 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: BC
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:18 am Post subject: Apes evolved from humans' ancestors |
 |
|
A lot of people who have a problem accepting evolution on a macro level say that according to evolution, humans are descended from apes. That is not true - humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. It would be just as valid to say that apes evolved from humans' ancestors as it would be to say that humans evolved from apes' ancestors.
There are people who have a problem with evolution that think "No way! I do NOT come from apes, because apes are beneath me!" Then they don't even want to see if evolution is true because they are affronted by the very thought of it. I think people who think this would be more likely to accept evolution if they thought of it as apes coming from humans. Either way, it's a misconception, but at least this one would have people more likely to investigate evolution.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.
Ana's Bananas
Last edited by Ana on Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: Apes evolved from humans' ancestors |
|
|
Ana... and all. Sorry I haven't been posting here for a while... and no, you don't have to act like you are disappointed.  I have been quite busy with life in general, kids, church, and a new hobby.  Lets see whatcha are rumbling here about...
| Ana wrote: | | The people who have a problem with evolution think "No way! I do NOT come from apes, because apes are beneath me!" |
Supposition... not true. I never thought this at all. I always have understood the common ancestor thingy-a-ma-job (descent with modification)... thanks to my college biology professor. This is when my interest in this matter grew as it all seemed like a pretty convincing argument. The process that led to this supposition was that I (as most ‘incubates’ of our country’s public education indoctrination pogrom) was NEVER EVER AT ALL exposed to or taught anything challenging or exposing the weaknesses of ToE. This only came after a Christian friend introduced me to a different perspective... a Biblical perspective. At first glance, I thought it was (like most of you) religious zealotry... but after spending the better part of the last 8 years reading about and debating this subject I have concluded that descent with modification is impossible without ascent with modification (among many other tidbits), thus immediately calling into question a purely materialistic process for it to be tenable.
| Quote: | | Then they don't even want to see if evolution is true because they are affronted by the very thought of it. |
What about those who actually did believe in the validity of it, and then, after investigating the facts and the evidence for it, changed their mind?
| Quote: | | I think people who think this would be more likely to accept evolution if they thought of it as apes coming from humans. Either way, it's a misconception, but at least this one would have people more likely to investigate evolution. |
What about those who don’t need to think of it that way and are not convinced at all? I think we are not giving credit where credit is due here. You seem to be taking the traditional approach of (and don't take this the wrong way Ms Banana) intellectual elitism. You seem to be acting as if you are able to discern the facts/evidences/arguments better than the majority, or at least better than those who disagree with you. In your case, it may not be true as you seem to be more open minded about this issue than most here on these boards… but you are, with your post here, ‘skirting’ the ‘intellectual snobbery’ line a smidge too close.
My two cents. 
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry, I didn't word that very well. I meant to say "There are people who have a problem with evolution that think ..."
I'm editing that to reflect this change.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.
Ana's Bananas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | I'm sorry, I didn't word that very well. I meant to say "There are people who have a problem with evolution that think ..."
I'm editing that to reflect this change. |
No doubt... I agree. I go to church with a few of them... or at least I did until I had the opportunity to discuss what ToE actually does teach.
However, I would propose (using the same form of argumentation) that there are many more who... like myself... have/had accepted ToE based on zero critical analysis and believe that anyone who challenges the theory is... like I initially believed, a religious zealot. After all, as P likes to assert... how can all of these esteemed scientists and their 'mountains' of evidence all be wrong?
Simple... apply the same critical analysis (that most here in these part purport to have a monopoly on) to ToE... Old Earth... pure materialistic causations... and the answer quickly jumps out and smacks you right between the eyes (or at least it should if one is exercising complete intellectual honesty).
An additional two cents.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6292
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | The process that led to this supposition was that I (as most ‘incubates’ of our country’s public education indoctrination pogrom) was NEVER EVER AT ALL exposed to or taught anything challenging or exposing the weaknesses of ToE. |
Shame, because when you look at them without religious motivation, they're rather hilarious.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | At first glance, I thought it was (like most of you) religious zealotry... but after spending the better part of the last 8 years reading about and debating this subject I have concluded that descent with modification is impossible without ascent with modification (among many other tidbits), thus immediately calling into question a purely materialistic process for it to be tenable. |
You concluded that it is impossible? On what grounds? How is this anything but an argument from ignorance?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | What about those who actually did believe in the validity of it, and then, after investigating the facts and the evidence for it, changed their mind? |
I once argued for creation over evolution in a theology class, but I did so because I had been reading untruths spread by creationists.
Obviously I can't then extrapolate that this explains why you reject it, but it's an explanation. It's happened at least once.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | You seem to be taking the traditional approach of (and don't take this the wrong way Ms Banana) intellectual elitism. |
She's postulating an explanation as to why some people refuse to accept evolution a priori. Why call it elitism?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | However, I would propose (using the same form of argumentation) that there are many more who... like myself... have/had accepted ToE based on zero critical analysis and believe that anyone who challenges the theory is... like I initially believed, a religious zealot. |
Undoubtedly. There are always people that adopt ideas unquestioningly, whether they be religious or secular. This, in and of itself, does not mean they are wrong in their belief.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Simple... apply the same critical analysis (that most here in these part purport to have a monopoly on) to ToE... Old Earth... pure materialistic causations... and the answer quickly jumps out and smacks you right between the eyes (or at least it should if one is exercising complete intellectual honesty). |
And the answer is ... what? The Abrahamic explanation? The Norse explanation? The Egyptian explanation? I mean, which one is so clearly true that it strikes you?
Or is it just that when you, without realizing, get bad counterevidence you simply adopt something else unquestioningly?
Regardless, the whole "we aren't actually descended from apes" argument is glossing over details. If you looked back in time to see where our ancestors split from modern ape ancestors, the origin species would definitely appear to be an ape. It certainly wouldn't be one that's still around, but it would be classed as an ape. It's fine to say we aren't descended from modern apes, but saying we aren't descended from apes at all isn't really true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | The process that led to this supposition was that I (as most ‘incubates’ of our country’s public education indoctrination pogrom) was NEVER EVER AT ALL exposed to or taught anything challenging or exposing the weaknesses of ToE. |
Shame, because when you look at them without religious motivation, they're rather hilarious. |
Oh... by golly gee whiz... whether one's motivated by religion, politics, personal need never plays a part in any of these finds.... now does it?  Everyone has motivation for just about everything... everything... and now this makes a difference here huh?
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | At first glance, I thought it was (like most of you) religious zealotry... but after spending the better part of the last 8 years reading about and debating this subject I have concluded that descent with modification is impossible without ascent with modification (among many other tidbits), thus immediately calling into question a purely materialistic process for it to be tenable. |
You concluded that it is impossible? On what grounds? How is this anything but an argument from ignorance? |
Did you read the statement FFT? Descent from something means... if must be descended from... what? A lower form? A higher form? If indeed it is a higher form, as with the overwhelming majority of the citations of 'evolution' involve, that means that these macro molecules, single celled organisms, mult-icelled organisms, et. al. ALL had to ascend. This ascent is absent from the 'phylogenic tree'. Therefore, descent is impossible without a demonstration of ascent. Unless, of course, you are willing to concede God created everything fully formed and functional...
| Quote: | | Obviously I can't then extrapolate that this explains why you reject it, but it's an explanation. It's happened at least once. |
I don't believe I'm an exception to the rule here...
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | You seem to be taking the traditional approach of (and don't take this the wrong way Ms Banana) intellectual elitism. |
She's postulating an explanation as to why some people refuse to accept evolution a priori. Why call it elitism? |
Because it began with the supposition that most people who reject ToE do so because they don't understand it. This is normally a charge leveled against creationists. The porblem is that creationists seem to have a better understanding at the macro level than most people who have been indoctrinated in our public schools.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | However, I would propose (using the same form of argumentation) that there are many more who... like myself... have/had accepted ToE based on zero critical analysis and believe that anyone who challenges the theory is... like I initially believed, a religious zealot. |
Undoubtedly. There are always people that adopt ideas unquestioningly, whether they be religious or secular. This, in and of itself, does not mean they are wrong in their belief. |
100% agree. Post this on the wall... we can agree on this. It does not mean they are wrong... even if they are truly sincere... but then again... people can be sincerely wrong too.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Simple... apply the same critical analysis (that most here in these part purport to have a monopoly on) to ToE... Old Earth... pure materialistic causations... and the answer quickly jumps out and smacks you right between the eyes (or at least it should if one is exercising complete intellectual honesty). |
And the answer is ... what? The Abrahamic explanation? The Norse explanation? The Egyptian explanation? I mean, which one is so clearly true that it strikes you? |
No... I was referring to ToE... not one of your 'red herrings' here.
| Quote: | | Or is it just that when you, without realizing, get bad counterevidence you simply adopt something else unquestioningly? |
I'm sure you have an example of this... right?
| Quote: | | Regardless, the whole "we aren't actually descended from apes" argument is glossing over details. |
No... not really. It is not 'glossing over' anything. It is based on observational evidence... or in this case, lack there of... when these examples you cited in another thread are actually analyzed critically...
| Quote: | | If you looked back in time |
Yepper... you can look back 50,000 years... 100K, 500K 1000K??? Me thinks not.
| Quote: | | to see where our ancestors split from modern ape ancestors, |
And this was done where... EXACTLY!
| Quote: | | the origin species would definitely appear to be an ape. |
Which one?
| Quote: | | It certainly wouldn't be one that's still around, but it would be classed as an ape. |
If we are able to do this 'look'in back'... you must certainly will be able to cite which transitional form clearly demonstrates this 'spilt'.
| Quote: | | It's fine to say we aren't descended from modern apes, but saying we aren't descended from apes at all isn't really true. |
I would say neither is true... but then that is only what I would say.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6292
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Oh... by golly gee whiz... whether one's motivated by religion, politics, personal need never plays a part in any of these finds.... now does it? Everyone has motivation for just about everything... everything... and now this makes a difference here huh? |
Uh, yes. When you're looking at the arguments against evolution without being religiously predisposed against evolution, they're quite humorous.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Descent from something means... if must be descended from... what? A lower form? A higher form? |
Uh?
Are you a "lower form" than your father? His grandfather? Would you be a "higher form" than your children? You're equivocating the meaning of "descent" (as in descendants—the opposite of ancestors) used in evolutionary terminology with the meaning of "descent" as it is also commonly used (in reference to height).
| Trinity1 wrote: | | If indeed it is a higher form, as with the overwhelming majority of the citations of 'evolution' involve |
Source? Where has this been said, ever?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | that means that these macro molecules, single celled organisms, mult-icelled organisms, et. al. ALL had to ascend. |
They're descended from older organisms? All the way back to whatever form proto-life arose in?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Therefore, descent is impossible without a demonstration of ascent. |
Ah. This is the argument from ignorance I was speaking of. Just because (and you're wrong) such a thing hasn't been demonstrated, wouldn't mean that it would be impossible. Assuming that something is impossible because you haven't seen it is an argument from ignorance.
We have observed speciation, and the fossil record is excellent evidence for the phylogenetic tree.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Unless, of course, you are willing to concede God created everything fully formed and functional... |
False dichotomy. Isn't there a theory ( ) running around in which evolution just needed God's help?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Because it began with the supposition that most people who reject ToE do so because they don't understand it. |
I have seen only an extremely small number of creationists who actually understand the theory of evolution. Q.E.D.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | No... I was referring to ToE... not one of your 'red herrings' here. |
So then you're saying that the theory of evolution is the answer that jumps out if you're exercising complete intellectual honesty? What?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Or is it just that when you, without realizing, get bad counterevidence you simply adopt something else unquestioningly? |
I'm sure you have an example of this... right? |
Me again
It wasn't until I decided to examine all the evidence that I realized I'd been had.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | No... not really. It is not 'glossing over' anything. It is based on observational evidence... or in this case, lack there of... when these examples you cited in another thread are actually analyzed critically... |
I'm referring to the argument that we're not descended from apes, as an appeasement to creationists that don't appreciate the idea that they're related to monkeys.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Yepper... you can look back 50,000 years... 100K, 500K 1000K??? Me thinks not. |
That's me glossing. It's a hypothetical.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | And this was done where... EXACTLY! |
About 5 million years ago.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | the origin species would definitely appear to be an ape. |
Which one? |
As I immediately followed with, it wouldn't be one walking around today.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | If we are able to do this 'look'in back'... you must certainly will be able to cite which transitional form clearly demonstrates this 'spilt'. |
We aren't able to do this "look'in back," we don't have time machines. We only have the fossils we can find. There are plenty of possible transitionals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | that means that these macro molecules, single celled organisms, mult-icelled organisms, et. al. ALL had to ascend. |
They're descended from older organisms? All the way back to whatever form proto-life arose in? |
And naturally, we have the fossil record demonstrating this progression... where again???
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Therefore, descent is impossible without a demonstration of ascent. |
Ah. This is the argument from ignorance I was speaking of. Just because (and you're wrong) such a thing hasn't been demonstrated, wouldn't mean that it would be impossible. Assuming that something is impossible because you haven't seen it is an argument from ignorance. |
I suppose saying that I will one day develop a pogo stick that will propel me to the moon... and back is an argument from ignorance also.
| Quote: | | We have observed speciation, and the fossil record is excellent evidence for the phylogenetic tree. |
The descent... fine... you can make that argument if you want to go with it (I disagree... but fine). I'm referring to the trunk of said tree... it must demonstrate ascent... and it doesn't. It is not science predicated on observational evidence… it is fiction… science fiction. That is my point.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Because it began with the supposition that most people who reject ToE do so because they don't understand it. |
I have seen only an extremely small number of creationists who actually understand the theory of evolution. Q.E.D. |
What is QED? Not following you here...
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | And this was done where... EXACTLY! |
About 5 million years ago. |
The question was "where?" Not when? Meaning... which fossil (singular) demonstrates this split?
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8237
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | And the answer is ... what? The Abrahamic explanation? The Norse explanation? The Egyptian explanation? I mean, which one is so clearly true that it strikes you? |
I'd like to know the Scientologist creation theory. I think that it would strike me. Does anyone know what it is?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8237
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
What is QED? Not following you here...
|
My latin is a bit rusty, but it means "quod erat demonstrandum", which basically means, "This is the end of the proof and I proved what I set out to prove."
Logicians and mathematicians usually end their proofs with Q.E.D., but it works here as well.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
What is QED? Not following you here...
|
My latin is a bit rusty, but it means "quod erat demonstrandum", which basically means, "This is the end of the proof and I proved what I set out to prove."
Logicians and mathematicians usually end their proofs with Q.E.D., but it works here as well. |
Oh... So... did he prove what he set out to prove... 
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just looked... it apppears he was referring to the 'small' number of creationists that truly truly truly understand ToE...
Me thinks he doesn't 'kick'it' to often in creationist's circles if this is the case.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6292
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | And naturally, we have the fossil record demonstrating this progression... where again??? |
We call it the fossil record? The information about it is freely available if you have the time to look.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I suppose saying that I will one day develop a pogo stick that will propel me to the moon... and back is an argument from ignorance also. |
It would be if that were all you knew. If, on the other hand, you were aware of the limitations of springs, escape velocity requirements and had an understanding of gravity, it would not.
On the other hand, we do not have the completeness of information required to objectively assert that evolution is impossible. Feel free to wonk around with math to make it appear improbable, but impossibility is beyond your reach.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I'm referring to the trunk of said tree... it must demonstrate ascent... and it doesn't. It is not science predicated on observational evidence… it is fiction… science fiction. That is my point. |
What ascent? Define your terms, please.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Because it began with the supposition that most people who reject ToE do so because they don't understand it. |
I have seen only an extremely small number of creationists who actually understand the theory of evolution. Q.E.D. |
What is QED? Not following you here... |
It is as P has said, but I used it mostly tongue-in-cheek. My assertion, while good anecdotal evidence, hardly proves my point. Hence the wink.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | The question was "where?" Not when? Meaning... which fossil (singular) demonstrates this split? |
Do you know where your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather is buried?
No?
Then he must not have existed!
| Trinity1 wrote: | Just looked... it apppears he was referring to the 'small' number of creationists that truly truly truly understand ToE...
Me thinks he doesn't 'kick'it' to often in creationist's circles if this is the case. |
You'd be amazed.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8237
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: |
| Trinity1 wrote: | Just looked... it apppears he was referring to the 'small' number of creationists that truly truly truly understand ToE...
Me thinks he doesn't 'kick'it' to often in creationist's circles if this is the case. |
You'd be amazed. |
FFT is right; creationists tend to have a very poor understanding of evolution. Trinity, you are one of the few that has bothered to look into things.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | And naturally, we have the fossil record demonstrating this progression... where again??? |
We call it the fossil record? The information about it is freely available if you have the time to look. |
I HAVE. Funny how none of the aforementioned statments from these esteemed giants of the sceintific community are taught. Makes me wonder...
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | I'm referring to the trunk of said tree... it must demonstrate ascent... and it doesn't. It is not science predicated on observational evidence… it is fiction… science fiction. That is my point. |
What ascent? Define your terms, please. |
Ascent... the progression from single celled organisms to extant species... similer to the one found on the top of this page HERE
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Because it began with the supposition that most people who reject ToE do so because they don't understand it. |
I have seen only an extremely small number of creationists who actually understand the theory of evolution. Q.E.D. |
What is QED? Not following you here... |
It is as P has said, but I used it mostly tongue-in-cheek. My assertion, while good anecdotal evidence, hardly proves my point. Hence the wink. |
Oh... I'm still not sure what you meant... but then... I'm not the sharpest cookie in the drawer... or is it... knife in the jar... or... ah never mind.
I think I got your point...
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
