Is evolution something we can cast aside

[revolutio]

Evolution is a theory. I am amazed that it should carry the weight that is given it by the scientific community when it has never been proven. In fact, there is so much data missing that if any other area of science had the same level of ambiguity, it would be laughable.

The Theory of Gravity has never been proven either. Shame you don't list some of that missing data.

 

[lucaspa]

We will probably never find any single piece of evidence outside the bible that will once and for all change the whole world's mind about evolution/creation. It truly is a matter of faith.

See the second quote in my signature. It's not an either/or. For a Christian, both creationism and evolution are different ways that God could have created. The evidence God left us in His Creation says He used the processes you loosely group under "evolution".

Each side of the arguement will always have a comeback.

That's not accurate. There is evidence that decisively falsifies creationism. In fact, that evidence was found by Christians prior to 1831. The literal young earth creationism interpretation of Genesis 1-8 was falsified by that time.

However, I have yet to find any evidence that would lead me to believe in some sort of evolutionary process as being the begining of everything.

Beginning of everything? Of course not! Biological evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of everything.

I'm afraid you are operating under the delusion that evolution = atheism. NO! Evolution is NOT atheism. Never has been.

So, believe in God. Sit back, relax, make some popcorn, open a coke, and let science tell you how God created.

 

[lucaspa]

Acutally, this past weekend i went to a general fellowship christian church on an invite by a friend because it was about creationism. The pastor there made similiar claims, such as the planets keep on their orbital tracks because god wills them to, that every star lights up every night because god wills them to, that the oceans dont dry up because god wills them not to. God keeps the oceans filled up by springs on the bottom of the oceans which continually pump water into it.

After each statement, he would say, "And they say it came about by random chance!"

Ah, the old god-of-the-gaps theology, red in tooth and claw! What this pastor is doing is really, really bad theology. He is reducing God to a creature of the universe by making God necessary to fill "gaps" in the universe. See Diogenes Allen below.

Also, of course, science doesn't claim any of these happen by random chance. So the pastor is adding false witness to his crimes.

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenomana in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe." Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.
Perhaps you should suggest to the pastor that he read this and other books and learn a bit about Christian theology before he mangles it further.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

The Theory of Gravity has never been proven either. Shame you don't list some of that missing data.

He can't list it - that's why it's "missing".

 

[Taffsadar]

It's creationists like that who give creationists who at least bother to try and be scientific (even if their science isn't quite correct) a bad name.

No, they are the ones that help the creationists more than anything else. Those peoplemake the regular people consider creationists to be pretty harmless (if someone is dumb enoughto accept those claims is it alsovery likely that the person will forget to breath and suffocate to death).

 

[Bushido216]

Well, when the common paradigm concerning creationists (at least from a non-creationist viewpoint) is someone who blithely ignores facts right in front of them while blurting out incorrect and ill-researched "facts".

 

[Philosoft]

As (I think) Philisoft had once told me, he had met a creationist who, when confronted with the question, "Why does gravity happen?", he responded with, "Jesus makes it happen."

That was me. I was thinking about a more poetic turn-of-phrase. What about, "Jesus is the reason for the squeezin'"?

 

[Philosoft]

Evolution is a theory. I am amazed that it should carry the weight that is given it by the scientific community when it has never been proven. In fact, there is so much data missing that if any other area of science had the same level of ambiguity, it would be laughable.

Still, enough people believe in evolution that it must be addressed by the truth. I agree that it is little more than conjecture to recreate a hypothesis from a handful of bones.
Evolution is a flawed science bordering on mythology. But it is all the atheist really has. We know the truth.

In other news, biology has been discarded entirely, along with medical science...

A groundbreaking interview with Man of Sorrows has left millions without health care. But hey, we can't go on with this evolution-based sham, can we?

 

[adam149]

The issue of transitional fossils is sadly missed here. The point isn't to point to the extremely few and debatable ones found but why more have not been found. After all, Darwin himself said "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902) pg. 413. In his private letters, he often admitted that the evidence for his hypothesis was dispairingly lacking: "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy." Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, pg. 229

Applying a population curve would show that for every fully-formed animal generation there would be thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of generations of change between the fully-formed to next fully-formed generations. And yet all you have are an extreme few debatable ones. Please explain that one.

Also, applying the same population curve, if Humans have been on the earth for 3 million years, there would be approx. 135,000 people per square inch on the face of the entire planet. Explain why the current population could easily have come from eight people 4400 years ago? Seems a bit convenient. And don't give me disease or natural disaster. Your timetable is uniformatarian, and that means consistant over millions and billions of years without floods etc. If you are trying to argue that something interupted your uniformatarian process, you can't believe that it was millions of years old if those layers were laid down inconsistantly or swiftly. Thank you.


Actually, calling evolution a theory isn't the greatest idea in the world. A theory is an interpretation of facts based upon the best explanation. Given that there is no evidence for evolution, I feel it may be more accurate to refer to it as a hypothesis (plus it annoys them ).

Also be aware that there are at least five different hypotheses of evolution currently running around today:

Darwinian Evolution (Darwinism): The hypothesis that Natural Selection + time = macro-change

The flaw is the fundemental missunderstanding of natural selection. Natural Selection: the selecting of pre-existing genes from the adaptive pool based upon survival and enviroment that is designed to maintain at a consistant level the current population as it appears. Natural Selection selects from the existing gene pool that which will aid the animal the best in it's enviroment. It's a narrowing technique. Let us look at an example with computers. Imagine that the computer is a kind of animal. If you call a computer company and say "I want a computer!" they will respond with: "What kind would you like? A Dell, Mac, IBM etc?" "Mac," you respond. You've just narrowed your options haven't you? There are some programs that will run on macs and not on microsoft computers, and some programs on microsoft that do not run on macs. You've gone from a general kind of animal to a narrower gene pool within the kind depending upon the kind of computer enviroment it's going to be in. Note that no new information was created, merely more specific options selected from those total options. But you can go farther and specify your hard drive size, speed, modem and modem speed, programs to run, the kind of monitor it will use, how much memory it will have. Once you're finished customizing your computer ask youself: Is it a unique species of computer? Yes. Is it compatable with other macs? Depends on situation, but the majority of the time, yes. If you decided you really actually wanted a pentium, can you just run any old windows program on it? No. It's a loss and sorting of options and information that has occured, not the development of a totally new technological device, such as a car or toaster. The parts and blueprints for those things are unavailable. Therefore natural selection is going to de-generalize the organism, or specify the abilities in order that the animal survive. Give it all the time you want and the animals will adapt a bit to their enviroment, you'll never get something new that way.
Gregor Mendel proved that. For eight years he bred and cross-bred garden peas. By the end, he had determined, through observation and testing, not unprovable hypotheses, that one species could not transmute into another species. There was a genetic barrier, a wall, that could not be bridged. Mendel's work laid the basis for modern genetics and effectively destroyed the foundation for species evolution. (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 63-64). Sadly his work was ignored until the 1900's when it was rediscovered. (R.A. Fisher, "Has Mendel’s Work Been Rediscovered?" Annals of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1936).

Neo-Darwinian Evolution (Neo-Darwinism): The hypothesis that benificial mutation = macro-change

Again, yes, there are some extremely limited benifial mutations that occur. The flying beetle that was blown onto an island and subsequently lost it's wings within a few generations is an example of a real, benifial mutation (or rather, when a mutation had the enviromental advantage over the normality). The beetles with wings got blown into the sea, but the mutation didn't have wings and therefore avoided the problem. BUt before you go shouting, "AH-HA! Proof of evolution", allow me to finish. That would be incorrect. Neo-Darwinism relies on new information occuring in a mutated chance that proves to be benifial. There was no new information created, it was a loss of information, the opposite of what is needed. The issue is how the information, the DNA, the RNA, etc, came to be, nothing else. And it has been shown that information and/or data require an intelligent senter, not random processes or chance. (In the Beginning was Information; Questions I Have Always Wanted to Ask, Werner Gitt)

Lamarckian Evolution (Lamarckism): The hypothesis that "inheritance of acquired characteristics" = macro-change (the theory that the giraffe species started with a short neck and over a series of generations all straining their necks to get at the food at tops of trees resulted in their necks getting longer and longer to where it is today)

I don't suppose many have heard of the german August Friedrich Leopold Weismann? He disproved this entire idea of "inheritance of acquired characteristics." He conducted an experiment in which he cut off the tails of 901 mice in 19 successive generations. According to the "inheritance of acquired characteristics" hypothesis, that would be passed to the next generation. And yet every time the new mouse would be born with a perfect and full-length tail. In the final generation, the 19th generation, all the mice had tails just as long as the first generation. He didn't rest there, but conducted several other experiments, all of which turned out the same. This combined with the fact that 4,000 years of circumcision had not effected the foreskin of Jewish males at all totally doomed Lamarckism. (Jean Rostand, Orion Book of Evolution, 1960, p. 64). Too bad it's still one of the lies still in the textbooks.

Punctuated Equalibrium: The hypothesis (in this case; fairy tale) that within a stable and consistant population, every 50,000 years or so an animal hatches or gives birth to an entirely new kind of animal (this is merely attempting to avoid the fact that all animals appear fully-formed and with nothing more than minor changes within their kinds)

There is no proof of this whatsoever. It would again come down to the information issue. How is a reptile embyo get all of the perfect information to develop and then hatch into a fully-formed and functional bird, or sheep or horse. And if anyone quotes the embryonic stages of Ernst Haeckel, I will have to get arts martial on their rear -his drawings were discredited and disproved within his lifetime, and he lived from 1834-1919.

Theistic (more properly called Deistic) Evolution: A deity created the world and then stepped back and allowed evolution to take it's course (in my opinion this is just a way of trying to explain the origins of the universe without resorting to the Big Bang hypothesis, a god created everything, then s/he is discarded while the evolution hypothesis takes over and develops everything through natural processes)

This relies on evolutionary science and so fell apart when the rest of them did.

 

[Arikay]

I wanna respond to this later, I doubt ill be the only one, but first I want to say.

Stop Reading DrDino.

 

[Jet Black]

This is a long post, so I will just focus on false statements

T

Your timetable is uniformatarian, and that means consistant over millions and billions of years without floods etc.

this is false, the timetable is not uniformitarian. there is alot of environmental change.

(plus it annoys them ).

this is false, it just makes us think you are childish.

Also be aware that there are at least five different hypotheses of evolution currently running around today:

this is false.

Therefore natural selection is going to de-generalize the organism, or specify the abilities in order that the animal survive. Give it all the time you want and the animals will adapt a bit to their enviroment, you'll never get something new that way.

this is false, and also follows a terrible analogy.

There was a genetic barrier, a wall, that could not be bridged. Mendel's work laid the basis for modern genetics and effectively destroyed the foundation for species evolution.

this is false, mendel's work was into inheritable characteristics, not speciation.

There was no new information created, it was a loss of information, the opposite of what is needed.

this is false. actually an extra instruction is put in place, to turn off the growth of wings. this is also seen in humans, whales and alot of other species.

The issue is how the information, the DNA, the RNA, etc, came to be, nothing else. And it has been shown that information and/or data require an intelligent senter, not random processes or chance.

this is false, thermal proteins contain alot of information.

Lamarckian Evolution (Lamarckism):

this was rejected along long time ago, no worries there.

Punctuated Equalibrium: The hypothesis (in this case; fairy tale) that within a stable and consistant population, every 50,000 years or so an animal hatches or gives birth to an entirely new kind of animal (this is merely attempting to avoid the fact that all animals appear fully-formed and with nothing more than minor changes within their kinds)

this is false, this is not punctuated equilibrium. this is pokemon. punctuated equilibrium is basically long periods of equilibrium, and then relatively short bursts of evolution, possibly after some natural disaster/change in environment. it is not cats giving birth to dogs. If you are going to criticise a theory, please at least know what it is.

And if anyone quotes the embryonic stages of Ernst Haeckel, I will have to get arts martial on their rear -his drawings were discredited and disproved within his lifetime, and he lived from 1834-1919.

ok, then jsut look at some photographs of embryos instead.

Theistic (more properly called Deistic) Evolution: A deity created the world and then stepped back and allowed evolution to take it's course (in my opinion this is just a way of trying to explain the origins of the universe without resorting to the Big Bang hypothesis, a god created everything, then s/he is discarded while the evolution hypothesis takes over and develops everything through natural processes)

this is false, it still uses the big bang, it does however mean that the deity created a perfect universe, instead of a really crappy one.


well from this we can see that your post is full of falsehoods. if you would like to correct them, that would be

 

[Jet Black]

I wanna respond to this later, I doubt ill be the only one, but first I want to say.

Stop Reading DrDino.

that is the most concise rebuttal I have seen, excellent work Mr Arikay

 

[Arikay]

See, Jet got to most of it

Also, just to point out, Since its impossible to tell if a god creates certain mutations, calling theistic evolution, deism is false, because god could create specific mutations, he could even possibly effect natural selection as well.

 

[Arikay]

Oh, something else to add,

"Explain why the current population could easily have come from eight people 4400 years ago?"
I assume you mean couldn't.

I answered something about this not too long ago, so, here ya go, what would happen if we applied a constant growth rate... (The place I took the statement from, gave the flood at around 4500, it seems to change a lot )

I stole this equation, “P(n) = P(1 + r)^n” from,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young earth/specific_arguments/population_growth.html

I used it to do some interesting calculations.

P = starting population (8 after the flood)
r = rate of growth
n = number of years since flood.

If the flood was 4500 years ago, we need a growth rate of 0.455% or 0.00455 to reach almost 6 billion people today,
So the equation would look like this, 8(1+0.00455)^4500=5,958,006,194 or 6 billion.

This produces some interesting results.
•1000 years after the flood, there is a total world population of 749 people.
•2500 years after the flood, there is a total world population of 679,180 people.
•2600 years after the flood, there is a total world population of 1,069,401 people.

Now whats so amazing about that? Well, 2500 years after the flood, is also 2000 years ago. Around the time when Jesus was said to have been born. Thats right, when jesus was born, there was an Entire world population of 679,180. A little over half a million people populated the Entire world, that includes china, The Americas, the Roman Empire, etc.
Whats so special about 2600 years after the flood, well that would be around 100 AD,

“At the zenith of the Roman empire (2nd century A.D.)... ... The population was at least 70 million and may have been in excess of 100 million. The city of Rome itself was home to more than 1 million inhabitants.”
http://www.sentex.net/~ajy/facts/romanemp.html​

So, the entire world population was apparently in Rome and nowhere else.

If any of this sounds a bit funny, that because it is. The worlds growth rate does not stay a constant number. It is thought that the large world growth rate is based on recent technological advances. In the past, many constraints such as food and disease have kept the growth rate very close to 0, if not sometimes in the negative and thus we would not have over grown the world. We are only now able to out grow the world because we can supply ourselves with lots of food, and rid ourselves of many diseases.

 

[MartinM]

So, the entire world population was apparently in Rome and nowhere else

Not only that, but the entire world population and then some fought in the battle of Cannae.

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

Stop Reading DrDino.

You know, everytime I see that name I think of the Flinstones.

Great...just watch...now I'll be watching the Flinstones one day and think how this guy Besmirched the name of one of my favourite childhood cartoon characters XP


On to relevant stuff...

Sure we can ignore evolution. Of course, it'll still keep going, regardless.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Cooee - where to start?

The issue of transitional fossils is sadly missed here. The point isn't to point to the extremely few and debatable ones found but why more have not been found.

Oh, but it is! Under creationism there shouldn't be any transitional forms.

After all, Darwin himself said "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902) pg. 413. In his private letters, he often admitted that the evidence for his hypothesis was dispairingly lacking: "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy." Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, pg. 229

A great deal of evidence has been found since Darwin's day. He knew nothing of the correllation between genetic and phylogenetically derived trees. He knew nothing of the therapsids. His theory has been dramatically vindicated since 1887.

Applying a population curve would show that for every fully-formed animal generation there would be thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of generations of change between the fully-formed to next fully-formed generations. And yet all you have are an extreme few debatable ones. Please explain that one.

Punk-Eek. Speciation tends to happen to small fringe groups, in geologically short periods.

Also, applying the same population curve, if Humans have been on the earth for 3 million years, there would be approx. 135,000 people per square inch on the face of the entire planet.

Hmm. Guppies have about 30 young every month of their lives. Female guppies can live for about three years. Why is Trinidad not knee deep in guppies?

Explain why the current population could easily have come from eight people 4400 years ago? Seems a bit convenient.

As others have pointed out, assuming a smooth rate of growth over this period results in the population at the time of the Roman Empire being only few million people.

And don't give me disease or natural disaster. Your timetable is uniformatarian, and that means consistant over millions and billions of years without floods etc.

Wrong. Uniformitarianism says that the laws of nature were the same in the past - that the processes at work then are of the same type as are at work now.

If you are trying to argue that something interupted your uniformatarian process, you can't believe that it was millions of years old if those layers were laid down inconsistantly or swiftly. Thank you.

We are well aware that some layers are laid down swiftly. You seem to think that geologists imagine everything happened slowly. They don't. You are arguing against a straw man position that no-one holds.

Actually, calling evolution a theory isn't the greatest idea in the world. A theory is an interpretation of facts based upon the best explanation. Given that there is no evidence for evolution,

Let me stop you there and suggest you look up human chromosome 2 and chromosomal fusion, and then perhaps persue the issue of common retro-viral insertions. Then we'll continue. Anyone who told you there is "no evidence" is lying, pure and simple.

I feel it may be more accurate to refer to it as a hypothesis (plus it annoys them ).

Are you really interested in debate or in being a pain in the @rse then?

Also be aware that there are at least five different hypotheses of evolution currently running around today:

Darwinian Evolution (Darwinism): The hypothesis that Natural Selection + time = macro-change

The flaw is the fundemental missunderstanding of natural selection. Natural Selection: the selecting of pre-existing genes from the adaptive pool based upon survival and enviroment that is designed to maintain at a consistant level the current population as it appears. Natural Selection selects from the existing gene pool that which will aid the animal the best in it's enviroment. It's a narrowing technique.

[waffle cut]

Gregor Mendel proved that. For eight years he bred and cross-bred garden peas. By the end, he had determined, through observation and testing, not unprovable hypotheses, that one species could not transmute into another species. There was a genetic barrier, a wall, that could not be bridged. Mendel's work laid the basis for modern genetics and effectively destroyed the foundation for species evolution. (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 63-64). Sadly his work was ignored until the 1900's when it was rediscovered. (R.A. Fisher, "Has Mendel’s Work Been Rediscovered?" Annals of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1936).

Mendel's work was about inheritance. Not about evolution. He did not discover any genetic barrier. Moreover, your description of natural selection ignores genetic mutation.

Neo-Darwinian Evolution (Neo-Darwinism): The hypothesis that benificial mutation = macro-change

Again, yes, there are some extremely limited benifial mutations that occur. The flying beetle that was blown onto an island and subsequently lost it's wings within a few generations is an example of a real, benifial mutation (or rather, when a mutation had the enviromental advantage over the normality). The beetles with wings got blown into the sea, but the mutation didn't have wings and therefore avoided the problem. BUt before you go shouting, "AH-HA! Proof of evolution", allow me to finish. That would be incorrect. Neo-Darwinism relies on new information occuring in a mutated chance that proves to be benifial. There was no new information created, it was a loss of information, the opposite of what is needed. The issue is how the information, the DNA, the RNA, etc, came to be, nothing else. And it has been shown that information and/or data require an intelligent senter, not random processes or chance. (In the Beginning was Information; Questions I Have Always Wanted to Ask, Werner Gitt)

Nylon eating bacteria. You are aware that within the field of information science, only Gitt thinks it prevents evolution. All the other information scientists disagree with him. Interesting, isn't it?

Lamarckian Evolution (Lamarckism): The hypothesis that "inheritance of acquired characteristics" = macro-change (the theory that the giraffe species started with a short neck and over a series of generations all straining their necks to get at the food at tops of trees resulted in their necks getting longer and longer to where it is today)

I don't suppose many have heard of the german August Friedrich Leopold Weismann? He disproved this entire idea of "inheritance of acquired characteristics." He conducted an experiment in which he cut off the tails of 901 mice in 19 successive generations. According to the "inheritance of acquired characteristics" hypothesis, that would be passed to the next generation. And yet every time the new mouse would be born with a perfect and full-length tail. In the final generation, the 19th generation, all the mice had tails just as long as the first generation. He didn't rest there, but conducted several other experiments, all of which turned out the same. This combined with the fact that 4,000 years of circumcision had not effected the foreskin of Jewish males at all totally doomed Lamarckism. (Jean Rostand, Orion Book of Evolution, 1960, p. 64). Too bad it's still one of the lies still in the textbooks.

You are the liar here. Lamarckianism is presented in textbooks as a flasified and therefore rejected theory. Find me a textbook that actually teaches Lamarckianism as a current theory. You will not be able to.

Punctuated Equalibrium: The hypothesis (in this case; fairy tale) that within a stable and consistant population, every 50,000 years or so an animal hatches or gives birth to an entirely new kind of animal (this is merely attempting to avoid the fact that all animals appear fully-formed and with nothing more than minor changes within their kinds)

This isn't Punk Eek. This is saltation. I suggest you actually find out what Gould and Eldredge proposed, and why it is not an alternative theory to the modern synthesis, but rather complementary to it.

There is no proof of this whatsoever. It would again come down to the information issue. How is a reptile embyo get all of the perfect information to develop and then hatch into a fully-formed and functional bird, or sheep or horse. And if anyone quotes the embryonic stages of Ernst Haeckel, I will have to get arts martial on their rear -his drawings were discredited and disproved within his lifetime, and he lived from 1834-1919.

Since your description of Punk Eek is a strawman, your destruction of it is so much dishonest straw pummelling.

Theistic (more properly called Deistic) Evolution: A deity created the world and then stepped back and allowed evolution to take it's course (in my opinion this is just a way of trying to explain the origins of the universe without resorting to the Big Bang hypothesis, a god created everything, then s/he is discarded while the evolution hypothesis takes over and develops everything through natural processes)

That's not theistic evolution. I should know, because I'm a theistic evolutionist. You have not described the beliefs I hold, nor those of Lucaspa or Vance on these fora, nor Kenneth Miller, John Polkinghorne, Russell Stannard, or any other prominent theistic evolutionist. Another worthless strawman.

This relies on evolutionary science and so fell apart when the rest of them did.

Except they didn't.

 

[IanC.]

Evolution is a theory. I am amazed that it should carry the weight that is given it by the scientific community when it has never been proven. In fact, there is so much data missing that if any other area of science had the same level of ambiguity, it would be laughable.

Still, enough people believe in evolution that it must be addressed by the truth. I agree that it is little more than conjecture to recreate a hypothesis from a handful of bones.
Evolution is a flawed science bordering on mythology. But it is all the atheist really has. We know the truth.

“If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.”

 

[sbvera13]

A non-AV necro? or an AV sock puppet? But it's not spouting random out of context bible verses...

baffling.

 

[Wiccan_Child]