| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZpiralZone" |
| Date: |
26 Dec 2005 01:07:55 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Evolution science? |
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.
Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
above is not the scientific way or method.
.
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
08 Jan 2006 03:53:54 AM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <ckb0s15h783qgmvnk2o3mb7irqo3j424bs@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:40:50 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061240510001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <tl70s1l5cnvprdeanaa14r28q717cdb0ad@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:02:14 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061202140001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <l360s1lm58tvl94g8pinbg628ugdjaf93l@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 09:31:29 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701060931290001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <jkMvf.61690$Cj5.5552@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Jason wrote:
I have not conducted any research on animals other than great
apes so it
would be unwise to come to any conclusions about other
animals. I have
stated in a recent post that I took a close look at the
classification
system and it seemed to me to make sense. Those are the
reasons that I
refuse to be drawn into a discussion about how various animals are
classified. One person wanted me to base my conclusions about
two animals
based on how they look. I know that other factors are also
involved in
regard to how animals are classified so I refused to express an
opinion.
apart from the times you said that you believed scientists were
correct
in the rest of the decisions
That's true. When I took a look at the entire classification system, it
made sense. I did not focus on specific animals. The only thing
exception
was the fact that great apes and humans were in the same family.
Yet you've admitted that you don't know enough about taxonomy to give a
meaningful criticism of the decision to put all of the great apes,
including humans, into the same family. Your prejudice against evidence
is extremely inflexible.
I have stated in numerous posts that the bone and fossil EVIDENCE is
very important.
You have also shown that you ignore the evidence that is inconvenient.
If you are committed to using evidence, you have to use all of the
evidence, not just the stuff that you like. You also have to stop
letting yourself be misled by the religious doctrines that you accept.
As long as you claim that Genesis is scientific evidence, you are an
enemy of scientific evidence. The fact that you selectively accept or
ignore the physical evidence, based on your religious beliefs does not
mean that you think that bone and fossil evidence is very important. It
means that you have an agenda, not a commitment to learning.
It's my opionion that some of the advocates of evolution also have an
agenda.
You have demonstrated that your opinion is not based on evidence.
Upon request, I will provide an URL of a website that proves my point.
If you have evidence, point to it. Don't tell us we have to ask. Of
course our experience with your references is that they don't say what
you think they say.
H. McHenry wrote an article about many of the bones that have been
found over the years. He mentioned whether or not various bones supported
evolution theory and the reasons why certain bones supported evolution
theory. It was obvious to me that H. McHenry had an agenda. I asked one of
the other members of this newsgroup to read it and his conclusion was that
H. McHenry did not have an agenda. I concluded that some advocates of
evolution have an agenda and it's so strong that they don't even realize
that they have an agenda.
The agenda is a commitment to evidence and science.
Do you want to read the article?
Is is full of lies like your ICR resources?
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article. However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution since
they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone here
has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit creationism.
Creationists here believe that it is necessary to discredit evolutionary
theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Jason
the agenda in the Dover case was that they didn't want people promoting
religion to their children and pretending they were doing so do develop
critical thinking. The evidence showed they lied about their reasons and
the judge acknowledged this
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
08 Jan 2006 08:12:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
[snip]
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article. However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution since
they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone here
has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit creationism.
Creationists here believe that it is necessary to discredit evolutionary
theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Which side in the Dover case committed perjury to further their
agenda?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
08 Jan 2006 08:48:52 PM |
|
|
In article <dih3s118uabejgojks58e61vpu5903773n@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
[snip]
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article. However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution since
they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone here
has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit creationism.
Creationists here believe that it is necessary to discredit evolutionary
theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three
weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Which side in the Dover case committed perjury to further their
agenda?
They should not have done that.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
08 Jan 2006 09:07:55 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <> wrote in message
news:jason-0801061848520001@pm1-broad-73.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <dih3s118uabejgojks58e61vpu5903773n@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
[snip]
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt
that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article.
However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution
since
they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone
here
has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit
creationism.
Creationists here believe that it is necessary to discredit
evolutionary
theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three
weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Which side in the Dover case committed perjury to further their
agenda?
They should not have done that.
You're not much better pal.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
09 Jan 2006 09:33:10 AM |
|
|
In <jason-0801061848520001@pm1-broad-73.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
(Jason) wrote:
In article <dih3s118uabejgojks58e61vpu5903773n@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
cactus <bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
[snip]
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt
that he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article.
However, I doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of
evolution since they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone
here has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit
creationism. Creationists here believe that it is necessary to
discredit evolutionary theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three
weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Which side in the Dover case committed perjury to further their agenda?
They should not have done that.
And yet they did.
Funny they couldn't just present the evidence supporting their case...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
09 Jan 2006 11:10:21 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 09:33:10 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <jason-0801061848520001@pm1-broad-73.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
(Jason) wrote:
In article <dih3s118uabejgojks58e61vpu5903773n@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
cactus <bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
[snip]
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt
that he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article.
However, I doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of
evolution since they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone
here has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit
creationism. Creationists here believe that it is necessary to
discredit evolutionary theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three
weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Which side in the Dover case committed perjury to further their agenda?
They should not have done that.
And yet they did.
Funny they couldn't just present the evidence supporting their case...
Funny how Jason does the same thing as the Dover school board did...
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
09 Jan 2006 11:23:35 AM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <dih3s118uabejgojks58e61vpu5903773n@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
[snip]
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article. However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution since
they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone here
has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit creationism.
Creationists here believe that it is necessary to discredit evolutionary
theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three
weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Which side in the Dover case committed perjury to further their
agenda?
They should not have done that.
Do you *really* mean that, or are you doing the "creationist shuffle" yet again?
If "they" should not have done that, *why* should the ICR, AIG and the DI do *exactly that*?
Not only *should*, but why do you think that that they felt necessary to do that?
Fear of loss of book revenues of their bogus books?
Why should *you* feel defensive for *their* deeds unless you're directly involved?
If not, why should you feel yourself proud to be even associated with fakes like them?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
09 Jan 2006 12:02:44 PM |
|
|
In article <42fkglF1iiptnU1@individual.net>, SeppoP
<seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <dih3s118uabejgojks58e61vpu5903773n@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
[snip]
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article. However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution since
they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone here
has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit creationism.
Creationists here believe that it is necessary to discredit evolutionary
theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three
weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Which side in the Dover case committed perjury to further their
agenda?
They should not have done that.
Do you *really* mean that, or are you doing the "creationist shuffle"
yet again?
If "they" should not have done that, *why* should the ICR, AIG and the
DI do *exactly that*?
Not only *should*, but why do you think that that they felt necessary to
do that?
Fear of loss of book revenues of their bogus books?
Why should *you* feel defensive for *their* deeds unless you're directly
involved?
If not, why should you feel yourself proud to be even associated with
fakes like them?
I'm on their side but it does not mean that I agree with everything they
done during the court case.
For example, a fan might be devoted to a professional football team but not
always agree with certain decisions that the coach made during the
game--such as calling plays that caused them to lose the game.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
09 Jan 2006 12:49:47 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:02:44 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-0901061002440001@pm4-broad-3.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <42fkglF1iiptnU1@individual.net>, SeppoP
<seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <dih3s118uabejgojks58e61vpu5903773n@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
[snip]
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article. However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution since
they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone here
has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit creationism.
Creationists here believe that it is necessary to discredit evolutionary
theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three
weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Which side in the Dover case committed perjury to further their
agenda?
They should not have done that.
Do you *really* mean that, or are you doing the "creationist shuffle"
yet again?
If "they" should not have done that, *why* should the ICR, AIG and the
DI do *exactly that*?
Not only *should*, but why do you think that that they felt necessary to
do that?
Fear of loss of book revenues of their bogus books?
Why should *you* feel defensive for *their* deeds unless you're directly
involved?
If not, why should you feel yourself proud to be even associated with
fakes like them?
I'm on their side but it does not mean that I agree with everything they
done during the court case.
For example, a fan might be devoted to a professional football team but not
always agree with certain decisions that the coach made during the
game--such as calling plays that caused them to lose the game.
You defend the lie of 'creation science'. You defend the lie of
'Intelligent Design'. The first time you complained about lies from the
religious zealots was when they got caught and publicly rebuked for
their lies. Does this mean that when you said "They should not have done
that," that you meant they should not have gotten caught?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
08 Jan 2006 10:59:23 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:48:52 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0801061848520001@pm1-broad-73.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
In article <dih3s118uabejgojks58e61vpu5903773n@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
[snip]
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article. However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution since
they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone here
has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit creationism.
Creationists here believe that it is necessary to discredit evolutionary
theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three
weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Which side in the Dover case committed perjury to further their
agenda?
They should not have done that.
And, yet, you complain about those who told the truth, not those who
lied.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
07 Jan 2006 09:43:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <ckb0s15h783qgmvnk2o3mb7irqo3j424bs@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:40:50 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061240510001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <tl70s1l5cnvprdeanaa14r28q717cdb0ad@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:02:14 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061202140001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <l360s1lm58tvl94g8pinbg628ugdjaf93l@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 09:31:29 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701060931290001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <jkMvf.61690$Cj5.5552@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Jason wrote:
I have not conducted any research on animals other than great
apes so it
would be unwise to come to any conclusions about other
animals. I have
stated in a recent post that I took a close look at the
classification
system and it seemed to me to make sense. Those are the
reasons that I
refuse to be drawn into a discussion about how various animals are
classified. One person wanted me to base my conclusions about
two animals
based on how they look. I know that other factors are also
involved in
regard to how animals are classified so I refused to express an
opinion.
apart from the times you said that you believed scientists were
correct
in the rest of the decisions
That's true. When I took a look at the entire classification system, it
made sense. I did not focus on specific animals. The only thing
exception
was the fact that great apes and humans were in the same family.
Yet you've admitted that you don't know enough about taxonomy to give a
meaningful criticism of the decision to put all of the great apes,
including humans, into the same family. Your prejudice against evidence
is extremely inflexible.
I have stated in numerous posts that the bone and fossil EVIDENCE is
very important.
You have also shown that you ignore the evidence that is inconvenient.
If you are committed to using evidence, you have to use all of the
evidence, not just the stuff that you like. You also have to stop
letting yourself be misled by the religious doctrines that you accept.
As long as you claim that Genesis is scientific evidence, you are an
enemy of scientific evidence. The fact that you selectively accept or
ignore the physical evidence, based on your religious beliefs does not
mean that you think that bone and fossil evidence is very important. It
means that you have an agenda, not a commitment to learning.
It's my opionion that some of the advocates of evolution also have an
agenda.
You have demonstrated that your opinion is not based on evidence.
Upon request, I will provide an URL of a website that proves my point.
If you have evidence, point to it. Don't tell us we have to ask. Of
course our experience with your references is that they don't say what
you think they say.
H. McHenry wrote an article about many of the bones that have been
found over the years. He mentioned whether or not various bones supported
evolution theory and the reasons why certain bones supported evolution
theory. It was obvious to me that H. McHenry had an agenda. I asked one of
the other members of this newsgroup to read it and his conclusion was that
H. McHenry did not have an agenda. I concluded that some advocates of
evolution have an agenda and it's so strong that they don't even realize
that they have an agenda.
The agenda is a commitment to evidence and science.
Do you want to read the article?
Is is full of lies like your ICR resources?
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article. However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution since
they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone here
has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit creationism.
Creationists here believe that it is necessary to discredit evolutionary
theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Of course some agendas are honest and some are based on lies.
Intelligent Design is one such lie-based agenda. Supporting science is
one that is based on evidence and honesty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
08 Jan 2006 02:56:52 PM |
|
|
In article <pg21s1tdgbsn3fgi0bjn969vnpu7ko6ovi@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <ckb0s15h783qgmvnk2o3mb7irqo3j424bs@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:40:50 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061240510001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <tl70s1l5cnvprdeanaa14r28q717cdb0ad@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:02:14 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061202140001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <l360s1lm58tvl94g8pinbg628ugdjaf93l@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 09:31:29 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701060931290001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <jkMvf.61690$Cj5.5552@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Jason wrote:
I have not conducted any research on animals other than great
apes so it
would be unwise to come to any conclusions about other
animals. I have
stated in a recent post that I took a close look at the
classification
system and it seemed to me to make sense. Those are the
reasons that I
refuse to be drawn into a discussion about how various animals are
classified. One person wanted me to base my conclusions about
two animals
based on how they look. I know that other factors are also
involved in
regard to how animals are classified so I refused to express an
opinion.
apart from the times you said that you believed scientists were
correct
in the rest of the decisions
That's true. When I took a look at the entire classification
system, it
made sense. I did not focus on specific animals. The only thing
exception
was the fact that great apes and humans were in the same family.
Yet you've admitted that you don't know enough about taxonomy
to give a
meaningful criticism of the decision to put all of the great apes,
including humans, into the same family. Your prejudice against
evidence
is extremely inflexible.
I have stated in numerous posts that the bone and fossil EVIDENCE is
very important.
You have also shown that you ignore the evidence that is inconvenient.
If you are committed to using evidence, you have to use all of the
evidence, not just the stuff that you like. You also have to stop
letting yourself be misled by the religious doctrines that you accept.
As long as you claim that Genesis is scientific evidence, you are an
enemy of scientific evidence. The fact that you selectively accept or
ignore the physical evidence, based on your religious beliefs does not
mean that you think that bone and fossil evidence is very important. It
means that you have an agenda, not a commitment to learning.
It's my opionion that some of the advocates of evolution also have an
agenda.
You have demonstrated that your opinion is not based on evidence.
Upon request, I will provide an URL of a website that proves my point.
If you have evidence, point to it. Don't tell us we have to ask. Of
course our experience with your references is that they don't say what
you think they say.
H. McHenry wrote an article about many of the bones that have been
found over the years. He mentioned whether or not various bones
supported
evolution theory and the reasons why certain bones supported evolution
theory. It was obvious to me that H. McHenry had an agenda. I
asked one of
the other members of this newsgroup to read it and his conclusion
was that
H. McHenry did not have an agenda. I concluded that some advocates of
evolution have an agenda and it's so strong that they don't even realize
that they have an agenda.
The agenda is a commitment to evidence and science.
Do you want to read the article?
Is is full of lies like your ICR resources?
No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article. However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution since
they also have an agenda.
What do you expect? Of course he has an agenda. Of course everyone here
has an agenda. Some of us believe it necessary to discredit creationism.
Creationists here believe that it is necessary to discredit evolutionary
theory.
cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three
weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.
Of course some agendas are honest and some are based on lies.
Intelligent Design is one such lie-based agenda. Supporting science is
one that is based on evidence and honesty.
I disagree. Evolutionists claimed that evolution is to be based on
science. However, anyone that has a Ph.D. in in biology or a related field
of science knows that micro-evolution is based on science but that
macro-evolution is based on an assumption that life can evolve from
non-life. True science is NOT based on assumptions. You may say that the
creation of life is NOT related to evolution. However, without life there
can be no evolution.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
08 Jan 2006 05:38:54 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0801061256530001@pm4-broad-29.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
[snip] [Snipping is good. People should snip more often]
Of course some agendas are honest and some are based on lies.
Intelligent Design is one such lie-based agenda. Supporting science is
one that is based on evidence and honesty.
I disagree. Evolutionists claimed that evolution is to be based on
science.
No, evolution is a natural phenomenon that scientists study.
The science is evolutionary biology. It not only is based
on science, it is science.
However, anyone that has a Ph.D. in in biology or a related field
of science knows that micro-evolution is based on science
You don't even define "microevolution" correctly. As you define it,
it includes macroevolution.
but that
macro-evolution is based on an assumption that life can evolve from
non-life.
Sorry, but that last half of your sentence is an outright falsehood.
Actually, more than one.
1] "macroevolution" even as you misdefined it, says nothing at all
about the origin of life from nonlife. Do you now want to move your
earlier goalposts?
2] "macroevolution" as it's actually defined isn't an "assumption",
but a conclusion from the scientific evidence. Macroevolutionary
change is indeed observed to occur both in the lab and in nature.
3] People with real Ph.D degrees in biology and related fields
would know that your claims about what they know are utterly
bogus. They'll know that there is in fact overwhelming strong
evidence for "macroevolution" as it's correctly defined.
However, they might agree that your brand of "macroevolution" as
however you now define it has nothing to do with science. No
such "macroevolution" is needed, just lots of what you call
"microevolution".
True science is NOT based on assumptions.
If so, you must agree that your "creation science" isn't any
kind of "true science". You've got nothing but assumptions.
[well, assumptions and a deep pile of ICR lies].
You may say that the
creation of life is NOT related to evolution. However, without life there
can be no evolution.
So what? Without a sun and planets there will be no evolution either.
I suppose that means your "evolution" includes the formation of the
solar system? Without heat and light from the sun there will be no
life or evolution, so I suppose nuclear fusion reactions are also
part of evolutionary theory?
Evolution is something that happens to life after life first arises.
It has no requirements as to how that happens. Even if the first
life were supernaturally "poofed" into existence, it will have
evolved ever since.
[Well, actually evolution will first begin with the first
pre-biotic self-replicating molecular systems]
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
08 Jan 2006 06:34:13 PM |
|
|
In article <dps75e$le8$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0801061256530001@pm4-broad-29.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
[snip] [Snipping is good. People should snip more often]
Of course some agendas are honest and some are based on lies.
Intelligent Design is one such lie-based agenda. Supporting science is
one that is based on evidence and honesty.
I disagree. Evolutionists claimed that evolution is to be based on
science.
No, evolution is a natural phenomenon that scientists study.
The science is evolutionary biology. It not only is based
on science, it is science.
However, anyone that has a Ph.D. in in biology or a related field
of science knows that micro-evolution is based on science
You don't even define "microevolution" correctly. As you define it,
it includes macroevolution.
but that
macro-evolution is based on an assumption that life can evolve from
non-life.
Sorry, but that last half of your sentence is an outright falsehood.
Actually, more than one.
1] "macroevolution" even as you misdefined it, says nothing at all
about the origin of life from nonlife. Do you now want to move your
earlier goalposts?
2] "macroevolution" as it's actually defined isn't an "assumption",
but a conclusion from the scientific evidence. Macroevolutionary
change is indeed observed to occur both in the lab and in nature.
3] People with real Ph.D degrees in biology and related fields
would know that your claims about what they know are utterly
bogus. They'll know that there is in fact overwhelming strong
evidence for "macroevolution" as it's correctly defined.
However, they might agree that your brand of "macroevolution" as
however you now define it has nothing to do with science. No
such "macroevolution" is needed, just lots of what you call
"microevolution".
True science is NOT based on assumptions.
If so, you must agree that your "creation science" isn't any
kind of "true science". You've got nothing but assumptions.
[well, assumptions and a deep pile of ICR lies].
You may say that the
creation of life is NOT related to evolution. However, without life there
can be no evolution.
So what? Without a sun and planets there will be no evolution either.
I suppose that means your "evolution" includes the formation of the
solar system? Without heat and light from the sun there will be no
life or evolution, so I suppose nuclear fusion reactions are also
part of evolutionary theory?
Evolution is something that happens to life after life first arises.
It has no requirements as to how that happens. Even if the first
life were supernaturally "poofed" into existence, it will have
evolved ever since.
[Well, actually evolution will first begin with the first
pre-biotic self-replicating molecular systems]
cheers
Thanks for your post. It's the first time that anyone has stated
some of the points that you mentioned.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
09 Jan 2006 11:31:31 AM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <dps75e$le8$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0801061256530001@pm4-broad-29.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
[snip] [Snipping is good. People should snip more often]
Of course some agendas are honest and some are based on lies.
Intelligent Design is one such lie-based agenda. Supporting science is
one that is based on evidence and honesty.
I disagree. Evolutionists claimed that evolution is to be based on
science.
No, evolution is a natural phenomenon that scientists study.
The science is evolutionary biology. It not only is based
on science, it is science.
However, anyone that has a Ph.D. in in biology or a related field
of science knows that micro-evolution is based on science
You don't even define "microevolution" correctly. As you define it,
it includes macroevolution.
but that
macro-evolution is based on an assumption that life can evolve from
non-life.
Sorry, but that last half of your sentence is an outright falsehood.
Actually, more than one.
1] "macroevolution" even as you misdefined it, says nothing at all
about the origin of life from nonlife. Do you now want to move your
earlier goalposts?
2] "macroevolution" as it's actually defined isn't an "assumption",
but a conclusion from the scientific evidence. Macroevolutionary
change is indeed observed to occur both in the lab and in nature.
3] People with real Ph.D degrees in biology and related fields
would know that your claims about what they know are utterly
bogus. They'll know that there is in fact overwhelming strong
evidence for "macroevolution" as it's correctly defined.
However, they might agree that your brand of "macroevolution" as
however you now define it has nothing to do with science. No
such "macroevolution" is needed, just lots of what you call
"microevolution".
True science is NOT based on assumptions.
If so, you must agree that your "creation science" isn't any
kind of "true science". You've got nothing but assumptions.
[well, assumptions and a deep pile of ICR lies].
You may say that the
creation of life is NOT related to evolution. However, without life there
can be no evolution.
So what? Without a sun and planets there will be no evolution either.
I suppose that means your "evolution" includes the formation of the
solar system? Without heat and light from the sun there will be no
life or evolution, so I suppose nuclear fusion reactions are also
part of evolutionary theory?
Evolution is something that happens to life after life first arises.
It has no requirements as to how that happens. Even if the first
life were supernaturally "poofed" into existence, it will have
evolved ever since.
[Well, actually evolution will first begin with the first
pre-biotic self-replicating molecular systems]
cheers
Thanks for your post. It's the first time that anyone has stated
some of the points that you mentioned.
Which ones? Most of them seem to have been brought up several times before
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
09 Jan 2006 11:58:21 AM |
|
|
In article <T5xwf.49917$Dg6.34722@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <dps75e$le8$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0801061256530001@pm4-broad-29.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
[snip] [Snipping is good. People should snip more often]
Of course some agendas are honest and some are based on lies.
Intelligent Design is one such lie-based agenda. Supporting science is
one that is based on evidence and honesty.
I disagree. Evolutionists claimed that evolution is to be based on
science.
No, evolution is a natural phenomenon that scientists study.
The science is evolutionary biology. It not only is based
on science, it is science.
However, anyone that has a Ph.D. in in biology or a related field
of science knows that micro-evolution is based on science
You don't even define "microevolution" correctly. As you define it,
it includes macroevolution.
but that
macro-evolution is based on an assumption that life can evolve from
non-life.
Sorry, but that last half of your sentence is an outright falsehood.
Actually, more than one.
1] "macroevolution" even as you misdefined it, says nothing at all
about the origin of life from nonlife. Do you now want to move your
earlier goalposts?
2] "macroevolution" as it's actually defined isn't an "assumption",
but a conclusion from the scientific evidence. Macroevolutionary
change is indeed observed to occur both in the lab and in nature.
3] People with real Ph.D degrees in biology and related fields
would know that your claims about what they know are utterly
bogus. They'll know that there is in fact overwhelming strong
evidence for "macroevolution" as it's correctly defined.
However, they might agree that your brand of "macroevolution" as
however you now define it has nothing to do with science. No
such "macroevolution" is needed, just lots of what you call
"microevolution".
True science is NOT based on assumptions.
If so, you must agree that your "creation science" isn't any
kind of "true science". You've got nothing but assumptions.
[well, assumptions and a deep pile of ICR lies].
You may say that the
creation of life is NOT related to evolution. However, without life there
can be no evolution.
So what? Without a sun and planets there will be no evolution either.
I suppose that means your "evolution" includes the formation of the
solar system? Without heat and light from the sun there will be no
life or evolution, so I suppose nuclear fusion reactions are also
part of evolutionary theory?
Evolution is something that happens to life after life first arises.
It has no requirements as to how that happens. Even if the first
life were supernaturally "poofed" into existence, it will have
evolved ever since.
[Well, actually evolution will first begin with the first
pre-biotic self-replicating molecular systems]
cheers
Thanks for your post. It's the first time that anyone has stated
some of the points that you mentioned.
Which ones? Most of them seem to have been brought up several times before
This is the best example:
So what? Without a sun and planets there will be no evolution either.
I suppose that means your "evolution" includes the formation of the
solar system? Without heat and light from the sun there will be no
life or evolution, so I suppose nuclear fusion reactions are also
part of evolutionary theory?
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
10 Jan 2006 04:27:20 AM |
|
|
Mel wasn't saying those things are part of evolutionary theory, just
pointing out that your straw man would make them so
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
08 Jan 2006 09:08:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:34:13 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0801061634130001@pm4-broad-31.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
In article <dps75e$le8$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"Jason" < > wrote in message
news:jason-0801061256530001@pm4-broad-29.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
[snip] [Snipping is good. People should snip more often]
Of course some agendas are honest and some are based on lies.
Intelligent Design is one such lie-based agenda. Supporting science is
one that is based on evidence and honesty.
I disagree. Evolutionists claimed that evolution is to be based on
science.
No, evolution is a natural phenomenon that scientists study.
The science is evolutionary biology. It not only is based
on science, it is science.
However, anyone that has a Ph.D. in in biology or a related field
of science knows that micro-evolution is based on science
You don't even define "microevolution" correctly. As you define it,
it includes macroevolution.
but that
macro-evolution is based on an assumption that life can evolve from
non-life.
Sorry, but that last half of your sentence is an outright falsehood.
Actually, more than one.
1] "macroevolution" even as you misdefined it, says nothing at all
about the origin of life from nonlife. Do you now want to move your
earlier goalposts?
2] "macroevolution" as it's actually defined isn't an "assumption",
but a conclusion from the scientific evidence. Macroevolutionary
change is indeed observed to occur both in the lab and in nature.
3] People with real Ph.D degrees in biology and related fields
would know that your claims about what they know are utterly
bogus. They'll know that there is in fact overwhelming strong
evidence for "macroevolution" as it's correctly defined.
However, they might agree that your brand of "macroevolution" as
however you now define it has nothing to do with science. No
such "macroevolution" is needed, just lots of what you call
"microevolution".
True science is NOT based on assumptions.
If so, you must agree that your "creation science" isn't any
kind of "true science". You've got nothing but assumptions.
[well, assumptions and a deep pile of ICR lies].
You may say that the
creation of life is NOT related to evolution. However, without life there
can be no evolution.
So what? Without a sun and planets there will be no evolution either.
I suppose that means your "evolution" includes the formation of the
solar system? Without heat and light from the sun there will be no
life or evolution, so I suppose nuclear fusion reactions are also
part of evolutionary theory?
Evolution is something that happens to life after life first arises.
It has no requirements as to how that happens. Even if the first
life were supernaturally "poofed" into existence, it will have
evolved ever since.
[Well, actually evolution will first begin with the first
pre-biotic self-replicating molecular systems]
cheers
Thanks for your post. It's the first time that anyone has stated
some of the points that you mentioned.
Maybe the first time you have bothered to read them but I know I have
made them several times as have others.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
08 Jan 2006 08:02:12 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:jason-
However, anyone that has a Ph.D. in in biology or a related field
of science knows that micro-evolution is based on science but that
macro-evolution is based on an assumption that life can evolve from
non-life.
That's plain stupid.
True science is NOT based on assumptions.
*****. Science is full of assumptions moron. The trick is to never let
them escape your notice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
09 Jan 2006 09:36:34 AM |
|
|
In <jason-0801061256530001@pm4-broad-29.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <pg21s1tdgbsn3fgi0bjn969vnpu7ko6ovi@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <RO_vf.2620$WY5.903@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
cactus <bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <ckb0s15h783qgmvnk2o3mb7irqo3j424bs@4ax.com>, David
Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:40:50 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061240510001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <tl70s1l5cnvprdeanaa14r28q717cdb0ad@4ax.com>, David
Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:02:14 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061202140001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <l360s1lm58tvl94g8pinbg628ugdjaf93l@4ax.com>, David
Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 09:31:29 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701060931290001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <jkMvf.61690$Cj5.5552@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Jason wrote:
I have not conducted any research on animals other than
great
apes so it
would be unwise to come to any conclusions about other
animals. I have
stated in a recent post that I took a close look at the
classification
system and it seemed to me to make sense. Those are the
reasons that I
refuse to be drawn into a discussion about how various
animals are classified. One person wanted me to base my
conclusions about
two animals
based on how they look. I know that other factors are also
involved in
regard to how animals are classified so I refused to express
an
opinion.
apart from the times you said that you believed scientists
were
correct
in the rest of the decisions
That's true. When I took a look at the entire classification
system, it
made sense. I did not focus on specific animals. The only
thing
exception
was the fact that great apes and humans were in the same
family.
Yet you've admitted that you don't know e | | | |
