|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Evolution is science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6348 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
Please apply this definition to the following two cases^1 and show the relative levels of information contained in each one: 1. Woman, without her man, is nothing.2. Woman, without her, man is nothing. Notice that there is a point "mutation" in the location of the "," and that the meaning of the sentence is changed. I agree, the meaning has changed, but my theory makes an assumption, that all information (like these two sentences) have the same value for information. One sentence is not more important than the other. The theory states that as long as the contents have information, defined by semantics, syntax etc. we can measure how much. My theory does not talk about what information is more valuable.
Evolution can easily go from (1) to (2) OR from (2) to (1) and it doesn't matter: Sure it does, natural selection decides which will survive if it has an impact. If the protein that , when it reads the first sentence, can act on it but cannot act on the second sentence since the meaning is changed, and the action that corresponds to the second sentence is not build into the protein, then that change is useless, and destructive. Unless you say that a mutation to build the protein that reads this segment is also changed along with the sentence in the same generation... Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ * Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6348 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
This information that is added is probably due to a mechanism designed to do just that, direct mutations in a certain direction. But this is only because of a mechanism in place. This does not explain the evolving from single celled organisms to humans.
The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ * Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
alacrity fitzhugh Member (Idle past 4319 days) Posts: 194 Joined: |
confidence writes: alacrity fitzhugh writes: confidence writes:
Do you have any proof of this?
In the end, flying snakes were the parent snakes of all snakes, and other snakes lost the information or some switching happened. The prediction is that there was an original kind snake. The proof is not there I asked if you had proof that flying snakes were the parents of all snakes and lost information, please answer that question Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given. Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : close quotes Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Two entirely different strategies are employed here, one accelerated growth, one slowed growth. Here's another example: A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (graphic copied from above site to save bandwidth) A general trend towards increased size in a small North American primate over time, and then a branching, where a speciation event isolated two populations from each other and one (Notharctus venticolus) continued the trend in size growth while the other (Notharctus nunienus) reduced in size down to the original size. If the trend from Pelycodus ralstoni to Notharctus venticolus is due to the loss in information, then how can Notharctus nunienus branch off (from Pelycodus jarrovii) and go in the other direction -- getting smaller -- without gaining information? We are left with three possibilities:
In case #2 the "extra" information is necessarily added information, as the LOSS of that information causes a return to the original size. Either information is added (in one or the other end species) or information is irrelevant. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
confidence writes: The theory states that as long as the contents have information, defined by semantics, syntax etc. we can measure how much. Many creationists seem to have this view that the original "kinds" had a greater number of genes than do modern-day animals, and that the specialization of modern-day species is the result of a gradual loss of extraneous genes. Would you agree with this position, and hence agree that some measure of genome size would be a measure of "information content"? Or do you have some alternative way of measuring information content? Thanks Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This information that is added is probably due to a mechanism designed to do just that,... So now we have information added, but with some undefined and otherwise unobserved new mechanism to cause it ... (other, of course, than the ones of evolution) ...
... direct mutations in a certain direction. Natural selection chooses the ones that are in that direction as they have increased probability of survival and reproduction. Some directive force is not needed to explain it.
This does not explain the evolving from single celled organisms to humans. Nor does 50 speciation events in a row. Stop moving the goal posts. You were talking about information being lost by mutations. Now you admit that information was added by some "mechanism" ... and evolution explains exactly how it IS that mechanism. Thus you have not invalidated evolution but confirmed it? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5784 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
I don't think its fair to ask Confidence for proof that flying snakes were the first kind- he is making the best explanation he can given the information he has been told. This is similar to evolutionary stories that we come up with to show how it is possible for a certain feature to evolve, though it is not known exactly how it evolved.
It is interesting to point out, though, that flying snakes could not possibly have have been the original species, because most other snakes have rigid backbones. These snakes gain rigidity in their backbone, which is obviously an increase in information. Am I playing the devil's advocate? I sure am. Anything can be argued to be an increase, or descrease, in information if you are cunning enough. I think we need a more precise definition, and need to respect the difference between macro-information and genetic information. Confidence, please tell us which of these two types of information apply to your definition, and maye some real-world examples of information loss would be nice also to help clarify the definition. On a more serious note, other snakes have evolved features flying snakes do not have, such as venomous fangs, hingable jaws, and (oddly enough) accessory forelimbs. Snake Evolution - Photos of Vestigial Hind Limbs on Snakes These all seem to be increases in information- are they caused by switches? Are there two original snake kinds? This theory is getting awfully confusing to define, much less defend, perhaps a simpler one describes the situation better.
quote: Explain vestigial body parts. Let's stick with the most well-known as an example. Why do human's waste energy building an appendix, if they do not need it? Sure, god may have used a similar body plan to create chimps and humans, but are you suggesting that he didn't have enough foresight and knowledge to remove the unneccessary parts from the chimp blueprint before modeling humans from it? Or if the human blueprint was made first, why was the appendix included at all? In fact, vestigial organs are a pretty good case for unintelligent design- if things were designed from scratch, there are a lot of better ways that major physiological systems could have been designed. Yet they were not designed that way, because the physiology of new organisms had to build upon those systems of ancestral organisms. Still awaiting a response to the information-gain examples offered by RAZD...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
On a more serious note, other snakes have evolved features flying snakes do not have, such as venomous fangs, hingable jaws, and (oddly enough) accessory forelimbs. And then there is the strange case of the "Glass Snake", which can lose it's tail and then grow a new one: Glass Lizard - Glass Snake - Legless Lizard
quote: Is this a member of the snake kind or is this an example of reused DNA patterns that work for survival? Or do we have evidence of convergent evolution with both snakes and glass lizards losing limbs for adaptation to an ecological niche where they are not useful (and can even hinder the organism), especially since you have the SAME kinds of vestigal leg spurs in the same places in both glass lizards and boas? Does a snake lose information and grow spurs while a glass lizard loses information and reduces limbs to spurs? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : information +/- question Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
alacrity fitzhugh Member (Idle past 4319 days) Posts: 194 Joined: |
Hello platypus:
platypus writes: I think it is fair to hold him to the standards you and razd are showing. If confidence wants to state that all snakes came from one parent snake ( flying snakes )and a loss of information was involved, then he should be able to show the research that either tentatively show this or evidence that shows how this occurred.
I don't think its fair to ask Confidence for proof that flying snakes were the first kind- he is making the best explanation he can given the information he has been told. This is similar to evolutionary stories that we come up with to show how it is possible for a certain feature to evolve, though it is not known exactly how it evolved. platypus writes: On a more serious note, other snakes have evolved features flying snakes do not have, such as venomous fangs, hingable jaws, and (oddly enough) accessory forelimbs. Snake Evolution - Photos of Vestigial Hind Limbs on Snakes These all seem to be increases in information- are they caused by switches? ,Are there two original snake kinds? This theory is getting awfully confusing to define, much less defend, perhaps a simpler one describes the situation better. At lest three kinds. Rattlesnakes, garter snakes and boas are ovoviviparous, flying snakes are oviparous Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given. Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
1. Woman, without her man, is nothing. 2. Woman, without her, man is nothing. Evolution can easily go from (1) to (2) OR from (2) to (1) and it doesn't matter: Sure it does, natural selection decides which will survive if it has an impact. And this point was also addressed in the original message:
Message 75 If one existed in the population and then a mutation created the other version so that both were available within the population then natural selection has a difference to operate on in selecting for increased survival or reproductive success, and in some situations (mysoginist club) (1) may fare better while in other situations (feminist club) (2) may fare better. There are many situations where natural selection swings one way and then the other way -- galapagos finches and peppered moths are well known examples of the potential swing in natural selection. Natural selection can only operate on existing mutations within a population. So again, you can start with population (1) mutate subpopulation (2) and have natural selection pick either OR you can start from population (2) mutate subpopulation (1) and have natural selection pick either. Evolution can easily go from (1) to (2) OR from (2) to (1) and it doesn't matter. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
smilodon1 Junior Member (Idle past 6325 days) Posts: 2 From: Bremerton, WA, USA Joined: |
I am very interested! By Jay Gould I assume you mean Stephen Jay Gould? I would like to hear more about this. Was this in a book or personally? If personally I would like to hear about it (when, where, what did he say?), if in a book which one? This topic is interesting to me. Thanks I guess DivineBeginner forgot to reply. Or, perhaps, he couldn't?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Amazing, and what Mechanism would that be? A reiification fallacy?
Let me demonstrate how Creation Science is the real Science. First of all, Evolution...take away Natural Selection, Variation and Speciation. All stolen from the Young Earth Creation Scientist Edward Blythe. What do you have left? NADA! You have.."change." And Philosophically, a permanent change is self refuting, since it would imply a constant change! Next, I'll provide solid proof that Creation Science is a valid Science, and is both a) falsifiable and b) has valid evidential support for it, and what that support actually is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
No Vestigial/useless organs, meaning that Intelligent Design is implied.
The Angular Size of the Moon, Gravity, the Sun, the Moon, Neptune's, Finely Tuned Universe, Uranus, a strange planet in itself, the energy balance of Uranus, Venus's cauldron of fire, double sieze enzymes, the cell, evidence against Evolution and for Creation, Motors, Mutation and Design, flat leaves, the venus flytrap, orchids, fungi, sylvan symphony, Abalone Armour, Ants and their swarming intelligence, the black and blue butterflies, dancing bees, their flights and navigation, how they decide on quality of food source, the bombardier beetle, the butterfly, coral, crayfish tails, crustaceans, cuttlefish, Damselfly, Dragonflies and their acrobatics, the ear in the tiny fly, The fly's ability to fly, Earthworms, the Giant squid, Hermit Crabs, Hitch hiking insects, horseshoe crab, hoverflies, jellyfish, lobster eyes, the love trap (orchids and gnats), Octopus suckers, the Peripatus, the Praying Mantis, the Sea Horse, Sea Dragons, the Shrimpy superboxer, the Snail, the Spone's super spicules, Termites and Trilobites....and much MUCH more! And no, this stuff hasn't been "refuted." Evolutionists can't even begin to explain them!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic Creation Hypothesis Evolution Hypothesis Primary approach to scientific methodologyAccumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement. Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement. Predominant religious/philosophicalbelief system Biblical Christianity Humanistic Naturalism Primary means of demonstrating system’spositive empirical support Citation of empirical data Citation of empirical data Primary means of criticizingcounterpart system Citation of empirical data A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences Table 1. Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions”which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism”than to matters of empirical science. The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory: “A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.”These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories. As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture. But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that: “such statements as ”God created the heavens and the earth...’ are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.”What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring “God created the heavens and the earth,” including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model. What then is the Theory of Creation? Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm. To help illustrate its key points vis--vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison. This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time. Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories Phenomenon/Condition Creation Hypothesis Evolution Hypothesis Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false Empirically Falsifiable?No No Empirically Falsified?No No Predominant approachto the Bible[5] The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data Empirically Falsifiable?No No Empirically Falsified?No No Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]God Created... Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created. Empirically Falsifiable?No Yes Empirically Falsified?No Yes Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years Empirically Falsifiable?Yes Yes Empirically Falsified?No Yes Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years Empirically Falsifiable?Yes Yes Empirically Falsified?No Yes Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors Empirically Falsifiable?No No Empirically Falsified?No No Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]Global Flood & aftermath Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial Empirically Falsifiable?No No Empirically Falsified?No No The Ice Age[11]Post-Flood climate compensation Unknown Empirically Falsifiable?No No Empirically Falsified?No No Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information Empirically Falsifiable?Yes Yes Empirically Falsified?No Yes Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex”; variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic Empirically Falsifiable?Yes Yes Empirically Falsified?No Yes Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators Empirically Falsifiable?Yes Yes Empirically Falsified?No Yes Table 2. The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart. Where is the Theory of Creation documented?Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions]. Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons: Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives. While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same. So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken. Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it. This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms. [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.] BooksEach of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins. All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists. The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings. Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2](Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985) Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4](El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987) Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny [0-87123-356-8](Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968) Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676](Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987) Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2](Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) Roth, Ariel A., Origins”Linking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4](Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998) Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4](El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993) Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2](El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996) Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9](El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999) Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9](Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999) Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2](Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999) A slightly more descriptive list appears at http://trueorigin.org/books.asp, while two much more extensive bibliographies are http://trueorigin.org/booklist.asp and http://trueorigin.org/imp-269a.asp.Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis”the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis. http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp Edited by AdminModulous, : rendered part of a long copy/paste invisible. use peek to see the full thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Evolution is refuted by Natural Selection!
Evolution is also refuted by Variation! There are only a handful of potential transitional fossils, we should have a ton more that are legitimate than we do here. Talk Origins has been refuted and pounded hard on that one. Genetics actually end up hurting Evolution in the end. And last but not least, Evolution has been stultified, and can not advance: Why evolution can’t advanceCars: evidence against evolution? by Renton Maclachlan Imagine a standard model car as it rolls out of a vehicle assembly plant. No frills, just the basic vehicle. Now imagine that we want to produce a ”Deluxe’ version of the same vehicle, and beyond that a ”Super Sports Grand Prix.’ The Deluxe model has extras such as a radio/cassette, body trim, rear window heater, rev-counter, power steering. To produce the standard car you require instruction manuals to produce all the pieces that make it up. But now that you are adding features, such as a stereo, etc., you need extra information put into those manuals to describe the production and assembly procedures for all of the added features, plus alteration of the standard information so the new bits will fit. If we now go to the ”Super Sports Grand Prix,’ it has a CD player as well as a 15-band graphic equalizer and electric aerial, a sunroof, mag wheels with locking wheel nuts, fuel injection, four-speed automatic gearbox, high compression head with four valves per cylinder plus other engine refinements which together increase horsepower by 50%, triple swing-away quartz halogen headlights, remotely controlled wing mirrors, computerized ignition and braking systems, car phone, air bags, cruise control, fully reclining pure leather bucket seats, and it’s a fastback with aerofoils and tinted windows. These additions require thousands of pages of new, detailed, and highly accurate information to be put into the production and assembly manuals. And this is not taking into account all the specialized machines that need to be built”with all their production and assembly manuals”so that the new pieces for the car can, in fact, be built! Precisely the same sort of thing would have been necessary for the evolution of living things (if it were true)”only living things have all the production manuals and machines within them! Beginning with raw chemistry, living things would have to have acquired, over time, the myriad complex systems so common to us today. But for every postulated evolutionary advance, that is, for the acquisition of every new system, an increase of information is required. This is because biological systems, like cars, derive from information. They do not come out of thin air. The information comes before, and gives rise to the systems. Thus, to get new systems you first of all need new information. However, as evolution has no way to get either any initial information, or the information necessary for each increase in complexity,1 it can be ruled out of contention as the way living things came to be. Renton MacLachlan has been promoting creation science for about 20 years. He is married to Merilyn, who home-schools their three daughters. He directed Inter-School Christian Fellowship summer camps for a decade, and has a concern to publicly challenge non-Christian thought. Return to top.http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/216 Edited by AdminModulous, : rendered part of a long copy/paste invisible. use peek to see the full thing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024