It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
You see, my troubled friend, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR CREATION OR EVOLUTION. My theory is that there are so many things we don't know, many mysteries that will not be solved in this life. What lies beyond death may unveal the many mysteries that we have lost many sleepless nights over pondering.




posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mamasita
 


My favorite is the one where they say,
"after all, evolution is just a theory. Even scientists call it a theory".
By saying that, they are actually agreeing that evolution is a theory. So they are agreeing evolution is correct.

The reality is, they have no idea what a Scientific Theory is. Wouldn't you think that creationists would at least know the most basic information behind science if they were going to debunk it?????

Here's the definition of a scientific theory that apparently no creationists no about.


In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.


So needless to say, every time I hear a creationist say that, I point and laugh



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
there are so many posts about creationist debunking evolution - but they never actually back up their beliefs with evidence.
I am curious - wat evidence besides the bible actually exists regarding creationism?



Let us say that you are in a house. Someone says to you that the house was created by someone called Gawd. You say, "but where's the evidence", and he says to you, "We have the house.. the house didn't just come from nothing.." And you say, "But I can't see this Gawd person.." and he then says, " This is true, but we know that an intelligence has built it and set it into order... so the builder was intelligent... we shall call Gawd Intelligent Design instead of by his name.." and you say, "yet for all that, if I can't see him, I won't belive... I will believe in evolution and say that in the process of time the house improved and modified as it needed to adapt to weather changes and climate and went from a hay shack to a bungalo, to the mansion we see here..." Then he will simply sigh and walk away because you cannot say that a picture needs a painter, and a house needs a builder, and a universe needs a Creator.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by mamasita
there are so many posts about creationist debunking evolution - but they never actually back up their beliefs with evidence.
I am curious - wat evidence besides the bible actually exists regarding creationism?



Let us say that you are in a house. Someone says to you that the house was created by someone called Gawd. You say, "but where's the evidence", and he says to you, "We have the house.. the house didn't just come from nothing.." And you say, "But I can't see this Gawd person.." and he then says, " This is true, but we know that an intelligence has built it and set it into order... so the builder was intelligent... we shall call Gawd Intelligent Design instead of by his name.." and you say, "yet for all that, if I can't see him, I won't belive... I will believe in evolution and say that in the process of time the house improved and modified as it needed to adapt to weather changes and climate and went from a hay shack to a bungalo, to the mansion we see here..." Then he will simply sigh and walk away because you cannot say that a picture needs a painter, and a house needs a builder, and a universe needs a Creator.


I don't need to meet the builder of the house to know a builder built the house as it shows signs of being made. Lumber has been cut, nails have been pounded, foot prints left behind in the dirt and dust, etc, etc, etc...

There is no evidence the universe was designed by an intelligent being.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by mamasita
there are so many posts about creationist debunking evolution - but they never actually back up their beliefs with evidence.
I am curious - wat evidence besides the bible actually exists regarding creationism?



Let us say that you are in a house. Someone says to you that the house was created by someone called Gawd. You say, "but where's the evidence", and he says to you, "We have the house.. the house didn't just come from nothing.." And you say, "But I can't see this Gawd person.." and he then says, " This is true, but we know that an intelligence has built it and set it into order... so the builder was intelligent... we shall call Gawd Intelligent Design instead of by his name.." and you say, "yet for all that, if I can't see him, I won't belive... I will believe in evolution and say that in the process of time the house improved and modified as it needed to adapt to weather changes and climate and went from a hay shack to a bungalo, to the mansion we see here..." Then he will simply sigh and walk away because you cannot say that a picture needs a painter, and a house needs a builder, and a universe needs a Creator.


I don't need to meet the builder of the house to know a builder built the house as it shows signs of being made. Lumber has been cut, nails have been pounded, foot prints left behind in the dirt and dust, etc, etc, etc...

There is no evidence the universe was designed by an intelligent being.


I guess it would depend on if you see the universe as an entity or not, that is, a type of house containing living things. All things in the universe are "made" they were not just there already. So I stand by my last statement. I just sigh...

[edit on 4-1-2008 by Fromabove]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Then he will simply sigh and walk away because you cannot say that a picture needs a painter, and a house needs a builder, and a universe needs a Creator.


I love this Comfort and Cameron canard, it shows their poor logic.

We can watch a painter paint. We can watch a builder build. We can watch a universater universe...oh no, we can't. This is just a badly framed argument.

Moreover, if we want to play with such bad logic, we could easily say builder = human; painter = human; therefore universater = human. At least we know human designers exist.

When this absent universator can actually show us creation in action, then I might buy the BS, but you know, BS needs a BSer. We'll wait patiently for the magical species speciator to speciate:



[edit on 4-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Fromabove
Then he will simply sigh and walk away because you cannot say that a picture needs a painter, and a house needs a builder, and a universe needs a Creator.


I love this Comfort and Cameron canard, it shows their poor logic.

We can watch a painter paint. We can watch a builder build. We can watch a universater universe...oh no, we can't. This is just a badly framed argument.

Moreover, if we want to play with such bad logic, we could easily say builder = human; painter = human; therefore universater = human. At least we know human designers exist.

When this absent universator can actually show us creation in action, then I might buy the BS, but you know, BS needs a BSer. We'll wait patiently for the magical species speciator to speciate:



[edit on 4-1-2008 by melatonin]



And in your application of logic, it is not possible to understand that, not seeing a human building a house is the frame of mind, not a painter painting a picture, But the universe exists, and it did not come from nothing at all but was made. So like I said, it depends upon how you see it. It's not builder = human, painter = human, it's house = creator, painting = creator, and universe = creator.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by Fromabove]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Seriouly your flawed logic has been used to many times it's getting very stupid now.

Let me ask you a question. Who/what built/made the house? Man? Ant? Nature? Alien? The possibility is endless but your poor logic only comes to one conclusion about the universe.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
And in your application of logic, it is not possible to understand that, not seeing a human building a house is the frame of mind, not a painter painting a picture, But the universe exists, and it did not come from nothing at all but was made. So like I said, it depends upon how you see it. It's not builder = human, painter = human, it's house = creator, painting = creator, and universe = creator.


And again, we can see the design in action. We can sit and watch as a human draws a plan for a house, then brings in the builders and watch the house form brick by brick. Then, when we see other building, we can extrapolate what we know

Not so different with a painter, we can watch painters spread their paint on the canvas. Again, we can extrapolate. We can even know the purpose of the the house (instrumental) and painting (aesthetic).

Not so for the universe.

I'm sorry you can't see how bad this argument is, hey-ho.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   




Seriously, though. Without getting into physics and chemistry since I've done this to death on other threads, let's look at this philosophically. If creationism is true and it was indeed a Divine act, what kind of evidence are you expecting to see? If you asked me to prove the act of Jesus walking on water, how could I? This act could not be replicated by you or me without fraud. I could supply you with eye witness testimony of this event but you would be left depending on the reliability of the New Testament. If John Doe has a supernatural encounter, how does he replicate this experience for you? He cannot.

But that is not to say creationism is only based on faith and is not supported by science. Physics, biology, and chemistry compliment what Creationism implies and the order of nature spoken of in the Bible. If you want specifics, just ask and I will be more than happy to offer up a few examples.

Here is a link to one of my favorite websites. I apologize if it talks more about evolution than it does creationism but it is still interesting nonetheless. See: HERE. When we have multiple scenarios to choose from, sometimes all we can do is use the process of elimination.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Analogy: To most, seeing is believing...seeing something and witnessing it first hand produces iron clad faith. You see someone build a house. You then know that that house was built by a person. The next house you see will be in your assumption to have been built by a man. What if a robot built the house? In that sense your faith is flawed.

In my faith, I believe that God created the heavens (the universe), earth, and everything else we know. I don't know what God the Father is, except that he is the original spiritual being, but I know He exists. You can see His signature upon all of His work. When one examines subatomic particles and their design, or the complexity of a living cell and it's resemblance to a mechanical motor, one can only conclude that an intelligent Creator made it. No random event could in one explosion could create such a complex order, from the very smallest atom to the largest heavenly body.

God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit currently exist on a different plain, and by my understanding the spiritual plain is pure energy. Is it a coincidence that matter in our plain of existence is energy? Energy and matter are simply different forms of the same thing,
. Without even using circular logic, I have not only explained an existence of a Creator, but have also shown that scientific fact integrates well within religion/the belief in a Creator.

Furthermore, the Bible and the documents that make it up have changed very little since the time they were written. Groups similar to the Nazarite Order of old have insured this. The Bible does not have contradictions. These supposed contradictions are merely misunderstandings on the part of people lacking understanding. Get yourself a lexicon and figure that out. Toss them at me if you wish, and I can dispel the conflicts. A big source of such "conflicts" comes from people taking Bible content out of context.

So far, other world religions outside of Judeo/Christian beliefs are all cheap knockoffs of what God setup. Prior to Abraham, there were worship practices of false gods and such. Yes, many practices were adopted by God into the Jewish religion, but no sinful practices such as human sacrifices were. When God adopted these, the idea was to move the practices from being affiliated with one false god or another, and move them to be affiliated with worshiping the true God, Yahweh.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


My point was not to say ‘we don’t know’ if it was random chance, my point was to say random chance is the driving force of evolution until you can prove otherwise, which you can’t.
www.randallniles.com...

If I blended a frog up and left it outside somewhere so it can be hit by radiation, the sun, lightning or however evolution explains it, for billions of years would it turn into a frog? No because it’s impossible.
www.randallniles.com...

Everybody uses faith to fill in a gap at some point, even the greatest scientists.
www.randallniles.com...

There’s no evidence that the Big Bang happened.

This is what I wanted you to see.

"Now let us examine the possibility of the spontaneous formation of protein
molecules from a non-living system. We may assume, for purposes of argument,
that, in the course of chemical evolution, there had already come into
existence a mixture containing a great quantity of various amino acids. As
we have seen, the free energy change for formation of the peptide bond is
such that, at equilibrium, about one percent of the amino acids would be
joined together as dipeptides, granting the presence of appropriate
catalysts.. The cances of forming tripeptides would be about one hundredth
that of forming dipeptides, and the probability of forming a polypeptide of
of only ten amino acids as units would be something like 10^-20. The
spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known
proteins seems beyond all probability."~Harold Blum, Time's Arrow and
Evolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955) cited by
A.E.Wilder-Smith Man's origin, Man's Destiny, (Wheaton: Harold Shaw
Publishers, 1968), p. 60.


I don’t decide who’s a Christian or not. In the end God does. If you read the Bible you would know this.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

[edit on 5-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


For the analogy to be reasonable, you must be able to show evidence of intelligent building just like with a house. I sigh also



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I think one of the things that some creationists don't understand is for them to be right, first they must disprove evolution then they must prove creationism. Simply disproving evolution doesn't by default mean creationism is right.

It really doesn't help when you hear things like the earth is 6500 years old.
or
There were never any dinosaurs.

Of course there is no evidence that creationism is correct but thats beside the point.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
My point was not to say ‘we don’t know’ if it was random chance, my point was to say random chance is the driving force of evolution until you can prove otherwise, which you can’t.
www.randallniles.com...


Nope, it isn't the driving force. Selection is. The randomness of mutations provides the variation for the non-random selection to act on. In biological evolution (and I'm using this term to stop you equivocating), you can't have one without the other. Lets say we have a population pumping out individuals with random variations, but no selection. What do you think would happen?

Haha. Who is that video dude? Does he have any science qualifications at all? I think I'll add him to the idiot box with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.

He is wrong in numerous ways in that video. Life has been around for probably 3 billion years on the earth, not 600 million. He misrepresents evolution numerous times, it is not a case of macroevolution then microevolution. They are essentially both the same process, just viewed from different scales.

There is no such thing as kinds. The bible gives all 'kinds' of level of definition of this word, from species to whole biological families.

Moroever, I don't see how you think that shows evolution, both cosmic and biological is random. As I have been trying to say consistently, it is not random that, for example, when a star goes nova that other elements are formed. Similarly, for biological evolution it is not random that individuals most adapted to the environment are better able to pass their genes on.


If I blended a frog up and left it outside somewhere so it can be hit by radiation, the sun, lightning or however evolution explains it, for billions of years would it turn into a frog? No because it’s impossible.
www.randallniles.com...


This is a pretty silly argument. There are organisms that consume all types of organic compounds now. It is a poor expression of the ideas in abiogenesis research.


Everybody uses faith to fill in a gap at some point, even the greatest scientists.
www.randallniles.com...

There’s no evidence that the Big Bang happened.


Errm, yes, there is. Lots actually.

This one video does convey some of the ideas I raised earliet about 'what came before' the big-bang. As I noted, there are many ideas, and multi-universes is just one. The difference between positing such ideas and stating 'goddidit' is that one is likely to be testable and falsifiable, the other isn't. One encourages investigation, the other is a dead-end.

Then he starts rambling about punk-eeq, jeez, he is good at misrepresentation. Punk-eeq really just states that biological evolution can change in rate. Indeed, we see evidence of hypermutation in the genome under stress.

And as for Hoyle and panspermia, it's one idea, not too sure about his idea of it though, it doesn't require aliens, it just says that life might have been transferred through the cosmos via various mechanisms.

This guy knows how to misrepresent science and scientific ideas. People like Hoyle should raise these sorts of hypotheses, we then look for evidence. Indeed, at this point we haven't found any, so it is not widely accepted. Same goes for multiverses etc. They are hypothesis, if they can be tested and falsified, they are scientific.


This is what I wanted you to see.


But, again, I need to see the working on it.

We can see where he is going, though, with the term 'spontaneous formation'. This is tornado in the junkyard BS. I know ashleyD also likes to misrepresent probability and evolution using this canard.

Thus, what he appears to be assessing the probability of is a group of amino acids spontaneously forming some protein he has decided on. That's not the way it would work.

Why are we still trying to show evolution to be wrong? Is that all you have?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Seriouly your flawed logic has been used to many times it's getting very stupid now.

Let me ask you a question. Who/what built/made the house? Man? Ant? Nature? Alien? The possibility is endless but your poor logic only comes to one conclusion about the universe.



For the purposes of "not knowing if you haven't seen it", what built the house had to be..

1. intelligent
2. creative
3. specific
4. intentional

The universe is far to complex and follows strict laws to exist. Even the smallest of particles and atoms behave a specific way. The "chance" that on one stormy day in the distant past that a bolt of lightning struck a puddle of primordial soup and "presto - chango" a living organism jumps out are astronomical and almost infinate. Additionally, the chances of that "living organism" being able to retain knowledge of any kind to "know" to do anything is also next to impossible to calculate the odds, then, let us say that the organism does live and then does "beyond infinate odds" know to do, the odds of that organism reproducing are then even greator than the next to infinate odds of being able to know, and being able to actually exist. Now let's say that that organism does all of the above, yet the odds of survival are so vast that a bit of cold air or another element of chemical or acid kills it, or naybe just a change in water or air, and it dies. The chances of a repeat performance are then so infinately vast and hard to imagine it would be nearly impossible to actually happen a second time as the first. But let's say it does, and fails seven times in a row but then is able to get started. The universe would be one million times a trillion years old, and probably not even exist anymore.

This is why there is absolutely no logic or reason to support or believe in evolution at all. It is so unprovable and impossible. Rather, a Creator as the source is reasonable. A source that exists outside of this universe yet the universe exists beause of the Creator. A Creator that is not made of energy, or matter, but spirit. The physical from the spiritual.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
For the analogy to be reasonable, you must be able to show evidence of intelligent building just like with a house. I sigh also


In my opinion nature, life, and the universe scream intelligent design.

I'm not criticizing Darwin- in fact I believe he was a very honest man because he often admitted there were contradictions between nature and his theory as well as things he simply couldn't explain. He admitted the complexity and order of many systems and organs as being inexplicable. In other words, he didn't forcefully bend the evidence to fit his view.

Also, contrary to popular belief Darwin was not an atheist. He was a former Christian who later claimed theistic and agnostic views. I can't remember the details but he said he lost his faith in a benevolent god after his daughter died and looking at a certain species of wasp that hatched its eggs inside live caterpillars. He theorized the Christian God would never had made such a species so he believed god was some sort of being uninvolved in human affairs.

If you read some of his works and studies, he makes veiled references to this "supreme being" as assisting in the process (or at least helping it get started) but admitted he didn't believe it was possible for us to know who this "god" was. It was more likely he "jump started" the chain of events then "stepped out" once the evolutionary process commenced.


In 1879 a letter came asking if he believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible. He replied that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, he had "never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God". He added that "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind."



It really doesn't help when you hear things like the earth is 6500 years old.


Not every Christian believes this to be true. The 6,000 year old earth theory arose from a Jewish man (possibly a rabbi- I don't remember) who tallied up the genealogies in the Bible along with historical references to see how long ago Adam was created. It is interesting but a few things: Some speculate the genealogies are "open and not closed" since the Hebrew word for begot could refer to either a direct or distant descendant. Also, looking at Genesis 1:1-2 in the original Hebrew, it translates into "the earth became an uninhabitable ruin" according to some scholars as being a veiled reference to a time gap. Some also claim the days of creation were not six literal 24 hour days but symbolic epochs. Which of these four is correct? Ask four different people and you will get four different answers.


There were never any dinosaurs.


Maybe I don't get out often enough but who in the world denies the existence of the dinosaurs? Not only do I believe they existed, I believe they were cohabitants with man. Job, the oldest book of the Bible, mentions a beast with "a tail like a cedar." Some say this is a hippo, elephant, or rhino but everyone knows they have little stubs for tails.

But our evidence is greater than this single verse in the Bible. Remember, and this is very important, Paleontology originated in the 18th/19th century. Many, many depictions of dinosaurs turned up in ancient artwork. Prior to the 19th century, these depictions were believed to be mythological creatures of these pagan religions.

So no, I do not believe dinosaurs preceded humans by tens of millions of years.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Originally posted by AncientVoid


For the purposes of "not knowing if you haven't seen it", what built the house had to be..

1. intelligent
2. creative
3. specific
4. intentional

We know for sure who made the house and it is PROVABLE.


The universe is far to complex and follows strict laws to exist. Even the smallest of particles and atoms behave a specific way. The "chance" that on one stormy day in the distant past that a bolt of lightning struck a puddle of primordial soup and "presto - chango" a living organism jumps out are astronomical and almost infinate.

Actually the chances are 100%. The fact you wrote the above statement proves that.


Additionally, the chances of that "living organism" being able to retain knowledge of any kind to "know" to do anything is also next to impossible

for something to be alive doesn't mean it thinks or is self aware.


to calculate the odds, then, let us say that the organism does live and then does "beyond infinate odds" know to do, the odds of that organism reproducing are then even greator than the next to infinate odds of being able to know, and being able to actually exist.

Lets see some actual math here. Simply saying it would be infinite odds against it is meaningless without evidence to back it up.


Now let's say that that organism does all of the above, yet the odds of survival are so vast that a bit of cold air or another element of chemical or acid kills it, or naybe just a change in water or air, and it dies. The chances of a repeat performance are then so infinately vast and hard to imagine it would be nearly impossible to actually happen a second time as the first. But let's say it does, and fails seven times in a row but then is able to get started. The universe would be one million times a trillion years old, and probably not even exist anymore.

Again instead of just saying million times a trillion, lets see the math that made this conclusion reasonable as opposed to rhetoric.


This is why there is absolutely no logic or reason to support or believe in evolution at all. It is so unprovable and impossible. Rather, a Creator as the source is reasonable. A source that exists outside of this universe yet the universe exists beause of the Creator. A Creator that is not made of energy, or matter, but spirit. The physical from the spiritual.


So based on your analysis, you are saying a creator has manufactured everything from beginning to end including cancer and random genetic mutations that can and have been very harmful to the host organism. Why would a being that can create and maintain absolutely everything in the universe, cause cancer and many other FATAL illnesses?

That makes absolutely no sense. If a creator did cause all this pain and suffering, SHAME ON THEM!!!



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



Maybe I don't get out often enough but who in the world denies the existence of the dinosaurs?

Here's a website as example:
www.ocii.com...

I do not endorse this site in any way and find it almost as funny as an Austin Powers movie but no where near as entertaining.


Not only do I believe they existed, I believe they were cohabitants with man. Job, the oldest book of the Bible, mentions a beast with "a tail like a cedar." Some say this is a hippo, elephant, or rhino but everyone knows they have little stubs for tails.

But we know that dinosaurs lived for 160 million years and died out approx. 65 million years ago.


But our evidence is greater than this single verse in the Bible. Remember, and this is very important, Paleontology originated in the 18th/19th century. Many, many depictions of dinosaurs turned up in ancient artwork. Prior to the 19th century, these depictions were believed to be mythological creatures of these pagan religions.

This is of course just an opinion based on interpretation.


So no, I do not believe dinosaurs preceded humans by tens of millions of years.

There is quite a bit of evidence that disagree with this statement. Do you have any evidence to support your statement?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So based on your analysis, you are saying a creator has manufactured everything from beginning to end including cancer and random genetic mutations that can and have been very harmful to the host organism. Why would a being that can create and maintain absolutely everything in the universe, cause cancer and many other FATAL illnesses?


Yes and no. Judeo-Christian texts teach that after the fall of man all things fell out of kilter. We went from herbivores to carnivores, thistles arose among fruits, lifespans gradually decreased, our bodies and brains degenerated from our original form, fruits and vegetables devolved and are not as nutritious as they once were, and this also explains our "wasp problem" mentioned above.

Through genetic analysis, this process can be replicated using the scientific method so it's not all religious hocus pocus. This is also a veiled reference to species mutations of animals and plants and how new species form. I hate to admit it, but yes, evolution is mentioned in the Bible. But it is regressive microevolution and not progressive macroevolution.

There is proof even today that recessive superior genes are superseded by inferior dominate genes. Why do children often inherit the worst of their parent's traits and not the better when both kinds of traits exist? Regression. It has been tested time and time again and has shown superior genes are bumped for the inferior genes more often that not. And wouldn't you know it, genetic and scientific tampering aside, this confirms what the Bible is telling us.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join