Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

  • Thread starter Thread starter nmercier1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Philipp said:
PHILIPP: No wonder the church is in such as sad state of attendence, hardly any priests left, seminaraies closed, abortion is rampant, confusion abounds. It would appear that the elitists have taken over — No intelligence allowed. Perge those who support the church fathers; allow only those who support modernism. Down with tradition up with Darwin is obviously your MOS.
Click to expand...
Philipp, why are you so negative about the church so? In my diocese we have plenty of priests – college educated ones who know about science as well as theology – and one church has 8,000 people attending its six Sunday Masses. Intelligence is not only welcomed, but expected – loads of adult education programs, sound catechesis in the Catholic schools, great respect for the Church Fathers (which, sadly, you seem not to share, with your denigration of John Damascene), and great respect for ecclesiastical tradition in general! My parish even has a Schola Cantorum (in which I sing) that prepares classical Latin sung Masses for the well-attended 11:00 service. Cheer up – the Church is in great shape!

Petrus
 
ibetrippin07 said:
O phil I could honestly care less what the pope has to say about evolution, simply what the scientific evidence and the bible itself have to say.

sure you can play the game, why dont we play the evidence game?😉
Click to expand...
Evidence is not necessarily that important to them, ibetrippin. if it was, they wouldn’t ignore so much of it when it doesn’t fit the pre-punched holes. It has been said that the amount of fossil evidence supporting evolution could fit on a couple of billiard tables. The amount of fossil evidence that *doesn’t *necessarily support evolution could fill a couple of small warehouses. But, mention anamalous evidence, and you’ll be accused of being a Hare Krishna, which is a neat and convenient way of dismissing you without ever having to bother dealing with all that pesky evidence out there. (shrug)

Basically what all these arguments boil down to is two schools of thought: either A) There is a God Who created all that is by direct intervention; or B) there may or may not be a God, Who may or may not have created anything, but even if He did, He bowed out soon after, and after that, the whole works is random.

That’s what all of these threads amount to in the end. All the rest of it–the high-blown arguments about sources, and big names of science or theology being quoted about this or that, or erudite scientific arguments all full of five-dollar words—is just noise.
 
sorry mistake, I must have hit “return” or something, post is below.

Phil P
 
Ibe << sure you can play the game, why dont we play the evidence game? >>

All right, you answer my questions, I answer your question. 👍

Here are your easy questions to easily answer from a creationist perspective: 😛

(1) Why do we find a quite complete set of dinosaur (reptile)-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps?

(2) Why do we have an exquisite series of fossils for the reptile-to-mammal intermediates?

(3) Why do we have many land-mammal to whale intermediates?

(4) Why do we find in the fossil record and geological column, prokaryotes appearing first, followed by simple multicellular animals like sponges and starfish, then lampreys, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates and finally man?

(5) Why is there a positive correlation between phylogeny and stratigraphy?

More questions here, but these five will start us off. You said there are no transitional fossils, right? Are you sure about that?

Phil P
 
Wols << All right! NOW this thread is getting somewhere! >>

Hey it’s IBe’s fault. He just backed us all up about 30 pages in the thread. 😃

Phil P
 
Btw i dont copy and past garbage, I use scholarly sources, unlike yourself

Goldschmidt is talking about what you said, but what you said demonstrates even further the poorer proofs that they have, they have none and so they divide up into different ideals on the subject contradict each other such as uniformitarism and sudden evolution? these contradict each other
also again name calling is for the uneducated, don’t profess yourself to be wise but have the language of a child

yea Thomson if he thought they were exciting and new complexities! then why did he use troubling? hmmm actually kinda sounds like hes bothered by that factor
Its quite demoralizing to note there are not fossils in support.

“indeed. Gould is pointing out that it is the odd incongruities of organisms (like our backward-arranged retina or our vestigial tails) that provide a look into evolution. If we were perfect in every respect, there wouldn’t be much clue as to how we became as were are.”
I dont think so buddy, did he use the word “odd incongruities” no. he used “imperfections”. which is not supposed to be the idea here, because how are we progressing through imperfections?
please please explain!

“Yep. The early geologists soon noted that the same fossils always turned up in the same place in the geologic column. Soon, they were able to show that the presence of certain fossils always correlated with certain rocks. At least in England, they did. Many are still useful, and some new ones have been found, although some were later found to have a wider distribution in time than initial evidence indicated. However, the geologists did not use the fossils to work out relative dating of rocks; that was by the law of superposition. Only later, did they realize that the fossils could also be used for that purpose, so no circularity was involved. They were, BTW, creationists. Surprise.”
Interesting idea you should bring up with your relative thinking, because the geological column for anyone who has actually looked at it is not in any specific order except for about 10 percent of the landmass in the entire world. they columns are mixed up and they date the rocks off of fossils in the first place because its impossible to orderly record the columns in such disorder!

Im really waiting for this “transitional fossil evidence”

“Actually, Stephen Gould, who first proposed punctuated equilibrium, points out horses, ammonites, and forams as examples of gradual evolution in non-isolated populations. Most speciation seems to be by geographical isolation (we have an event happening right now, as the Alberts and Kaibab squirrels are now either separate species or very nearly so)”
Its funny that you should bring this up! because this is sudden transition we are speaking of. do you remember back to your high school biology book and the moth experiment? same idea, except the freekin moths don’t even naturally hang out in the open!

yea i already stated many more quotes
 
ibetrippin07 said:
That should really hit home, in all honesty, these are major sources for fossil evidence and who have you mentioned in return? people who don’t own museums that house the greatest numbers? have you mentioned some who could equate to billy Gram, or Hank HaneGraaff?? NO
Click to expand...
Hank Hanegraaff impresses uneducated creationists by his use of “sciency” language that he doesn’t really understand. Scientists are unimpressed. (See talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jun96.html). The saddest thing about creationism – and particularly among uneducated Catholics – is that it has serious negative effects:

(1) When Catholic children mature and go to university and discover they’ve been duped by their ignorant creationist parents, they might be tempted to abandon their poorly understood faith;

(2) Sincere and bright Catholic kids who are fed creationist garbage in their tender years might be discouraged from careers in science because of what they falsely view to be an irreconcilable conflict between their faith and the world of science in which they aspire to participate;

(3) The increasing absence of Catholics (and other Christians) in science will leave the Catholic voice out of important discussions relating to ethics, technology, and science.

Petrus
 
Wolseley said:
Evidence is not necessarily that important to them, ibetrippin. if it was, they wouldn’t ignore so much of it when it doesn’t fit the pre-punched holes. It has been said that the amount of fossil evidence supporting evolution could fit on a couple of billiard tables. The amount of fossil evidence that *doesn’t *necessarily support evolution could fill a couple of small warehouses. But, mention anamalous evidence, and you’ll be accused of being a Hare Krishna, which is a neat and convenient way of dismissing you without ever having to bother dealing with all that pesky evidence out there. (shrug)

Basically what all these arguments boil down to is two schools of thought: either A) There is a God Who created all that is by direct intervention; or B) there may or may not be a God, Who may or may not have created anything, but even if He did, He bowed out soon after, and after that, the whole works is random.

That’s what all of these threads amount to in the end. All the rest of it–the high-blown arguments about sources, and big names of science or theology being quoted about this or that, or erudite scientific arguments all full of five-dollar words—is just noise.
Click to expand...
Not according to Colin Patterson or David Raup! :rolleyes:
 
Ibe << again i will point out a greater weakness in your arguments for evolution, Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, houses the world’s largest fossil collection about sixty million specimens said when asked why he did not provide fossil evidence In his book for proof to include in an article he responded “If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them” >>

The infamous "Patterson quote" has been annihilated by TalkOrigins and their Quote Mine project. I’m sure several of your quotes are found and dealt with there already.

Let’s have a rule in here: no more quoting from any scientist or evolutionist unless you have personally looked up the quote. You must (1) OWN THE BOOK or a photocopy of the source you are quoting, (2) provide full documentation of the quote and its context. Otherwise, do not quote any scientist.

BTW, the quotes I have provided are from books I own, so I know the context, have seen the context, and can provide a photocopy of the relevant pages. Or the relevant document or essay is already fully online.

If you cannot provide a photocopy of the relevant pages, then do not quote the person. That would illiminate most of your “arguments” against evolution so far. 👍

Phil P
 
Wolseley said:
Evidence is not necessarily that important to them, ibetrippin. if it was, they wouldn’t ignore so much of it when it doesn’t fit the pre-punched holes. It has been said that the amount of fossil evidence supporting evolution could fit on a couple of billiard tables. .
Click to expand...
Said by a journalist in 1981 about *hominid *fossils and quoted gleefully by creationists ever since. Misquoted shamefully by you. It was wrong at the time and it even more wrong now.
The amount of fossil evidence that *doesn’t *necessarily support evolution could fill a couple of small warehouses
Click to expand...
Invented by you yesterday without the slightest justification.

Seems that false rhetoric is more important to you than truth and reason. And you have the gall to accuse scientists of not caring for the evidence. Sheesh.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
please give me time to answer these questions my friend, theres alot of evidence for me to dig through here
 
PhilVaz said:
Ibe << sure you can play the game, why dont we play the evidence game? >>

All right, you answer my questions, I answer your question. 👍

Here are your easy questions to easily answer from a creationist perspective: 😛

(1) Why do we find a quite complete set of dinosaur (reptile)-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps?

(2) Why do we have an exquisite series of fossils for the reptile-to-mammal intermediates?

(3) Why do we have many land-mammal to whale intermediates?

(4) Why do we find in the fossil record and geological column, prokaryotes appearing first, followed by simple multicellular animals like sponges and starfish, then lampreys, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates and finally man?

(5) Why is there a positive correlation between phylogeny and stratigraphy?

More questions here, but these five will start us off. You said there are no transitional fossils, right? Are you sure about that?

Phil P
Click to expand...
  1. I would argue that is not the case,
    Let us discuss Archaeopteryx shall we?
    IT is said that is to have twenty-one specialized characteristics in common iwth particular kinds of dinosaurs, but Dr. Duane Gish would aruge that these characteristics are genuinely birdlike and not reptilian. Myriad evidences show that it is a full fledged bird and not a missing link.
    For example the Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs it was supposedly found to be like, are found in a fine grained German limestone formation said in the late Jurassic. for those of you that dont know the Jurassic is about 190 million years ago lasting about 54 million years.
    Thus i cannont be the missing link because birds and thier alleged ancestral dinosaurs thrived during the same period of time, also there have been many a bird discovery in the Late Triassic, which is prior to the Jurassic. How would you explain this?
    This would have put the birds as living at 75 million years earlier than Archaeopteryx, basically at the same time as the first dinosaurs.
    Also the fossil find gave no evidence of a bony sternum, but in April 1993, a seventh specimen was reported with a bony sternum indicating that it was definetly a power flyer.
    In the Journal “Science: 'Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in the true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was , in a modern sense, a bird.” (If you would like we can discuss this further but i just wanna hit all the questions first)
2 and 3 I would argue otherwise, and ask for the skeleton of the many transitional forms in tact.
  1. Remember there is really no order in the geological column, Uniform evolution is a cheap argument, but if you want to try to make a case for it be my guest;)
  2. as you said earlier in a post to me, you said that phylogeny is not the case, you said that the imperfections in evolution are nothing to be worried about and are actually in favor of evolution somehow, also there is not a correlation because one deals with rock strata and the other with organs…
 
ibetrippin07 said:
again i will point out a greater weakness in your arguments for evolution, Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, houses the world’s largest fossil collection about sixty million specimens said when asked why he did not provide fossil evidence In his book for proof to include in an article he responded “If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them”
Click to expand...
that is a well refuted misquote of Paterson :rolleyes:
ibetrippin07 said:
David Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago says this
“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much… We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.”
Click to expand...
More out of context quote mining?
As noted here

Yes, Raup did say this (in “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology”, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”(p. 25)
Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been “discarded” he also says that others have only been “modified”. For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.
And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent.
ibetrippin07 said:
That should really hit home,….
Click to expand...
Not particularly
Is that the best you’ve got?
 
PhilVaz said:
Ibe << again i will point out a greater weakness in your arguments for evolution, Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, houses the world’s largest fossil collection about sixty million specimens said when asked why he did not provide fossil evidence In his book for proof to include in an article he responded “If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them” >>

The infamous "Patterson quote" has been annihilated by TalkOrigins and their Quote Mine project. I’m sure several of your quotes are found and dealt with there already.

Let’s have a rule in here: no more quoting from any scientist or evolutionist unless you have personally looked up the quote. You must (1) OWN THE BOOK or a photocopy of the source you are quoting, (2) provide full documentation of the quote and its context. Otherwise, do not quote any scientist.

BTW, the quotes I have provided are from books I own, so I know the context, have seen the context, and can provide a photocopy of the relevant pages. Or the relevant document or essay is already fully online.

If you cannot provide a photocopy of the relevant pages, then do not quote the person. That would illiminate most of your “arguments” against evolution so far. 👍

Phil P
Click to expand...
Yes Phil I would agree, no internet sources unless a scholarly one
Books do count I would agree, especially an entire book dealing with the subject.
If you think im just finding random quotes your dead wrong
 
IBe << have you mentioned some who could equate to billy Gram, or Hank HaneGraaff?? NO >>

BTW, I have Hank Hanegraaff’s books and information on evolution, and basically he relies on secondary creationist literature (mainly ICR stuff, and some Ken Ham AiG material). There is no first hand presentation of scientific evidence from primary sources in his books. Therefore he makes many mistakes, since he doesn’t check any of his creationist arguments or quotes against the hard science textbooks. I doubt he ever talked with or interviewed real scientists before he wrote his anti-evolution books. Hank’s DVD on the “Face” and “Farce” of evolution is also extremely poor in its scholarship, although I commend Hank in other areas (his battles with the pseudo-Christian cults, etc).

Billy Graham, on the other hand, SUPPORTS evolution. He has no problem with modern science. It does not conflict with how he interprets Genesis.

“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things that they weren’t meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by thinking that the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of redemption, and of course, I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe he created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point he took this person or this being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man…I personally believe that it’s just as easy to accept the fact that God took some dust and blew on it and out came a man as it is to accept the fact that God breathed upon man and he became a living soul and it started with some protoplasm and went right on up through the evolutionary process. Either way is by faith and whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”

(from Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man by David Frost [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor, 1997] pages 72-74)

This comes from a talk and information by Denis Lamoureux, an evolutionary creationist with Ph.D.'s in both biology and theology. Very similar to a quote from Pope John Paul II I have presented in here before:

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

In short:

(1) the Bible is not a scientific treatise;
(2) the main point of Genesis 1 is that God is our Creator;
(3) the Scripture uses the cosmology in use at the time of the writer (not a modern cosmology);
(4) the Bible wishes to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens were made;
(5) any other teaching about the origin and nature of the universe is alien to the intentions of the original biblical authors.

Billy Graham and Pope JP2 are definitely in agreement here.

Phil P
 
Now Phil I have several questions here, and I am short of time, I know we all have lives outside of this forms, I have a snow day from school:D woot! so I plan to spend it away from the computer, so it may take me time to respond but I do intend to continue this discussion.
  1. Would you agree with me when I say that Nebraska man or “Hesperopithecus haroldcookii”, pithecanthropus Erectus, Eoanthropus dawsoni, Peking man are pathetic terrible frauds poised by the evolutionary community in desperation to find evidence when there is none? and if not why?
  2. What are you feelings twored the evolution of the egg or the eye.
    Do you agree with what Darwin had said about them?
  3. If there is a direct correlation between evolution and racism, and as a social science as a whole. What excuse gives evolution the ability to enter the scientific arena.
  4. Dont you think there should be not just a few here and there “examples” of transitional fossils, but literally millions of them everywhere that directly show the existence of extinct transitionally fossils?
  5. I must also know if you believe the bible and evolution coincide or not. maybe a definite yes or no and why would be nice here.
    This would nice if we talk about the world wide flood later on!
 
PhilVaz said:
Ed << Get it right Phil. The Catholic Church does combine science and divine revelation, especially in regard to this subject. >>

The Church does not want to change the definition of science. That is what the Discovery Institute wants to do. The Church is merely responding to the Richard Dawkins’, Kai Nielsen’s, Steven Weinberg’s, Victor Stenger’s, and Neil deGasse Tyson’s of the world.

For an example of what I am talking about, see the book Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? published by Prometheus Books (2003). The majority of contributors in this book answer No, they are not compatible.

That is what the Catholic Church (Pope Benedict, Cardinal Schonborn) is responding to in (1) the ITC statement on “unguided” and “divine providence”, (2) Benedict’s quote on “causal” and “meaningless” evolution, and (3) Schonborn’s original piece in the NY Times, and his subsequent book clarifying his position. Science and Religion are compatible, but we don’t want to change how the scientific method works nor re-define science.

Phil P
Click to expand...
Science has its place Phil, but it is only a tool used by man. Pope Benedict also stated that the current theory of evolution excludes other necessary components of reason. Pope John Paul II stated that there is design in nature and to say otherwise is an abbrogation of reason and a denial of what we see around us.

It is not helpful to tell Catholcs: “Look! Science, science, science, science!” While not including truths given to the Catholic Church by God Himself. Face it Phil. In Human Persons Created in the Image of God is explicit reference to Humani Generis and explicit reference to the continuity of what it had to say.

Catholics cannot accept a non-God version of evolution. Cardinal Schoenborn said that the Church is in the odd position of having to defend reason itself. It is not just Richard Dawkins, et al, it is recognition of all the ideas that undermine human identity, human dignity and human interaction currently in circulation. The Pope has spoken against atheism and the indifference that exists in people about identifying the answers to questions about how to properly view themselves and others as human beings.

I think you should understand Phil, that various theories are applied and adapted to be used against people. But to get back to the topic, the Catholic Church only believes in some form of God guided “evolution.” I put that in quotes because Pope John Paul II recognized more than one theory.

God bless,
Ed
 
PhilVaz said:
IBe << have you mentioned some who could equate to billy Gram, or Hank HaneGraaff?? NO >>

BTW, I have Hank Hanegraaff’s books and information on evolution, and basically he relies on secondary creationist literature (mainly ICR stuff, and some Ken Ham AiG material). There is no first hand presentation of scientific evidence from primary sources in his books. Therefore he makes many mistakes, since he doesn’t check any of his creationist arguments or quotes against the hard science textbooks. I doubt he ever talked with or interviewed real scientists before he wrote his anti-evolution books. Hank’s DVD on the “Face” and “Farce” of evolution is also extremely poor in its scholarship, although I commend Hank in other areas (his battles with the pseudo-Christian cults, etc).

Billy Graham, on the other hand, SUPPORTS evolution. He has no problem with modern science. It does not conflict with how he interprets Genesis.

“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things that they weren’t meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by thinking that the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of redemption, and of course, I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe he created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point he took this person or this being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man…I personally believe that it’s just as easy to accept the fact that God took some dust and blew on it and out came a man as it is to accept the fact that God breathed upon man and he became a living soul and it started with some protoplasm and went right on up through the evolutionary process. Either way is by faith and whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”

(from Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man by David Frost [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor, 1997] pages 72-74)

This comes from a talk and information by Denis Lamoureux, an evolutionary creationist with Ph.D.'s in both biology and theology. Very similar to a quote from Pope John Paul II I have presented in here before:

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

In short:

(1) the Bible is not a scientific treatise;
(2) the main point of Genesis 1 is that God is our Creator;
(3) the Scripture uses the cosmology in use at the time of the writer (not a modern cosmology);
(4) the Bible wishes to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens were made;
(5) any other teaching about the origin and nature of the universe is alien to the intentions of the original biblical authors.

Billy Graham and Pope JP2 are definitely in agreement here.

Phil P
Click to expand...
I dont reallly see anything wrong with what Billy Grahm has said. I do feel it has somewhat opend the door for you to run in with the red flag and say hes an evolutionist or something. He seems to be in a state where if he used that it would not contradict the bible, which I dont not believe as I believe it does contradict the bible.
Theres no direct quote of him saying God used evolution because as your quote points out he uses the word create alot. Thats not really an evolutionists term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top