Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

    Because you say so?

    If Genesis 1-3 is not literal, you lose the ENTIRE REST OF THE BIBLE'S MEANING.
    You lose the new reinterpretation of YE creationism. But not the Bible's meaning. The Gospels are not dependent on the way God created the Earth and life, only that He did it.


    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      You lose the new
      As you have been shown many times, The idea that the earth is young is not "new" in any sense.

      https://answersingenesis.org/christi...h-on-creation/

      reinterpretation
      No, the reinterpretation comes from your side, Barb, not ours. The reinterpretation of Genesis started around the Enlightenment.

      of YE creationism.
      Which is, as you were just shown, at least as old as the church fathers.

      But not the Bible's meaning.
      The BIBLE says "six days" and "from the beginning of the creation."

      That's literally what it says.

      You want it to say "millions/billions of years" and "from the beginning of the creation of man."

      Let God be true and every man a liar. That includes you, too, Barbarian.

      The Gospels are not dependent on the way God created the Earth and life, only that He did it.
      Except that they are, because if you reject that God created man on the sixth day from the dust of the earth (and not from a group of ape-like creatures), and that shortly after that man sinned and brought death upon the whole world, then there is absolutely no significance to or meaning in Jesus' coming to die on the cross.

      It even discredits Paul, because as Paul said, "Therefore, just as through ONE MAN sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— . . . Therefore, as through ONE MAN'S OFFENSE judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

      So not only is Moses and Jesus discredited by rejecting Genesis as literal, so too is Paul.

      Do you see now how important it is to get it right?

      Ideas and beliefs have consequences.

      That's why you should let God be true, and every man a liar.

      Comment


      • Barbarian observes the consequences of interpreting Genesis 1-3 as it is:
        You lose the new reinterpretation of YE creationism. But not the Bible's meaning. The Gospels are not dependent on the way God created the Earth and life, only that He did it.


        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

        As you have been shown many times, The idea that the earth is young is not "new" in any sense.
        But as you've been shown many times, YE creationism is no older than the last century, the invention of the 7th-Day Adventists.

        Advocates of special creation have long disagreed about the meaning of the creation story found in Genesis 1. By the middle of the nineteenth century an estimated fifty percent of Christian Americans, including many evangelicals, had stretched the Mosaic account to accommodate geological discoveries indicating the antiquity of life on earth. In 1814 the Scottish divine Thomas Chalmers attempted to harmonize the evidence of vast geological ages with the Genesis story by inserting an indefinite period of time between the initial creation "in the beginning" and the much later creation in the Garden of Eden. This so-call gap theory enjoyed great popularity among Christians eager to harmonize science and religion. The American geologist and minister Edward Hitchcock, for example, endorsed this scheme in his influential textbook Elementary Geology. As he explained it, the gap theory "supposed that Moses merely states that God created the world in the beginning, without fixing the date of that beginning; and that passing in silence an unknown period of its history, during which the extinct animals and plants found in the rocks might have lived and died, he describes only the present creation, which took place in six literal days, less than 6000 years ago."

        In 1910 the Scofield Reference Bible, an immensely influential annotated edition of the King James Version, presented the gap theory as Christian orthodoxy, influencing millions of Fundamentalists and Pentecostals until late in the century. Harry Rimmer, perhaps the best known American antievolutionist during the second quarter of the century, and Jimmy Lee Swaggart, one of the most successful televangelists during the last quarter of the century, both endorsed the gap theory.

        Numerous other Christians chose to harmonize Genesis and geology by interpreting the "days" of Genesis 1 as vast geological ages rather than twenty-four-hour periods. According to the nineteenth-century American naturalist Benjamin Silliman, a man widely known for his Christian piety, God in the beginning had instantaneously "created the heavens and the earth, and established the physical laws, the ordinances of heaven, by which the material world was to be governed." Subsequent to this act, our planet "was subjected to a long course of formation and arrangement, the object of which evidently was, to fit it for the reception, first of plants and animals, and finally of the human race."

        In the early twentieth century this interpretation of the Genesis "days" enjoyed great popularity among conservative Christians, receiving the enthusiastic endorsement of such high-profile Fundamentalists as George Frederick Wright, author of the essay on evolution in The Fundamentals; William Bell Riley, founder of the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association; and William Jennings Bryan, who led the crusade against evolution in the early 1920s.

        ...
        During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

        Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.

        https://counterbalance.org/history/history-print.html

        Yours is a very modern revision of God's word.


        No, the reinterpretation comes from your side, Barb, not ours.
        See above. No point in denial.

        Except that they are, because if you reject that God created man on the sixth day from the dust of the earth (and not from a group of ape-like creatures), and that shortly after that man sinned and brought death upon the whole world, then there is absolutely no significance to or meaning in Jesus' coming to die on the cross.
        How God produced man is completely irrelevant to the point of Genesis. The first man and woman disobeyed God and in doing so, died spiritually. That is the point of Jesus coming to save us. Your additions are completely unnecessary.
        It even discredits Paul, because as Paul said, "Therefore, just as through ONE MAN sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— . . . Therefore, as through ONE MAN'S OFFENSE judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."
        Here you're imagining that evolution means there couldn't have been a real Adam and Eve. It's your misunderstanding of science and Genesis that's holding you back here.

        Let it be God's way, and you won't be worried about it any more. It's not that you're going to hell for being a YE creationist; God doesn't care if you approve of the way He created things. He cares if you repent of your sins and follow what Jesus told you. Unless you make an idol of your new YE doctrines, it won't endanger your salvation at all. You're dangerously close to doing that. Be careful and have the humility to know you could be wrong.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          Barbarian. . .
          ... ignores the evidence provided by JudgeRightly that the early church fathers of the first few centuries of church history believed that the earth was young, and even rejected naturalistic explanations of the creation of the earth.

          But as you've been shown many times,
          You've shown no one nothing but what you wish to be true.

          YE creationism is no older than the last century, the invention of the 7th-Day Adventists.
          Again, the early church fathers of the first few centuries after Christ's birth believed the earth was young.

          Meaning the belief that the earth is young is MUCH MUCH MUCH older than you claim it is.

          You must not have read the link. Here, I'll post it again for you.

          https://answersingenesis.org/christi...h-on-creation/

          Spoiler
          Advocates of special creation have long disagreed about the meaning of the creation story found in Genesis 1. By the middle of the nineteenth century an estimated fifty percent of Christian Americans, including many evangelicals, had stretched the Mosaic account to accommodate geological discoveries indicating the antiquity of life on earth. In 1814 the Scottish divine Thomas Chalmers attempted to harmonize the evidence of vast geological ages with the Genesis story by inserting an indefinite period of time between the initial creation "in the beginning" and the much later creation in the Garden of Eden. This so-call gap theory enjoyed great popularity among Christians eager to harmonize science and religion. The American geologist and minister Edward Hitchcock, for example, endorsed this scheme in his influential textbook Elementary Geology. As he explained it, the gap theory "supposed that Moses merely states that God created the world in the beginning, without fixing the date of that beginning; and that passing in silence an unknown period of its history, during which the extinct animals and plants found in the rocks might have lived and died, he describes only the present creation, which took place in six literal days, less than 6000 years ago."

          In 1910 the Scofield Reference Bible, an immensely influential annotated edition of the King James Version, presented the gap theory as Christian orthodoxy, influencing millions of Fundamentalists and Pentecostals until late in the century. Harry Rimmer, perhaps the best known American antievolutionist during the second quarter of the century, and Jimmy Lee Swaggart, one of the most successful televangelists during the last quarter of the century, both endorsed the gap theory.

          Numerous other Christians chose to harmonize Genesis and geology by interpreting the "days" of Genesis 1 as vast geological ages rather than twenty-four-hour periods. According to the nineteenth-century American naturalist Benjamin Silliman, a man widely known for his Christian piety, God in the beginning had instantaneously "created the heavens and the earth, and established the physical laws, the ordinances of heaven, by which the material world was to be governed." Subsequent to this act, our planet "was subjected to a long course of formation and arrangement, the object of which evidently was, to fit it for the reception, first of plants and animals, and finally of the human race."

          In the early twentieth century this interpretation of the Genesis "days" enjoyed great popularity among conservative Christians, receiving the enthusiastic endorsement of such high-profile Fundamentalists as George Frederick Wright, author of the essay on evolution in The Fundamentals; William Bell Riley, founder of the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association; and William Jennings Bryan, who led the crusade against evolution in the early 1920s.

          ...
          During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

          Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.

          https://counterbalance.org/history/history-print.html
          You're special pleading.

          Don't ignore the evidence, Barb.

          https://answersingenesis.org/christi...h-on-creation/

          Yours is a very modern revision of God's word.
          Saying it doesn't make it so, Barbarian, and as you were just shown, your statement is false. The belief that the earth is young is at least as old as the first century AD.

          See above. No point in denial.
          Exactly, Barbarian, you shouldn't deny that the belief that the earth is young is at least as old as the first century AD, which is evidenced by church history.

          How God produced man is completely irrelevant to the point of Genesis.
          Again, BECAUSE PAUL SAID that death entered through sin, there could not have been death prior to Adam.

          No point denying what scripture says, Barb.

          The first man and woman disobeyed God and in doing so, died spiritually.
          No disagreement there.

          That is the point of Jesus coming to save us.
          And yet, that has little to do with what Paul said, which is that death came AFTER and BECAUSE OF Adam.

          Again, there was no death before Adam sinned, spiritual or otherwise.

          Your additions are completely unnecessary.
          What additions?

          Here you're imagining that evolution means there couldn't have been a real Adam and Eve.
          Is it not a belief of some theistic evolutionists (not all, of course) that Adam and Eve were a group of about 200 or so ape-like creatures?

          It's your misunderstanding of science and Genesis that's holding you back here.
          Says the one ignoring church history on this matter, which shows that the belief that the earth is young is at least as old as the first century.

          Let it be God's way,
          You can't even get that verse right, what makes you think that you have the scripture we're talking about correct?

          and you won't be worried about it any more. It's not that you're going to hell for being a YE creationist; God doesn't care if you approve of the way He created things. He cares if you repent of your sins and follow what Jesus told you. Unless you make an idol of your new YE doctrines, it won't endanger your salvation at all. You're dangerously close to doing that. Be careful and have the humility to know you could be wrong.
          You're bloviating again instead of talking about the subject matter. I know this is difficult for you Barb, but do try to stay on topic.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
            Much of the human genome is still made of viral parts. Whether those parts are "useful" depends greatly on point of view and lots of data we don't have. What it does tell us is that the human genome looks like the product of a long period of evolution, not a perfect thing that's been damaged for a few thousand years.
            In other words, you are saying you don't know anything for sure except that it's common descent. I hope you realize you are also claiming to know what perfect DNA is.

            Viral parts becoming part of human DNA are laughable without a designer to control how the virus enters the system without destroying the system.
            That viral parts come with advanced usable functions for humans is laughable unless that was the design.
            The similarities to virus parts as if viruses invaded the human system is tenuous at best.

            If there were a global flood most of the plant species alive today would be dead. So, magical hyperevolution is your "solution", I guess?
            What do you mean by hyperevolution?

            Does adaptation exist and how does it work? Is it different than mutation+natural selection?

            It made hundreds of thousands of plant species appear out of nowhere? That's one miraculous flood.
            Do you mean dead plants came to life from the mud or that ferns turned into oaks?

            What is the current explanation from creationists? Or do you only read what common descentists say about the flood?
            Good things come to those who shoot straight.

            Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

              ... ignores the evidence provided by JudgeRightly that the early church fathers of the first few centuries of church history believed that the earth was young, and even rejected naturalistic explanations of the creation of the earth.
              YE creationism is not merely "the Earth is young." Augustine, relying on the evidence of his time thought it was, but argued that such things should not be locked down as dogma, since new evidence might change our understanding. And most Christians followed his advice. By the 18th century, Christians were (as I showed you) aware that the Earth was quite old. The great Baptist evangelist C.H. Spurgeon referred to millions of years of Earth history, and the creationism presented at the Scopes Trial was OE creationism. Only in the 1950s, did the Seventh-Day Adventists spread their new doctrine to other fundamentalists.

              You're confusing YE creationism, with the error that the Earth is young. That's only one part of this new doctrine that was invented in the last century.

              Again, BECAUSE PAUL SAID that death entered through sin, there could not have been death prior to Adam.
              God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam ate, and lived on physically for many years thereafter. Either God was wrong, or it was not a physical death that he was speaking of.

              No point denying what scripture says, JR.


              Is it not a belief of some theistic evolutionists (not all, of course) that Adam and Eve were a group of about 200 or so ape-like creatures?
              Not that I know of. Is it not a belief of some YE creationists (not all, of course) who agree with ICR founder Henry Morris that black people are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people?"

              As you know, God was not referring to a physical death when He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from that tree. If He was, Adam would have physically died that day. You can't even get that verse right, what makes you think that you have the scripture we're talking about correct?

              It's not that you're going to hell for being a YE creationist; God doesn't care if you approve of the way He created things. He cares if you repent of your sins and follow what Jesus told you. Unless you make an idol of your new YE doctrines, it won't endanger your salvation at all. You're dangerously close to doing that. Be careful and have the humility to know you could be wrong.

              You're bloviating again instead of talking about the subject matter.
              It's precisely on the subject. If you didn't want to talk about it, you should not have brought it up.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                As you know, God was not referring to a physical death when He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from that tree. If He was, Adam would have physically died that day. You can't even get that verse right, what makes you think that you have the scripture we're talking about correct?
                When you say, "Adam would have physically died that day", to what period of time (from when, to when?), and to how long a period of time are you referring by your phrase, "that day"?

                When you say "Adam would have physically died that day", what, exactly, do you mean by "physically die"? Of what would you say Adam's "physically dying" consisted?

                How long would you say is the maximum length of time it takes a human to "physically die", from the time he/she starts "physically dying" to the time his/her "physical death" has completely run its course? How long a period of time would you say it took Adam to "physically die"? When, say you, did Adam start "physically dying", and when, say you, did Adam stop "physically dying"?




                All my ancestors are human.
                PS: All your ancestors are human.
                PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree.
                  So, why do you deny that Adam died the day he ate from the tree? Why do you deny that which, as you just admitted, God told Adam?

                  Ah, I know: because you're a Bible-despiser. Because you hate God's word.

                  All my ancestors are human.
                  PS: All your ancestors are human.
                  PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                    That's why you should let God be true, and every man a liar.
                    The Barbarian is pleased to pretend to let God be, somehow, non-literally true, while he is also eager to make God out to be literally a liar.
                    All my ancestors are human.
                    PS: All your ancestors are human.
                    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wick Stick View Post
                      Because the creation account in Genesis isn't literal, and you shouldn't be trying to use it that way.
                      In other words, you have just told us that the creation account in Genesis is meaningless.
                      All my ancestors are human.
                      PS: All your ancestors are human.
                      PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
                        In other words, you are saying you don't know anything for sure except that it's common descent. I hope you realize you are also claiming to know what perfect DNA is.
                        If you're saying predesigned, "perfect" DNA can't be identified then you're admitting the YEC idea has no testable basis at all.

                        Viral parts becoming part of human DNA are laughable without a designer to control how the virus enters the system without destroying the system.
                        That viral parts come with advanced usable functions for humans is laughable unless that was the design.
                        The similarities to virus parts as if viruses invaded the human system is tenuous at best.
                        Not at all. They look like viruses, act like viruses. They're certainly pieces of DNA that self replicate and don't serve any other obvious purpose. Some organisms have lots of them and some have few. And it doesn't seem to have an obvious pattern. LINES and SINES are transposons and the human genome is bloated with them.


                        What do you mean by hyperevolution?
                        Creating huge numbers of species (say all of big cats from a genetic "cat kind") from two individuals 4,000 years ago.

                        Does adaptation exist and how does it work? Is it different than mutation+natural selection?
                        Adaptation is one of my least favorite words as it is so nebulous as to have little meaning. If you mean genetic change in a population over time which improves the species' survival. That's just a version of evolution.

                        Do you mean dead plants came to life from the mud or that ferns turned into oaks?
                        I dunno it's your magical flood idea.

                        What is the current explanation from creationists? Or do you only read what common descentists say about the flood?
                        In my experience, creationists don't talk about plants other than trees going through multiple sediment layers. Heck, most "evolutionists" hardly talk about plant evolution. Bunch of plant ignorers. O_O
                        “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                        - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                        Comment


                        • You'll never get anywhere with trolls, but they do make good batting practice, don't they?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post


                            In your picture, we see it said that mammals are "chordates with fur or hair and milk glands." Now, if I'm not mistaken, you take your picture to somehow be about inheritance. So, from what would you say "chordates with fur or hair and milk glands" inherited fur or hair and milk glands?
                            I think you should consider this from the fantasy world of Answers in Genesis:

                            The concept of kind is important for understanding how Noah fit all the animals on the ark. If kind is at the level of family/order, there would have been plenty of room on the ark to take two of every kind and seven of some. For example, even though many different dinosaurs have been identified, creation scientists think there are only about 50 “kinds” of dinosaurs. Even though breeding studies are impossible with dinosaurs, by studying fossils one can ascertain that there was likely one Ceratopsian kind with variation in that kind and so on.

                            After the Flood, the animals were told to “be fruitful and multiply on the earth” (Genesis 8:17). As they did this, natural selection, mutation, and other mechanisms allowed speciation within the kinds to occur. Speciation was necessary for the animals to survive in a very different post-Flood world.


                            They think this picture is about inheritance, at least back to family or order. I appreciate you are citing adaptations at the level of class, but that's only one more level up, and AiG have set an arbitrary stop point at order/family because of the dimensions of a mythological boat.

                            Stuart

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              They think this picture is about inheritance, at least back to family or order. I appreciate you are citing adaptations at the level of class, but that's only one more level up, and AiG have set an arbitrary stop point at order/family because of the dimensions of a mythological boat.

                              Stuart
                              This is one of the points at which I said "check please" as far as accepting YECism. YECers hate evolution until they think it can rescue the flood. Then evolution becomes magically easy and ridiculously fast.

                              Of course starting with the genetic diversity of two individuals would make much of any evolutionary change virtually impossible in the short term. Which is all the time that's left, a mere four thousand years.

                              Modern Cheetahs have the genetic diversity of essentially two individuals, and they're virtually clones. And that is actually thought to have occurred a few thousand years ago. Why don't all the other species on earth have that same pattern?
                              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                                This is one of the points at which I said "check please" as far as accepting YECism. YECers hate evolution until they think it can rescue the flood. Then evolution becomes magically easy and ridiculously fast.

                                Of course starting with the genetic diversity of two individuals would make much of any evolutionary change virtually impossible in the short term. Which is all the time that's left, a mere four thousand years.

                                Modern Cheetahs have the genetic diversity of essentially two individuals, and they're virtually clones. And that is actually thought to have occurred a few thousand years ago. Why don't all the other species on earth have that same pattern?
                                Well don't forget the 'fall' which appears to be spectacularly mutagenic.

                                I wonder if YECers with organ transplants refuse anti-rejection drugs...

                                Stuart

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X