100k. When I discuss this with theologians, it is for a different purpose, and that is to discover what the Bible says about the age of the earth, if at all. Back to the point: I believe science indoctrination today 'can' lead one away from theology and God and that is a grave mistake. Design and purpose are implicit in who we are as human beings. The person who no longer questions the purpose of his/her existence, has really ceased to meaningfully exist, and science doesn't matter after that.

Which is more likely? That Genesis isn't supposed to be taken literally or that scientists all around the world have all misinterpreted the evidence around them?

 

[Lon]

I'm have no issue with the existence of God. I lean in neither direction there, and that has no bearing on whether evolution happens or doesn't.

I have seen the evidence myself. Not on computers, not in classrooms, but out there in person with knowledgable individuals explaining what this and that means geologically.

I have scientists in my family. One is more anti-theist, certainly anti-Christian. He is a paleontologist by education and works outside of the science field. The other is a biologist and he is clear that science rags are not really science. They are propaganda to keep interest in science and keep $ coming in and also to for some to get notoriety for power/prestige.

I know that since you likely haven't been walked through the evidence like I have that you think it's a bunch of guesswork, but you really couldn't be more wrong. The facts are that rock layers tell you a story, and if you know what to look for that story can be pretty detailed.

As with all but chemistry, aced that science class...

How do you think we look for oil?

Not by anything Darwinian. It is more engineering, chemistry and mechanics than anything else.

And yes, our understanding of evolution has certainly helped us scientifically/technologically. We know that we have to create a new flu vaccine every year because it evolves at an insanely rapid pace. We've seen the rise of "super bugs" that result from natural selection in bacteria such as staphylococcus, making the surviving MRSA species much harder to kill

No, just observation ever and only has helped us. Trial and error. We STILL miss rockets going to Mars by inches over metrics. We still have medicine killing 1 of 3 fatalities in hospitals. Don't overtly put trust in man. That's an important message here. They do NOT do as well as many indoctrinators would like you to believe, but that information doesn't sell rags or get government grants. Follow the money. You don't trust politicians for the SAME reason.

 

[Lon]

Which is more likely? That Genesis isn't supposed to be taken literally or that scientists all around the world have all misinterpreted the evidence around them?

Well, you live in Britain. Of course your indoctrination is incredibly profound upon you there. Politics drive what a society will believe. You need a few more apt theologians in England. I'm glad you are on TOL. There are a good number of them here

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, you live in Britain. Of course your indoctrination is incredibly profound upon you there. Politics drive what a society will believe. You need a few more apt theologians in England. I'm glad you are on TOL. There are a good number of them here

My nationality has absolutely nothing to do with this. What on earth you mean by 'profound indoctrination' is anyone's guess as I doubt you have anything other than a passing familiarity with the UK in order to make such a glib and ignorant remark. One thing is for certain however. You completely failed to give anything approaching a relevant response to my question to you.

Why is that?

 

[Caino]

Super Brain --"Mutation of Human Genome Two Million Years Ago Created the Big Leap That Led To Speaking and Thinking"


http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/12/evolutions-super-brain-mutation-of-the-human-genome-two-million-years-ago-created-big-leap-in-neocor.html

 

[6days]

Super Brain --"Mutation of Human Genome Two Million Years Ago Created the Big Leap That Led To Speaking and Thinking"


http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/12/evolutions-super-brain-mutation-of-the-human-genome-two-million-years-ago-created-big-leap-in-neocor.html

So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. GEN. 1:27

 

[Caino]

So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. GEN. 1:27

We agree, but the evidence shows life evolved over time, in accordance with Gods purpose, as opposed to all appearing at the same time in one creation event. We agree on other things, Gods Son incarnate on earth, the Word made flesh. He made the way of salvation more clear to man, allowed himself to be killed by his enemies, then rose from the dead, made some appearances and returned to heaven. We have much more in common than not.

 

[redfern]

I asked 6days:

Are you drawing your information from a completely different article than the one PJ linked to? Your use of quotes around “reason” and “error of interpretation” gives the impression those words are copied verbatim from the text.

6days’ reply:

Yes... I have looked at PJ's link and others such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

From experience, I know that you will avoid giving an answer that might reflect poorly on your scholarship. So I will cut to the chase. In the wiki article you provide, neither of the words “error” or “interpretation” are found, so clearly your quote was neither from there, nor from PJ’s article. Then where? Your entire quoted phrase “error of interpretation”, plus the word “hobbit” (nickname for this species) appears at one creationist site (reasonsforhope) that I know of:

http://www.rforh.com/resources/cavemen​

If you lifted that quote from another site, then I invite you to provide the link so we might verify that you are being above board, and not engaging in unchristian tactics such as quote mining. But quote mining is exactly what you did, if your quote came from the reasonsforhope site I linked to. That article is titled “What About . . . Cavemen? When did they live?” At that site, here is the quote in context:

Neanderthal Man was not a forgery, but an error of interpretation.​

Note … Neanderthal Man. Not discussing Homo floresiensis at all. The only mention of hobbits in the article is the mention of some small caves that are somewhat reminiscent of Tolkien’s hobbit holes. So unless you can show you quoted from another source dealing with Homo floresiensis, then you were quote mining, and this is yet another testament to how meaningless honesty is to you.

What did you find -I see things such as "Floresiensis is that they survived as recently as 18,000 years ago as confirmed by radiocarbon (C14) dating"

Since you probably will instinctively distrust my answer, I will do with you what I often do with students – give a hint and then let you follow it. When the first Floresiensis bones were found, what was it that was actually C14 dated?

I'm assuming you don't since you didn't answer the questions.

To a normal rational person, I would say that is a really crappy way to draw such a conclusion. But for you, well, kinda par for the course. But just for the record, I have subscriptions to two of the journals in the list, so I have 4 of the articles at hand. The “questions” you say I did not answer were about the details of the testing done. I have that info. Inasmuch as your preference seems to be to have others (me, Sanford) read the actual articles and feed you just the juicy tidbits, I think I shall decline. You are welcome to continue arguing from ignorance, or you can take the initiative to read the articles for yourself.

…soon as you provide a scientific paper from any Biblical YEC scientist that asserts Homo floresiensis lived before Adam and Eve.

I don’t know what prompted this snarky reply. In our discussion of dating of these “Hobbits” you said “that disgreement is even amongst evolutionists.” In science, when one disagrees, he presents his reasons and supporting data. I was asking if any evolutionist has done that, such that the reasons and data are supportive of your religious creation timeline.

I have said before that I am as biased as any atheist. They start with the belief that they must interpret evidence apart from a supernatural creation. I am biased too.... I start with the absolute truth of God's Word.

But your bias, with its premise of “the absolute truth of God's Word”, means you start with the answer and then can only accept data that fits that answer. So your bias is hugely different from the paradigm that science operates under.

Subjective secular scientists have often had to eat crow and shift opinions closer to what Biblical scientists opinions.

Only a few centuries ago, much of “science” was pretty much in lock-step with Christian theological ideas, but now it has diverged from the religious myths by a few hundred miles. Science isn’t much concerned with whether or not the detailed corrections it often has to make take it a step or two towards or away from your particular dogma.

 

[6days]

*Yes... I have looked at PJ's link and others such ashttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

From experience, I know that you will avoid giving an answer that might reflect poorly on your scholarship. So I will cut to the chase. In the wiki article you provide, neither of the words “error” or “interpretation” are found, so clearly your quote was neither from there, nor from PJ’s article. Then where?

From
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160330-hobbits-humans-flores-cave-older-species/

Your entire quoted phrase “error of interpretation”, plus the word “hobbit” (nickname for this species) appears at one creationist site (reasonsforhope) that I know of

I'm not familiar with that site but it sounds good.The 'quote' of that phrase was from a National Geographic site.

If you lifted that quote from another site, then I invite you to provide the link

Not sure you can call it a quote...but it came from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160330-hobbits-humans-flores-cave-older-species/

So we might verify you are being above board, and not engaging in unchristian tactics such as quote mining.

You can apologize if you wish, but i will understand if you don't

*But quote mining is exactly what you did, if your quote came from the reasonsforhope site I linked to.

The 'quote'...actually the use of a phrase came from*http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160330-hobbits-humans-flores-cave-older-species/

That article is titled “What About . . . Cavemen? When did they live?”

Sounds interesting...but I didn't see that article. I'm glad you did though.

So unless you can show you quoted from another source dealing with Homo floresiensis, then you were quote mining,

Sure...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160330-hobbits-humans-flores-cave-older-species/

They say "At the time of the initial discovery, not enough of the older deposits had been exposed, and this led to an error in the interpretation of how the dates obtained at that time applied to the sediments that contained the hobbit remains,”

and this is yet another testament to how meaningless honesty is to you.

You can apologize for your error of interpretation if you wish.

 

[Lon]

My nationality has absolutely nothing to do with this. What on earth you mean by 'profound indoctrination' is anyone's guess as I doubt you have anything other than a passing familiarity with the UK in order to make such a glib and ignorant remark. One thing is for certain however. You completely failed to give anything approaching a relevant response to my question to you.

Why is that?

No, you just obfuscated and with an incredible amount of dishonest distraction, it at least seems at this time. I've read about public AND private schools in the UK. Should I believe your [mis?]information over them? Seriously? Your government is so insecure that it demands Christian Schools and other free institutions NOT teach creation as a fact? Bad news: while I or others may not get all facts straight, creation is a fact.

As far as my research and education are concerned, you are not just wrong, but completely opposite of what I've been reading. Please correct me if I am wrong. Frankly, I'd LOVE to be wrong on this particular. Show me.

The 'obvious' answer is that more than just Christians question science and often AND for good reason.... Sorry to burst that bubble. I know science is 'god' for a few of those who cannot seem to think for themselves. I don't just go with the flow ESPECIALLY when scientists and a good few who are also Christians are honest enough to disclose weaknesses and overblown statistics. "Why other supposed scientists aren't paying attention to their own crowd" is the REAL mystery.... try not to over step your own bounds in second guessing mine.



The 'why is that?' is that I know there is a God and I will believe Him over anybody else, every time. Because I know, per fact, He exists, man will never have my allegiance before Him. That's just the way that is going to have to be on a Christian website (Remember where you are). You are on a Christian website where we take this as fact, regardless of what you personally know or don't know, or what the science community at large may be ignorant of concerning Him. Unfathomable or unappreciated such a direct answer may be an inconvenience,however it is a VERY direct answer: God over man. Every time. However unfathomable you anticipated such, it was more than obvious and the only answer.

If what I am reading is correct, I'd have to move from the UK for religious persecution all over again. I'm glad I'm here in the U.S. There is no way I'd listen to anybody trying to tell kids what they can and cannot believe. Creation is 'fact.'

 

[MichaelCadry]

We agree, but the evidence shows life evolved over time, in accordance with Gods purpose, as opposed to all appearing at the same time in one creation event. We agree on other things, Gods Son incarnate on earth, the Word made flesh. He made the way of salvation more clear to man, allowed himself to be killed by his enemies, then rose from the dead, made some appearances and returned to heaven. We have much more in common than not.

Yes Caino, But Do You Love The Holy Ghost??!! And No, I don't believe Life Evolved Over Time!! You place limits on Our God, and you don't know Him at All!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

And To All Of Those Evolutionists And Atheists,

You believe that the Earth will last 1-5 Billion Years and will die when the Sun explodes. I will tell you that it won't be 5 billion years, but instead a Few Thousand Years from now!! Just like you are wrong about how old the Earth IS, you are just wrong about when it will End and most everything else!!

God created our Young Earth and He made it look like an Older Earth. He could have aged it plenty in the same day that He created it. Why should He Worry about what you all believe?? He said He created it in 6 days, and that means in the same week as He created Man, the Sun, and the Moon, and the stars of Heaven, And The Foliage And The Animals And Insects!! Who is to say that He did not create more men and women in the same day as He created Adam and Eve. "And He called THEIR Name Adam in the Day that They were created." {See Gen. 5:2KJV} and the same with all of the animals. He could have created them at different ages when He made them. He had 24 hours to do it all. Why do you put Limits on God?? You don't know What The Hell Happened Back Then, Do You?! If He created an aged man, instead of a little boy, then He can definitely create an aged Earth that is really young. He also created an aged Chicken, not an Egg! Same with all the Animals and Bugs and Everything! Do You Understand or No??

Standing Up For Him!!

Michael