Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

[danielsgram]

Hello all you philosophical evolutionists.

Tim writes: No experiments other than genetic studies.

You won’t accept any evidence that points to evolution.

There you go. Your apologist (a scientist) for your philosophy has absolutely nothing. The evidence that you have is the same evidence that antievolutionists have. The evolutionists interpret it differently from the evolutionists. Science must be: observable, measurable and repeatable. You have no science to offer so you resort to ridicule. I skimmed the replies since the last time I posted here. One somewhat less than forthright fella wrote

Now you may or not know that i (the square root of minus one) raised to the power of itself is about 0.208. If you don’t beleive me I can prove it to you, but you may lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the proof

His “got ya” is to attempt to denigrate my intelligence. Now, I don’t think that I ever fell for that one but if I did it was before my eighth birthday. Children say “your stupid” or “I know but I’m not going to tell you. What is that supposed to prove?

You ridicule all the antievolution people including but not limited to the scientists in that field. For example Professor Maciej Giertych he only lectures on population genetics at the Polish Academy of Sciences. His credentials are impeccable. He is also a terrific Catholic who fights against abortion he should be respected. I noticed that someone tried to denigrate the conclusions of others because it was gleaned from a fundamentalist web site. What kind of argument is that? I challenge any evolutionist who reads this to deal with the scientific information on this site answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp it is a fundamentalist site but Professor Giertych is Catholic. Here is some “sound bites” from a video that he participated in: “A good scientist is one who basis his conclusions on experimental data and observation.” this next quote I didn’t get the first part of the sentence but you’ll get the drift. “Selection and isolation: we selected those that are useful to man, with certain characteristics for evolution we need new genes full of genetic information”

Wisdom would have you deal with his work and not him personally.

continued

 

[danielsgram]

What this thread reminds me of is a Calvinist discussion forum. I don’t know if any Catholic bothers to go there anymore, I haven’t been there for two years or so. If Catholics try to argue a point they are ridiculed and scorned. They are or were subjected to all kinds of ad hominem attacks. They don’t deal with the evidence for Catholicism because they can’t. Those people (the Calvinists) are committed to their religion so don’t confuse them with facts. It is the same here. You take the evolutionists propaganda by faith. all of the scientists in the Pontifical Academy of Science are evolutionists. They do not allow an antievolution scientist on the board they elect the people that they want. I smell a rat.

Below find those quotes again regarding what is needed for something to be considered science. I recommend that you stop the ridicule it flows like water off of a ducks back with me. I recommend that you start behaving like adults.

“Saint Albert also served in important positions of authority within the Church, including provincial of the German Dominicans for several years and bishop of Regensburg for two. “Proficient in all branches of science,” writes the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, “he was one of the most famous precursors of modern science in the High Middle Ages.” Canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1931, Saint Albert would be named the patron of all who cultivate the natural sciences ten years later by Pius XII.”

“Saint Albert was a renowned naturalist and recorded an enormous amount about the world around him. His prodigious output spanned physics, logic, metaphysics, biology, psychology, and various earth sciences. Like Roger Bacon, Saint Albert was careful to note the importance of direct observation in the acquisition of knowledge about the physical world. In De Mineralibus, he explained that the aim of natural science was “not simply to accept the statements of others, that is, what is narrated by people but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature for themselves.”’
“His insistence on direct observation and-for all his admiration of Aristotle-his refusal to accept scientific authority on faith were essential contributions to the scientific frame of mind.”

“Robert Grosseteste, who served as chancellor of Oxford and as bishop of Lincoln, the largest diocese in England, shared the enor mous range of scholarly interests and accomplishments that characterized Roger Bacon and Saint Albert the Great. Grosseteste had been influenced by the famous school at Chartres, particularly by Thierry. Considered one of the most knowledgeable men of the Middle Ages, Grosseteste has been called the first man ever to write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment. In ROBERT GROSSETESTE AND THE ORIGINS of EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE, A.C. Crombie suggested that the thirteenth century possed the rudiments of the scientific method, largely thanks to figures like Grosseteste. Thus, although the innovations of the seventeenth-century Scientific Revolution certainly deserve their due, a theoretical emphasis on observation and experiment is already evident in the High Middle Ages.”

“Without experiment nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds it by way of experiment.” Roger Bacon, Opus Maius

Another quote: “{t}he strongest arguments prove nothing, so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience.” ibid.

(Roger Bacon) “identified several obstacles to the transmission of truth, among them uninstructed popular opinion and long-standing but erroneous custom. (Roger Bacon a Franciscan who taught at Oxford. He was one of the most important figures of the thirteenth century. Bacon wrote about the philosophy of science and emphasized the importance of experience and experiment.)” All quotes are from HOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUILT WESTERN CIVILIZATION by Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ph.D. except for the quote where I reference a web site.

 

[ribozyme]

You ridicule all the antievolution people including but not limited to the scientists in that field. For example Professor Maciej Giertych he only lectures on population genetics at the Polish Academy of Sciences. His credentials are impeccable. He is also a terrific Catholic who fights against abortion he should be respected. I noticed that someone tried to denigrate the conclusions of others because it was gleaned from a fundamentalist web site. What kind of argument is that? I challenge any evolutionist who reads this to deal with the scientific information on this site answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp it is a fundamentalist site but Professor Giertych is Catholic. Here is some “sound bites” from a video that he participated in: “A good scientist is one who basis his conclusions on experimental data and observation.” this next quote I didn’t get the first part of the sentence but you’ll get the drift. “Selection and isolation: we selected those that are useful to man, with certain characteristics for evolution we need new genes full of genetic information”

Wisdom would have you deal with his work and not him personally.

Uh… I read the article, and it just denies the evidence of evolution. He does not provide any evidence of its impossibility.

 

[steveandersen]

… Science must be: observable, measurable and repeatable. …

Sigh,

I gave you observable, measurable, and repeatable examples

You chose to ignore them.

You said you would respond after I gave you a definition of species

You didn’t.

I tried to patiently answer your questions.
You responded by asking the same question.

You choose to listen to false profits of pseudo science rather than those with authority.

I pray that one day God will open your eyes so that you can stop this willful denial of the beauty of His Creation.

 

[danielsgram]

I gave you observable, measurable, and repeatable examples

You gave me many things I chose one. It was primrose to primrose not fish to amphibians or apes to man.

Now, that sort of thing is in there show me how to go directly to it instead of having to wade through adaptations.

Donna

 

[steveandersen]

You gave me many things I chose one. It was primrose to primrose not fish to amphibians or apes to man.

Now, that sort of thing is in there show me how to go directly to it instead of having to wade through adaptations.

Donna

What does that mean?
Are you suggesting that evolution claims that things jump between classes?

Where did you hear such a thing?
If that what you think evolution is no wonder you’re not buying it.

The whole process of evolution is wading through the adaptations.
There ain’t no short cuts and you can’t go down the same road twice
You can’t go backwards and you can’t jump to another path
That is just how God made the world
It starts with your primrose (which was a product of one of at least 6 observed mechanisms for speciation IIRC) and goes on from there step by miniscule step.

 

[R_McGeddon]

The evidence that you have is the same evidence that antievolutionists have. The evolutionists interpret it differently from the antievolutionists.

There is one fact that you have completely overlooked.

It is only possible for one of the groups, that you mention, to be correct in their interpretation.

I know which I favour.

 

[zian]

There is, of course, the possibility that both groups could be wrong. Science, fortunately, has a built-in mechanism for self correction, since the conclusion is not assumed, but is determined (at least provisionally, and as well as possible) from the available evidence. New evidence can always result in revised, or completely revolutionary, (provisional) conclusions.

 

[danielsgram]

Hello everyone who is interested in this topic:
Steveanderson writes:

The whole process of evolution is wading through the adaptations.
There ain’t no short cuts and you can’t go down the same road twice
You can’t go backwards and you can’t jump to another path
That is just how God made the world
It starts with your primrose (which was a product of one of at least 6 observed mechanisms for speciation IIRC) and goes on from there step by miniscule step.

But Steve the evolutionists do indeed believe that amphibians evolved into frogs. www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/biomedia/units/amph3.htm

The quote above is nothing that you can prove. You cannot prove that “you can’t go backwards” it is clear to you that “you can’t jump to another path” but you cannot prove that “It starts with your primrose (which was a product of one of at least 6 observed mechanisms for speciation IIRC) and goes on from there step by miniscule step.” You simply take that on faith. I’m telling you that there are reasonable alternative interpretations for all the evidence that evolution scientists have. I recommend that you read Professor Giertych’s article at answersingenesis.org/crea…3/genetics.asp
then watch the video at noevolution.org/ . He addresses what you consider to be evolution. Professor Giertych’s interview is the last one in the series. The first two scientists are not Catholic. Fondi is first and he is an evolutionist. I can’t remember which evolutionary philosophy he has decided to take as his belief system, it may be punctuated equilibrium or some such. That might be the 3rd alternative to which zian referred. The next scientists believes in another philosophy. I think that he may be “into” flying saucers or something equally weird. I’m glad to see that R. McGeddon is joining in on the discussion. He seems to be on the side of the evolutionists and he is an existentialist. Should I ridicule his philosophical belief system or should I take his (name removed by moderator)ut on the topic seriously?

continued

 

[danielsgram]

zain Writes:

There is, of course, the possibility that both groups could be wrong. Science, fortunately, has a built-in mechanism for self correction, since the conclusion is not assumed, but is determined (at least provisionally, and as well as possible) from the available evidence.

I see this as an ideal that is not realized. When one side of an issue is not allowed at the table of discussion then science is stagnated which is how I see things now.

New evidence can always result in revised, or completely revolutionary, (provisional) conclusions.

Certainly that is theoretically possible but the evidence that antievolutionists is not allowed to enter the discussion. I say lets invite everyone to the party, evolutionists, antievolutionists and a third alternative if there is one.

Since it is clear that evolution is a philosophy (it cannot be proven scientifically) IMHO it behooves those who do believe in it to take a look at the evidence against and if those people cannot prove that the antievolutionists are wrong then it is time to stop the ridicule and let them come to the discussion table.

The evolutionists whom I have come across during walk in their corner of the world remind me of a member of my family, an Adventist. We decided at one time to have a snail mail debate Catholic vs. Adventist. We didn’t get too far, when she saw even the beginning of my evidence she called off the debate.

Donna

 

[zian]

danielsgram:

I see this as an ideal that is not realized. When one side of an issue is not allowed at the table of discussion then science is stagnated which is how I see things now. …

Certainly that is theoretically possible but the evidence that antievolutionists is not allowed to enter the discussion. I say lets invite everyone to the party, evolutionists, antievolutionists and a third alternative if there is one.

Donna,

However, there is a stunning counterexample of relatively recent vintage to counter your argument that the scientists aren’t “letting anyone else in to play”. Plate tectonics was initially ridiculed by geoscientists as a theory. But eventually, the increasing weight of the evidence has lead scientists to accept plate tectonics as a model and a theory. The whole point is that the scientists seeking to support the plate tectonics theory had to go out and collect evidence to support their model and then hold it up to criticism in the scientific literature. They had to use science. This is a normal process of science.

The problem with most YEC evidences is not that they have an equally possible alternative explanation to any one set of data, but that their explanations are either wrong, or that simpler, more likely explanations exist. They can still come and “play”, but they’ve got to bring evidence. If their evidences can hold water, then you stand a chance of being listened to.

danielsgram:

Since it is clear that evolution is a philosophy (it cannot be proven scientifically) IMHO it behooves those who do believe in it to take a look at the evidence against and if those people cannot prove that the antievolutionists are wrong then it is time to stop the ridicule and let them come to the discussion table.

see this on the nature of scientific proof

I. THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF
A. Is there proof in science?

1. In the sense that the word proof is used in mathematics and philosophy, nothing is ever proven in science. There is always some uncertainty about the actual value of results
   obtained from some experiment or their interpretation.
2. The more times an observation is repeated and the greater number of different observations and theories that it ties into and agrees with, the more confident we are about how well
   we actually understand something.
3. However, in the strictest sense, we never arrive at “proof”; we simply arrive at a very high degree of probability that we understand something. Thus, it is important that you shift your frame of reference from one of proof and certainty of knowledge and interpretation of facts to one that is PROBABILISTIC in nature, where our confidence in whether or not we understand something properly is not and never can be absolute. Thus, you are well advised to remove the word
   “proof” from your vocabulary as far as science is concerned.

Of course, there is more on this subject here.

In the interest of clarity, I would consider the term evolutionism to be more related to any philosophical ramblings one may posit relative to the biological theory of evolution. In that sense, I state simply that I do not believe in evolution (it is not a matter of belief or not). I do, however, accept evolution for what it is, a stunningly accomplished theory for explaining the diversity of life as we know it.

If someone comes up with a better theory (better data, explains more, etc.) then I’ll be happy to accept that theory instead.

 

[danielsgram]

Hi Zain:
You seem to be one of the more reasonable evolutionists. For once I can enjoy the discussion.

The problem with most YEC evidences is not that they have an equally possible alternative explanation to any one set of data, but that their explanations are either wrong, or that simpler, more likely explanations exist.

If by YEC you mean the fundamentalists who do not believe in evolution because of the Bible I can’t comment on that because I have read very little of what they write. I did research this topic last summer. I asked an evolutionist who is a physician by trade to give me the best that he has that he believes could sway me towards evolution. I read and highlighted what I thought was their most compelling evidence and began researching what antievolutionists had to say on the topics. For me the evidence that the antievolutionists’ arguments were more compelling. Do you have an example of something that would show me why you say that the evolutionists’ explanation is more likely?

They can still come and “play”, but they’ve got to bring evidence. If their evidences can hold water, then you stand a chance of being listened to.

Well, they have not been given a seat at the Pontifical Academy of Science and when they try to get a hearing in the public schools they are denied a seat at the table as well. Where do you see them having a seat at the table? I see that they make their own table by forming their own societies and writing books and creating their own web sites.

I wrote this before but I think that it bears repeating here. There are three groups who seem to be in this discussion.

The first group would be who disbelieve evolution for religious reasons. This group seems to be comprised mostly of fundamentalist Christians.

The second group is the evolutionists. This group seems to be comprised of mostly atheists and Catholics.

The third group is the antievolutionists. This group seems to be comprised of mostly Catholics. If I had my wish it would be that this last group would be invited to the party.

Donna

 

[Gman21]

Any science that tries to ignore or eradicate design is ideology not science, I find that scientists deny the existence of God and rule out design.

We make inferences to design everyday, when we see things like motor vehicles, mobiles phones, houses, buildings, we know that these things were products of a process, design by definition means to “prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of,” we know that some form of guidance was involved in the process of forming these things that we see everyday. And that natural processes alone cannot create these things.

I found an interesting article in my local paper today, it was written by Stanley Roberts from Science Watch, (The Mercury, p. 8 December 16th) in his article he describes the problems that the globe is facing with global warming, as I read through I came across this paragraph “Based on tones of genetic data generated in the past few decades, two things have become clear. One is there are a handful of so-called master regulatory genes that control all the other genes in yeast; the other is that evolution is a much better designer than any rational being”

Evolution is a much better designer, definition of evolution "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. These processes especially mutation are very interesting, how do mutations produce small probability and specification, how do they produce living things like new types of species with new eyes and wings, legs and lungs, when man must plan, collect and build? Evolution seems to be able to do all these things just by mutation in DNA, natural selection and genetic drift, where did this information first arise from? How was it sequenced and coded so that the process of transcription could take place, how do amino acids form proteins without some form of sequencing or guidance, how do rocks form bricks without some form of guidance?

I guess I found the article very insulting to my intelligence, because the laptop I’m writing this reply on has been designed. Designed by a persons with rational minds, people who can employ logic to think the physics and chemistry involved in the creation of such a machine. Is my logic faulty, certainly in the biological world there are variations within kinds, it can be seen, but variations come through genetic drift and natural selection. Mutation which supposedly generates “new information” make its way into DNA and then is transcribed so that the appropriate amino acids are chained and then folded into proteins, with these proteins then being sent to build cells seems so far fetched, I can see that information could be lost through copying mistakes etc, but new information that specifies a structure to be built must result from intelligence. You can’t just expect mutation to create written information or code, I mean thats like saying chance created this reply!!

Anyway the point I was trying to make was that this guy seems to think that the evolution is a better designer, over any rational being! So am I a rational being? If not then this article shouldn’t make much sense, are the things we design like motor cars, mobile phones, computers, buildings, are these things really not the creation of a rational being? Is evolution better at creating then we are? Can mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection really design things that exceed what man can design in the material world!

I found this guys was pushing his philosophical beliefs out through the article which I found quite irrational.

 

[danielsgram]

Hi again Zian:

I have been thinking over what you wrote and have another question for you.

In the sense that the word proof is used in mathematics and philosophy, nothing is ever proven in science.

definition of science:

(Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to the system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.”

And science must be observable, measurable and repeatable. How in your mind can evolution be considered a science and not a philosophy?

I have posted the quotes below a couple of other times on this forum but I like to emphasize what science is and that I can’t see how evolution can be anything but a philosophy (some people call it a religion actually)

“Secular science actually agrees with the necessity of repeatable observations for the application of the scientific method, of which the penultimate step is the experimental testing of a theory….theotokos.org.uk/pages/cr…/humanevo.html

“Saint Albert also served in important positions of authority within the Church, including provincial of the German Dominicans for several years and bishop of Regensburg for two. “Proficient in all branches of science,” writes the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, “he was one of the most famous precursors of modern science in the High Middle Ages.” Canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1931, Saint Albert would be named the patron of all who cultivate the natural sciences ten years later by Pius XII.”

“Saint Albert was a renowned naturalist and recorded an enormous amount about the world around him. His prodigious output spanned physics, logic, metaphysics, biology, psychology, and various earth sciences. Like Roger Bacon, Saint Albert was careful to note the importance of direct observation in the acquisition of knowledge about the physical world. In De Mineralibus, he explained that the aim of natural science was “not simply to accept the statements of others, that is, what is narrated by people but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature for themselves.”’
“His insistence on direct observation and-for all his admiration of Aristotle-his refusal to accept scientific authority on faith were essential contributions to the scientific frame of mind.”

“Robert Grosseteste, who served as chancellor of Oxford and as bishop of Lincoln, the largest diocese in England, shared the enor mous range of scholarly interests and accomplishments that characterized Roger Bacon and Saint Albert the Great. Grosseteste had been influenced by the famous school at Chartres, particularly by Thierry. Considered one of the most knowledgeable men of the Middle Ages, Grosseteste has been called the first man ever to write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment. In ROBERT GROSSETESTE AND THE ORIGINS of EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE, A.C. Crombie suggested that the thirteenth century possed the rudiments of the scientific method, largely thanks to figures like Grosseteste. Thus, although the innovations of the seventeenth-century Scientific Revolution certainly deserve their due, a theoretical emphasis on observation and experiment is already evident in the High Middle Ages.”

“Without experiment nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds it by way of experiment.” Roger Bacon, Opus Maius

Another quote: “{t}he strongest arguments prove nothing, so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience.” ibid.

(Roger Bacon) “identified several obstacles to the transmission of truth, among them uninstructed popular opinion and long-standing but erroneous custom. (Roger Bacon a Franciscan who taught at Oxford. He was one of the most important figures of the thirteenth century. Bacon wrote about the philosophy of science and emphasized the importance of experience and experiment.)” All quotes are from HOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUILT WESTERN CIVILIZATION by Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ph.D. except for the quote where I reference a web site.

Donna

 

[zian]

And science must be observable, measurable and repeatable. How in your mind can evolution be considered a science and not a philosophy?

As all of your quotes also recognize, it is of the essence of science to make observations and measurements, and that they be repeatable (within the errors of measurement, of course). Furthermore, a theory ought to be able to make predictions; a good theory will have these predictions born out by subsequent observation and measurement.

Evolution is a good scientific theory because it is constantly being tested by new data, observations and measurements and continues to prove valuable as a guiding principle to understanding this new data.

And, it make predictions! A very recent example is the discovery of Tiktaalik
berkeley.edu:

Tiktaalik is important, well-preserved, and certainly newsworthy — but it was not unforeseen. The paleontologists who found Tiktaalik went looking for it. Previous research suggested that vertebrates’ invasion of land took place about 375 million years ago in a river — so Shubin and fellow researchers searched for fossils in 375 million year old rocks that had preserved a river delta ecosystem. Having studied other organisms from this water/land transition, the paleontologists knew what sort of animal they were looking for. And when they did discover Tiktaalik (after five separate expeditions to Canada), it wasn’t much of a surprise: Tiktaalik had the set of characteristics that they had expected to find in such an organism.(emphases mine)

More here:
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php

The point is that this is how theories work - a proposed theory has to comport with the existing data. As new data come in, the theory is continually under assault. It must either fit with the data, be modified if it can be done sensibly, or eventually be cast onto the dust heap of history when the observations and measurements simply make no sense at all from within the theory.

Evolution is under assault every day, and not just from biological inquiry. It’s holding up pretty well so far.

 

[R_McGeddon]

science must be observable, measurable and repeatable.

For your information, the dictionary definition of science is observability **and/or **measurability and experimentation. There is no mention of repeatability being a mandatory requirement.

 

[danielsgram]

Hi again Zian:

Earlier in the year I did some research on evolution vs. antievolution along that road I came across Tiktaalik. It is my opinion that the evolution scientists who examined it interpreted it through evolution colored glasses. It is a fairly resent find so I sent an email to someone who would be “in the know” asking him if he knows of any antievolution scientists who had examined and commented on it. I have not received a reply (he is quite busy) so I don’t know what his answer will be of course. I found some scientists on fundamentalist’s sites but I don’t like to use them as they approach it from a biblical perspective and I’m looking to find antievolution scientists’ (name removed by moderator)ut. I did find a web page, part of kolbecenter.org that addresses Tiktaalik. I think all or most all of the people associated with the Kolbe Center are Catholics. The author tries his hand at being funny I hope that you will look past that to read what he says. In no way do I mean to demean your (name removed by moderator)ut on this subject and I am afraid that that is what you might think if I ask you to read it. kolbecenter.org/fishwick_fairytales.html

Donna

 

[PhilVaz]

Donna << In no way do I mean to demean your (name removed by moderator)ut on this subject and I am afraid that that is what you might think if I ask you to read it. kolbecenter.org/fishwick_fairytales.html >>

Sorry, that’s not how you do “research.” Go to the original discoverers of the fossil and read what they have to say. You don’t go to Jack Chick to learn about the Pope. Therefore you don’t go to creationist sites to learn about evolution.

You said: “I found some scientists on fundamentalist’s sites but I don’t like to use them as they approach it from a biblical perspective and I’m looking to find antievolution scientists’ (name removed by moderator)ut.” The anti-evolutionists you are talking about (AiG, and Kolbe Center) get their “science” from the Bible. They do not publish in the peer-reviewed science literature. Shubin and Clack do. That’s where you want to go.

Official site for Tiktaalik fossil
Video Files
Neil Shubin at Chicago
Shubin experts at Univ of Chicago
Jennifer Clack at Cambridge author of Gaining Ground

Phil P

 

[danielsgram]

The anti-evolutionists you are talking about (AiG, and Kolbe Center) get their “science” from the Bible.

I don’t know about AIG Phil. How about proving that assertion regarding the Kolbe Center. You can start here kolbecenter.org/fishwick_fairytales.html Please c/p all the references to the bible that you find.

You are very good at ad hominem Phil. Deal with the information.

Donna

 

[danielsgram]

Phil go here creationontheweb.com/content/view/1702 and c/p all the references to the bible.

This one is from an ID weblog but deal with the information not who is putting it on their site. uncommondescent.com/archives/1711 And find all the references to the bible form me in “Pro-ID geneticist Maciej Giertych in his own words”

Deal with the information, not the man.

Donna