Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

atheistinpeace -> Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/6/2008 3:45:52 PM)

Couple of things I'm curious about with regards to those who deny evolution... to be clear, this post isn't an attack on that position by any means, simply something I'd like to understand.

Firstly - I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory. Put otherwise, the only grounds anti-evolutionists have for their position is that it contradicts a holy book written long before evolutionary theory started. How do creationists feel about the lack of non-religious challenge to evolution?

Secondly - just to understand exactly what is meant by denying evolution. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature: this the extent to which evolution is regarded as a fact. It's a theory, then, for explaining the origins of the human species. Do creationists here deny that evolution happens at all (in which case, how do you reconcile this to observed speciation?), or do they deny it as an explanation for the existence of humans (which is a position I'm more familiar with)?

Thanks,

AiP



cybrjewls -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/6/2008 4:51:09 PM)

Could you please supply some links for the studies on speciation?

Mathematically, the probability that the conditions in a laboratory are not held with 'work' (force and knowledge) put into the system to maintain certain conditions to overcome randomness and chaos; itself; would be large.

quote:

ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace

Couple of things I'm curious about with regards to those who deny evolution... to be clear, this post isn't an attack on that position by any means, simply something I'd like to understand.

Firstly - I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory. Put otherwise, the only grounds anti-evolutionists have for their position is that it contradicts a holy book written long before evolutionary theory started. How do creationists feel about the lack of non-religious challenge to evolution?

Secondly - just to understand exactly what is meant by denying evolution. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature: this the extent to which evolution is regarded as a fact. It's a theory, then, for explaining the origins of the human species. Do creationists here deny that evolution happens at all (in which case, how do you reconcile this to observed speciation?), or do they deny it as an explanation for the existence of humans (which is a position I'm more familiar with)?

Thanks,

AiP



Nothingman -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/7/2008 3:35:34 AM)

quote:

Could you please supply some links for the studies on speciation?


I see this alot. Look, I know the onus is on the one who is making a claim and so therefore, technically, the evolutionists needs to back up his or her assertion. However its comical how everytime the discussion of evolutionary theory's validity comes up the skeptic (anti-evolutionists) demands proof. Your ignorance is not our fault or responsibility. There are mountains of tests, articles, explanations of various aspects of evolution out there over the last 150 years that should keep you busy. At the very least it would help your cause in knowing why evolutionists support the theory; at the best it might not make you look so silly...Read a book on evolution. You might find it compelling...

The only person so far who I've seen engage the actual theory is Jhud. And kudos to him for. It has sometimes ever made me pause to think twice...




DanJames -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/7/2008 10:22:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace

Couple of things I'm curious about with regards to those who deny evolution... to be clear, this post isn't an attack on that position by any means, simply something I'd like to understand.

Firstly - I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory. Put otherwise, the only grounds anti-evolutionists have for their position is that it contradicts a holy book written long before evolutionary theory started. How do creationists feel about the lack of non-religious challenge to evolution?

Secondly - just to understand exactly what is meant by denying evolution. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature: this the extent to which evolution is regarded as a fact. It's a theory, then, for explaining the origins of the human species. Do creationists here deny that evolution happens at all (in which case, how do you reconcile this to observed speciation?), or do they deny it as an explanation for the existence of humans (which is a position I'm more familiar with)?

Thanks,

AiP


There aren't very many people who would give serious thought to an objection to the Theory of Evolution without a philosophical reason of some kind to do so. And why would they? Even a child knows that if it's pet rabbit has bunnies, they will all look different from the parent. If the cat has kittens, they will all be different colors and patterns. Various types of horse-types are shown to be similar and related. We have a wide variety of bears that all probably had the same ancestor. That, in itself, is evolution, natural selection, and speciation. I personally don't deny it, and I accept it.
The widely accepted theory is that the original horses and the original bears came from the same ancestral fish which came from the same ancestral sponge. There are "mountains" of data to support this. The creationist would say that they were created on day 6, the fish on day 5, the sponge... gosh who knows. And there are "mountains" of data in support of that, too. In fact the mountains are so high, the expanse so vast that only a life altering experience would cause the person to venture from one mountain to the other. It almost never happens. Once you've picked your mountain, you're usually stuck on it, getting familiar with the interpretations of data found on your mountain.
I've thought about this in depth and have more to say, but I'll leave this post how it is so maybe others can join in.

~DanJames

Edited for clarity.



atheistinpeace -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/7/2008 1:51:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: .prophetica.

Could you please supply some links for the studies on speciation?



I'll simply say that I suggest you look at Talk Origins - I'm hesitant to link to it, as I'm not sure if it would constitute a ToS violation. For the study in the lab, have a look at the study on Drosophila; for examples on evolution in nature, start with the London Underground mosquito or the Faroe Island house mouse. I don't think this forum is the right place to reproduce the details of the study - they're widely available on the web.

AiP



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 10:21:43 AM)

ORIGINAL:atheistinpeace
quote:

Firstly - I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory.

Then you need to take your fingers out of your ears. Try reading some of Jhud’s posts. His opposition to evolution is based in his knowledge of biology.

quote:

Put otherwise, the only grounds anti-evolutionists have for their position is that it contradicts a holy book written long before evolutionary theory started.

While the fact that TOE does contradict scripture is the best reason for rejecting it TOE’s lack of empirical evidence is the second best reason for rejecting it.

quote:

How do creationists feel about the lack of non-religious challenge to evolution?

No such lack exists.

quote:

Secondly - just to understand exactly what is meant by denying evolution. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature: this the extent to which evolution is regarded as a fact.

That statement is disingenuous at best.
“Evolution, “defined as the genealogical connection among all earthly organisms, based on their descent from a common ancestor, and the history of any lineage as a process of descent with modification,” is true—as true as the Earth being round or the fact that if I fall out of a tree, I will fall down to the ground (not up.)” - http://www.r21.org/2002/05/will-dawkins-succeed-where-gou.html
Creationists do not reject the speciation that has been observed. What IS being pushed in public schools as fact that creationists reject is the definition of evolution quoted above. The observed speciation does NOT justify such unfounded extrapolation.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 10:38:45 AM)

ORIGINAL:atheistinpeace
quote:

I'll simply say that I suggest you look at Talk Origins - I'm hesitant to link to it, as I'm not sure if it would constitute a ToS violation.

That would not be a TOS violation. However linking to a site that promotes KJV only is a TOS violation.

quote:

For the study in the lab, have a look at the study on Drosophila;

It is interesting that you think Drosophila supports evolution. Fruit fly experiments have been going on for over 100 years. That means that there have been enough generations to simulate millions of years of human evolution yet NOTHING non-fruit fly has ever been produced.
Rather than supporting goo-to-you evolution the Drosophila shouts volumes against it. BTW, there is nothing religious about that conclusion.



drj11 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 11:01:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:atheistinpeace
quote:

I'll simply say that I suggest you look at Talk Origins - I'm hesitant to link to it, as I'm not sure if it would constitute a ToS violation.

That would not be a TOS violation. However linking to a site that promotes KJV only is a TOS violation.

quote:

For the study in the lab, have a look at the study on Drosophila;

It is interesting that you think Drosophila supports evolution. Fruit fly experiments have been going on for over 100 years. That means that there have been enough generations to simulate millions of years of human evolution yet NOTHING non-fruit fly has ever been produced.
Rather than supporting goo-to-you evolution the Drosophila shouts volumes against it. BTW, there is nothing religious about that conclusion.


They have speciated. Millions of years of generations of fruit flies have not been done continuously in one experiment AFAIK. You cant just add up all the generations of fruit flies that have been done in separate experiments and claim they should all evolve together.

What coincides with a change in species to you? Did the fruit flies just not look different enough to you?



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 11:15:40 AM)

quote:

They have speciated. Millions of years of generations of fruit flies have not been done continuously in one experiment AFAIK. You cant just add up all the generations of fruit flies that have been done in separate experiments and claim they should all evolve together.

What coincides with a change in species to you? Did the fruit flies just not look different enough to you?


Interestingly, both with fruit flies and certainly with various microbes, we are able to produce generations equal to all the generations of mammals that ever existed on earth in very short order; and do so under a variety of highly selective environments. And what we see there is very slight change, often by mechanisms that aren't particularly Darwinian; as opposed to the significant morphological changes we claim occured in life's history.



DanJames -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 12:12:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

They have speciated. Millions of years of generations of fruit flies have not been done continuously in one experiment AFAIK. You cant just add up all the generations of fruit flies that have been done in separate experiments and claim they should all evolve together.

What coincides with a change in species to you? Did the fruit flies just not look different enough to you?


Interestingly, both with fruit flies and certainly with various microbes, we are able to produce generations equal to all the generations of mammals that ever existed on earth in very short order; and do so under a variety of highly selective environments. And what we see there is very slight change, often by mechanisms that aren't particularly Darwinian; as opposed to the significant morphological changes we claim occured in life's history.


I would also note that bacteria tend to be very promiscuous with their genetic material, so a lot of rules that apply to other organisms don't apply to them, and vice versa. (I know we're not talking about bacteria, I just wanted to look smart.)[&o]



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 12:46:58 PM)

quote:

I would also note that bacteria tend to be very promiscuous with their genetic material, so a lot of rules that apply to other organisms don't apply to them, and vice versa. (I know we're not talking about bacteria, I just wanted to look smart.)


Well you are right, although that even lessens further the evolutionary argument; bacteria aren't constrained to sexual reproduction, indeed, they are capable of directly exchanging genetic material - and so one would expect even greater opportunity for evolutionary change - and yet, in our observation, the change is still slight.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 1:45:34 PM)

ORIGINAL:drj11
quote:

Did the fruit flies just not look different enough to you?

Do you have a severe reading impairment? I plainly stated my objection to claiming the evidence from Drosophila supports goo-to-you evolution. I.e. “NOTHING non-fruit fly has ever been produced.”



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 1:49:12 PM)

ORIGINAL:Jhud
quote:

quote:

(I know we're not talking about bacteria, I just wanted to look smart.)

Well you are right, although that even lessens further the evolutionary argument;

Are you trying to claim that DanJames is smart? If so, I tend to agree.



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 1:51:58 PM)

quote:

Are you trying to claim that DanJames is smart? If so, I tend to agree.


Of course you do, because it takes one to know one. [;)]



Agahnim -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 7:27:00 PM)

quote:

Interestingly, both with fruit flies and certainly with various microbes, we are able to produce generations equal to all the generations of mammals that ever existed on earth in very short order; and do so under a variety of highly selective environments. And what we see there is very slight change, often by mechanisms that aren't particularly Darwinian; as opposed to the significant morphological changes we claim occured in life's history.

I addressed this point in my last reply to you here, and linked you to an article debunking it in more detail. After I did this, you stopped posting in the science section of Christianity.com for several days, although you continued posting in other sections of the forum. Now you’re back posting in this section again, although you still haven’t answered what I said in my post, and you’re repeating the same argument that I already refuted, without attempting to address anything I said in my refutation. Are you deliberately ignoring what I said?

I know you don’t think my last post in that thread was “off-topic”, because I made sure you didn’t think this earlier in the same thread, and your own posts there about the same topic go into just as much detail as mine do. So why are you refusing to address what I said there, and are repeating this same argument without even acknowledging what I said in response to it?



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 7:29:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Try reading some of Jhud’s posts. His opposition to evolution is based in his knowledge of biology.

It is interesting that you point this out, because my brief discourse with Jhud in the Enumeration of what atheists must accept on faith thread demonstrated a theistic, if not religious bias on his part. Then again, our discussion wasn’t about evolution specifically, so maybe I shouldn’t be too quick to judge. Still, when someone demonstrates a theistic bias in one topic, I can’t help but conclude that their bias extends into other topics as well.



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 10:27:24 PM)

quote:

I addressed this point in my last reply to you here, and linked you to an article debunking it in more detail. After I did this, you stopped posting in the science section of Christianity.com for several days, although you continued posting in other sections of the forum. Now you’re back posting in this section again, although you still haven’t answered what I said in my post, and you’re repeating the same argument that I already refuted, without attempting to address anything I said in my refutation. Are you deliberately ignoring what I said?


Well, I stated my position, you stated yours, and as little of what you said particularly contradicted what I said, I considered the matter done; unfortunately there is no impartial judge that is going to tell us when someone has 'won'. Indeed, I'm not really attempting to do that because I have had to many endless discussions with evolutionists to think that is possible - you aren't going to change your position, and you have said nothing that meets the criteria for me to change mine - so it has to end at some point, whatever your imagined 'refutations'.

And I am not the only person posting here; Betta gave a pretty substantive response, I don't have to repeat everything.

quote:

I know you don’t think my last post in that thread was “off-topic”, because I made sure you didn’t think this earlier in the same thread, and your own posts there about the same topic go into just as much detail as mine do. So why are you refusing to address what I said there, and are repeating this same argument without even acknowledging what I said in response to it?


I did address your points, but these are a different set of points. I stand by what I have said about them; in the generations of observable organisms in the lab, we don't see significant modifications leading to new organisms.



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 10:30:25 PM)

quote:

It is interesting that you point this out, because my brief discourse with Jhud in the Enumeration of what atheists must accept on faith thread demonstrated a theistic, if not religious bias on his part. Then again, our discussion wasn’t about evolution specifically, so maybe I shouldn’t be too quick to judge. Still, when someone demonstrates a theistic bias in one topic, I can’t help but conclude that their bias extends into other topics as well.


Everyone here has a 'religious bias', including you - that is irrelevant to the facts. It wouldn't have to be 'demonstrated' when it can be readily assumed.



cybrjewls -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/9/2008 11:58:24 PM)

Thanks for the science lesson.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nothingman

quote:

Could you please supply some links for the studies on speciation?


I see this alot. Look, I know the onus is on the one who is making a claim and so therefore, technically, the evolutionists needs to back up his or her assertion. However its comical how everytime the discussion of evolutionary theory's validity comes up the skeptic (anti-evolutionists) demands proof. Your ignorance is not our fault or responsibility. There are mountains of tests, articles, explanations of various aspects of evolution out there over the last 150 years that should keep you busy. At the very least it would help your cause in knowing why evolutionists support the theory; at the best it might not make you look so silly...Read a book on evolution. You might find it compelling...

The only person so far who I've seen engage the actual theory is Jhud. And kudos to him for. It has sometimes ever made me pause to think twice...





Agahnim -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 2:35:40 AM)

quote:

Well, I stated my position, you stated yours, and as little of what you said particularly contradicted what I said, I considered the matter done; unfortunately there is no impartial judge that is going to tell us when someone has 'won'. Indeed, I'm not really attempting to do that because I have had to many endless discussions with evolutionists to think that is possible - you aren't going to change your position, and you have said nothing that meets the criteria for me to change mine - so it has to end at some point, whatever your imagined 'refutations'.

And I am not the only person posting here; Betta gave a pretty substantive response, I don't have to repeat everything.

As I’ve pointed out before, I no longer reply to Betta’s posts, and usually don’t even read them. He’s demonstrated, pretty unequivocally in my opinion, that he’s more interested in taking up people’s time than he is in having an actual debate. So if he’s made a particular point that you think is worthwhile, you’ll need to point it out to me yourself if you want it to be part of our discussion.

In any case, the main thing I wanted to hear your response about was what’s pointed out in the Sciencemag article I linked to. Here it is again: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427 . This article is a fairly detailed analysis of Behe’s claims about evolution, some of which we’ve discussed in the “Evolution is Inevitable” thread and some of which we haven’t, and the author cites numerous examples of experimental data that goes against Behe’s predictions. You haven’t said anything about the data cited in this article, and as far as I can tell you haven’t even looked at it. If none of this qualifies as a refutation of Behe’s claims in your opinion, can you explain why not?



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 10:04:45 AM)

quote:

As I’ve pointed out before, I no longer reply to Betta’s posts, and usually don’t even read them. He’s demonstrated, pretty unequivocally in my opinion, that he’s more interested in taking up people’s time than he is in having an actual debate. So if he’s made a particular point that you think is worthwhile, you’ll need to point it out to me yourself if you want it to be part of our discussion.


I’m not going to get involved with your tiff with Betta; you’ll have to go look for yourself.

quote:

In any case, the main thing I wanted to hear your response about was what’s pointed out in the Sciencemag article I linked to. Here it is again: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427 . This article is a fairly detailed analysis of Behe’s claims about evolution, some of which we’ve discussed in the “Evolution is Inevitable” thread and some of which we haven’t, and the author cites numerous examples of experimental data that goes against Behe’s predictions. You haven’t said anything about the data cited in this article, and as far as I can tell you haven’t even looked at it. If none of this qualifies as a refutation of Behe’s claims in your opinion, can you explain why not?


First off, I have to say that I really don’t particularly enjoy discussions that are really just link exchanges of other people’s opinions. I mean it seems apparent you haven’t read the book so you are relying on someone else’s opinion of it; and so I am required to respond to Sean Carrol (whose article I had read previously), via you, about a book you aren’t personally familiar with. It makes for pretty convoluted discussions.

That being said, I am in luck here because Michael Behe, the author of the book and a person much more qualified in this respect has already responded to Carrol’s criticisms here, here, and here. Have a good read.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 11:51:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
That being said, I am in luck here because Michael Behe, the author of the book and a person much more qualified in this respect has already responded to Carrol’s criticisms here, here, and here. Have a good read.


You know, I find it odd that these "scientific" sources are reluctant to publish anything that may criticize evolution but they are quick to publish anything they perceive supports evolution or criticizes opponents of evolution. The only time they may quote criticisms of evolution is if they are trying to respond, and even then they quote them out of context.

quote:


That’s rich, considering that Science cut out the final paragraph of my letter (Science allowed me about 200 words; they allowed Carroll about 500 words in response), which said:
...


http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK32DOEN6BREP7L

and I'm supposed to trust these sources as legitimate when they are only interested in presenting that which is consistent with their presuppositions? This makes it very hard to believe anything they tell us on the subject matter, their clear bias towards materialism and against science and academic freedom increases their likelihood of only selecting research that comes up with results that are desirable to them (even if the research they select is in fact questionable and other, much more vigorous, research has come up with opposing results).

If these sources knew the research that Behe referenced would be used against UCD, they probably would not have published it. Now there is a higher chance they will magically find (questionable) research contradicting Behe's references (then they may claim Behe's references are based on obsolete data which used inadequate tools to measure the results) and use the new (questionable) research to promote their position.

The fact that these "scientific" sources devote so much energy into promoting evolution, criticizing anyone who opposes evolution, while censoring criticisms of evolution, suggests that they are more interested in their presuppositions than science (even at the expense of truth). That's why when these sources publish new data that contradicts the results of old data (and the new data happens to be more consistent with OET or evolution) and then people claim that the old data is based on obsolete instruments and measurements that are not accurate, it should be noted that many of these "scientific" sources are dedicated to promoting that which is consistent with materialism (and many secular sources dedicate a lot of tax dollars into promoting that which is consistent with materialism while censoring any criticisms and opposing views).



Agahnim -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 1:30:41 PM)

quote:

First off, I have to say that I really don’t particularly enjoy discussions that are really just link exchanges of other people’s opinions. I mean it seems apparent you haven’t read the book so you are relying on someone else’s opinion of it; and so I am required to respond to Sean Carrol (whose article I had read previously), via you, about a book you aren’t personally familiar with. It makes for pretty convoluted discussions.

That being said, I am in luck here because Michael Behe, the author of the book and a person much more qualified in this respect has already responded to Carrol’s criticisms here, here, and here. Have a good read.

As I’ve already mentioned, my specialty when it comes to evolution is not genetics—it’s paleontology. So when we’re debating genetics, I’m going to have to rely pretty heavily on other people’s arguments, whether I’m just linking to them or summarizing them in my own words. You’ve made it pretty clear that your rejection of evolution is based mostly on genetics, though, and that any evidence from fossils won’t be enough to convince you of it. This means that whenever I debate with you, my only chance at getting anywhere depends on my ability to explain that topic.

If you don’t want to have a discussion with me that relies on other people’s arguments, though, what do you think of my suggestion that you post at Christian Forums? There are people there who specialize in genetics, so you wouldn’t be stuck debating it with people like me for whom it’s completely outside our area of specialty. You’re probably more knowledgeable in general than almost any of the opponents of evolution who currently post there.



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 1:43:14 PM)

quote:

As I’ve already mentioned, my specialty when it comes to evolution is not genetics—it’s paleontology. So when we’re debating genetics, I’m going to have to rely pretty heavily on other people’s arguments, whether I’m just linking to them or summarizing them in my own words. You’ve made it pretty clear that your rejection of evolution is based mostly on genetics, though, and that any evidence from fossils won’t be enough to convince you of it. This means that whenever I debate with you, my only chance at getting anywhere depends on my ability to explain that topic.

If you don’t want to have a discussion with me that relies on other people’s arguments, though, what do you think of my suggestion that you post at Christian Forums? There are people there who specialize in genetics, so you wouldn’t be stuck debating it with people like me for whom it’s completely outside our area of specialty. You’re probably more knowledgeable in general than almost any of the opponents of evolution who currently post there.


Well, probably not, for a couple of reasons.

First, I like it here; I don't discuss things here just to groan on about the minutiae of a particular subject, but because I have relationships (as much as they can be that on the 'net) with the people here. I respect and admire a number of people here for more than their knowledge about a particular subject, but their views on life.

Also I think this site is much better moderated than any site I have posted on, and I think that makes for better discussions; a number of sites that lack such moderation or that are dominated by evolutionists and atheists seem quickly to fall in to ad homs, outright attacks and probably the foulest language I see anywhere on the net; it simply isn't a place where a thinking person should hang out.

Secondly, I already am involved with a number of sites that have plenty of knowledgeable folks on them like UncommonDescent, Telicthoughts, ARN, and the like. I post there when a topic strikes my fancy, and there are plenty of sharp people there to set me straight.

Finally, I probably spend too much time doing this anyway, and I don't need to add one more forum to worry about.

So I appreciate the offer, but I'll pass for now.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 4:55:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Everyone here has a 'religious bias', including you - that is irrelevant to the facts.

Not if one interprets the facts in order to bolster one's beliefs.

quote:

It wouldn't have to be 'demonstrated' when it can be readily assumed.

I'm not entirely sure about your syntax here. My point simply countered unclemonkey's implication that your "opposition to evolution" was clean of any religious/theistic bias, per atheistinpeace's comment:
"I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory."



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI