Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
You have not shown us anywhere where Simpson talks of the order being faked.

I never claimed that Simpson is a creationist. The CLOSEST he will come to "Fraudulent series" is going to be "Lamentable" and "NEVER happened in Nature" the way it was PRESENTED in the failed series.

This is the concept of OBJECTIVELY showing the SALIENT points upon which MY claims hinge - found IN the OPPOSITION's statements! This level of objectivity totally escapes your own ability to argue for evolutionism - granted -- but the fact that you can not even comprehend the concept of objectivity here - is truly an amazing testimony to your faith in the cult of evolutionism!

bravo!

 

[UTEOTW]

I never said that you claimed he was a "creationists."

But when you first posted this quote on this thread, here is what you said about it.

Specifically HOW did a series that "never happened in nature" get put into the text books? Answer - it was ARRANGED in fossil order sequence and then published AS IF that arrangement had actually been found IN THAT SEQUENCE in the fossil record! When in fact - it had not!

This is what I am waiting for you to support.

Please show us that what Simpson intended to say was that fossils were put into a fake order that never happened. Or, failing that, at least show us that there was ever a fake order to begin with.

Spell it out. Tell us which fossils they had, what order into which they were put and how this particular order was later found to be wrong.

That is what you claimed. All this bit about some great fraud because the initial ideas about mode and tempo had to be changed it just a great bit of obfuscation on your part since you are unable to support your initial assertion.

So instead you try and support my assertion and spin it like you are supporting yours. Well no one's biting that bait and switch.

Just spell out for us just where Simpson was saying that the order was faked or admit defeat.

 

[BobRyan]

I point out that the fraudulent STRAIGHTLINE fossil SEQUENCE SHOWING (in the fossils SELECTED and ARRANGE) CHANGE at EVERY fossil stage -- IS "obviously" NOT the currently revised "bushy-story" being told by atheist darwinists with INDEPENDENT lines showing "NO FURTHER CHANGE" story accepted by Atheist darwinists today.

I show that when they CONTRAST that initial straightline "story" that SHOWED CHANGE in EVERY fossil example IT SELECTED and ARRANGED -- they call it "lamentable" the define it as something that "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" and so "ALL WRONG" and "had to be discarded"--

You come back with the mind-numbingly BLANK response "What is so bad about THAT?"!! You climb wayyyy out on a limb with your spin transposing and bending Simpson's words into saying of that "LAMENTABLE" series “Nothing fundamentally wrong with it”.



Then you want to CLING to that "DISCARDED story" as something that is RIGHT "nothing wrong with it in essence" is your claim - not mine!

NOW you want to ALSO try out your bogus claim that if SIMPSON does not give up on evolutionism then the failed, fraudulent series is "really not so bad after all".

How sad.

 

[BobRyan]

I hesitate to point out this glaring fact lest the fact-intolerant problem that UTEOTW exhibits - would cause him not to be able to respond at alll -- but here goes.

The objective thinking observing reader will note that the claims made by Atheist Darwinists regarding the fraudulent debunked horse series showing straightline transitional forms with change in every single "selected and arranged" fossil - is in fact many of the SAME claims that many Bible believing Christian scientist have been saying about the ENTIRE myth of evolutionism! -- "it has to be totally discarded, lamentable, all-wrong, never-actually-happened-in-nature" etc.

Now that is not really very surprising that the Christian's view of the entire belief system known as evolutionism would include some of the same terms that atheist darwinists THEMSELVES use when speaking of discredited debunked "Stories" like the initial horse series.

But when we see that UTEOTW that debunked series as "Nothing fundamentally wrong with it" and we observe that UTEOTW probably ALSO thinks of the entire system of evolutionism as "nothing fundamentally wrong with it" we find a point of AGREEMENT!!

We see that IF UTEOTW is willing to consider something that is considered "Discredited, all-wrong, never-happened-in-nature, lamentable" to equte to "nothing fundamentally wrong with it" -- then indeed we all agree that the SAME labeling can easily be given to the entire system of evolutionism!!

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

I cannot believe that you really think that you can make a case this way. I am not even sure I fully understand just what it is that you have such a big problem with.

All the way back on your first Simpson quote on this thread, you quoted Simpson and then gave us your interpretation which was that there were fossils put into a fake order that was later found to be fraudulent.

I told you that this is not what Simpson was saying. I asserted that what he was saying was that the gradual, smooth trnasition that had been expected 150 years ago was not found to be the case as more data became available. It was the orthogenetic change that "was never found in nature." NOt the transition itself.

I then back my claim by showing where Simpson talks about the variable rates of all kinds of physical aspects of the horse. I challenge you to support your claims about the horse series ever being fraudulently in the wrong order.

For some strange reason, you have now dropped you reasoning about the faked order and you are trying to make a case solely on the mode and tempo of the evolution having to be changed as more data came in.

That is my interpretation. You cannot steal my interpretation, make it your own, and then use that to say that I am wrong.

 

[UTEOTW]

I think that what you are objecting to here is the scientific method in general. It seeks to make observations, make hypothesis, make more observations to test the hypothesis and then modify the original hypothesis. Repeat as needed.

If your only great objection is that the horse series was once thought to be smooth and gradual but was later found to be jerky and bushy then you are making a very weak case.

You could make that case by looking at just about any proposed transitional series from the 19th century and early 20th. Orthogenetic change was the prevailing idea. Darwin thought that most such change would be steady and gradual. As the data came in, he was found to be wrong on this point.

Even early on, the proposed horse series got the endpoints right.

Even early on, the proposed horse series got right the types of changes that went on during the transition.

Even early on, the few fossils that were known were put into the right order.

The only bit that really had to be modified wa the mode and tempo of the change. And this modification occurred in just about every proposed series of the day.

The hypothesis was made and tested. Most of the ideas of the original were found to be true. The pattern of the change was the only major part to undergo significant modification.

That's not fraud. That's how science works. Do you expect researchers to learn everything the first time they look? DO you expect them to have a completeset of facts before they publish and begin to refine their theories?

 

[UTEOTW]

I am not sure why you object so strongly over one part of a centuries old hypothesis that was modified as more data came in.

You do not ever seem to object to the modern theory of horse evolution, so I must assume that you accept it.

But let's look more closely at an anology.

At one time, people used some very complicated and very incorrect methods to predict the locations of the planets that was based on the planets and sun orbiting the earth.

Then the theory came along that the sun was actually the center of the solar system. But at first, circular orbits were assumed. This made things better, but they were still off. We eventually learned the laws of planetary motion and that orbits are actually ellipses. The predicting of orbits got much better.

But they were still off. Then came relativity and the ability to predict orbits got even better. But even today, the two great theories of physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, are in stark disagremeent when your problem requires the use of both. We need a quantum theory of gravity to better explain things. But it is not yet here.

Does this pattern of continuous refinement and improvement to the theories of gravity mean there is something wrong wioth the theories?

Does the fact that Copernicus or Newton or Kepler or Einstein didn't get everything right mean that they were being fraudulent?

Of course not. Just as the discoveries that were made showing the evolution, including horses, generally procedes in an uneven fashion does not mean anybody made some great fraud nor that the whole idea should be tossed.

 

[UTEOTW]

Now you have been challenged to show that you interpretation of Simpson was closer to what he intended that what I presented.

You have predicatbly fallen back into the habit of quoting other people. As if another person's opinion has any bearing on what Simpson meant. Worse, you are back into your old quote mining habits.

This does give me the opportunity to dissect another of your quotes. You said

We see that IF UTEOTW is willing to consider something that is considered "Discredited, all-wrong, never-happened-in-nature, lamentable" to equte to "nothing fundamentally wrong with it" -- then indeed we all agree that the SAME labeling can easily be given to the entire system of evolutionism!!

Now we have already seen that Simpson meant that it was smooth change that "never happened in nature" and not the transition itself.

We have seen that what was "lamentable" was that there was a fifty year old presentation still on display that had not been updated.

But I want to focus on your quote of "discredited."

Let's start with the short quote. All of the following is by Raup and from "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29. Emphasis will be added as needed.

By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information...

I would argue that the correct reading of the quote would be that the horse series had to be "modified" but you chose "discarded." (Note, I cannot find where you ever quoted someone using the word "discredited" but you use this word interchangeably in your posts and you often quote Raup as in this post on this thread http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=784214&postcount=66 If you have a quote t=wit hthe word "discarded" then point me to it. Otherwise I think that you are referring to the Raup quote when you say "discredited" in quotes. If this is a mistake, just point me to the quote, I cannot find it.)

So let's delve into that reference a bit.

Before we do, we must once again lay down what is being discussed. Raup is using darwinian style natural selection interchangeably with gradual, orthogenetic change. He is pointing out how as more dta has come in, that the picture is not one of gradual change as Darwin had invisioned but is instead a picture of jerky, phyletic chage.

At the beginning Raup says

Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.

Right off the bat, we see that Raup accepts that evolution has happened. He also sets up the rest of the discussion which is about how as the fossil record becomes more detailed, that the preserved transitons are not frequently the smooth, gradual products of natural selection which Darwin would have expected.

He puts it this way

There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . .

And before you get the urge to mine that, notice that it is gradual, low level change which he says is missing. Not change in general.

Even at that, he says of natural selection

Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works.

Then of the fossil record with respect to natural selection

Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent.

So we finally fet back to the part that you were quoting.

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

So, just as we saw in the Gould quote which you do not now seem to want to touch with a ten foot pole, the discussion is really about the evidence which shows that graudual change at the level of the species just is not found very often.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob

I cannot believe that you really think that you can make a case this way. I am not even sure I fully understand just what it is that you have such a big problem with.

All the way back on your first Simpson quote on this thread, you quoted Simpson and then gave us your interpretation which was that there were fossils put into a fake order that was later found to be fraudulent.

AS the ATheist Darwinists themselves stated -

"Never Happened in Nature"
"ALL WRONG"
"Had to be Discarded"
"LAMENTABLE that it got published in text books"

You know the SAME thing that Bible Believing Christians say about Evolutionism ITSELF - they say about the discredited early horse fossil "arrangement" that SHOWED changed at EVERY stage in a single straightline transition.

What is "instructive" is that although they BELIEVED that model in the case of the evolution of ALL species - they do not refer to ALL of them as "lamentable" -- they single out THIS particular case because it was aggregious in the fact that it was PRESENTED as FOSSIL FINDS SHOWING that their "prediction" was true!

It was not simply presented as "a well accepted idea" but as FOUND FACT!

In your constant efforts at revionism you spin and transpose the above into "nothing fundamentally wrong" with proclaiming something that NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE as "found fact" - and I think that speaks volumes about why you make the bogus claims against Bible believing Christians here that you make.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW said
This does give me the opportunity to dissect another of your quotes. You said

Quote:
We see that IF UTEOTW is willing to consider something that is considered "Discredited, all-wrong, never-happened-in-nature, lamentable" to equte to "nothing fundamentally wrong with it" -- then indeed we all agree that the SAME labeling can easily be given to the entire system of evolutionism!!

Now we have already seen that Simpson meant that it was smooth change that "never happened in nature"

Yes AND we saw that the debunked fraudulent "transition ITSELF" SHOWED smooth orthogenic transition IN a straightline AT EACH transition point AS IF that was FOUND FACT!

UTEOTW

said
and not the transition itself.

(You simply can not stop revising history, obfuscating and misdirecting -- how sad that you use the methods you learned as part of your believe in atheist darwinism in every post)

But as you stated "Nothing fundamentally WRONG with" is your way of spinning and transposing what Atheist Darwinists say about a debunked fraudulent fossil series PRESENTATION that

"Never Happened in Nature"
"ALL WRONG"
"Had to be Discarded"
"LAMENTABLE that it got published in text books"

And Of course we know you would make that same claim about all of evolutionism it self "Nothing fundamentally wrong with" in your view.

And of course we KNOW that Bible Believing Christians would simply observe that ONCE AGAIN you label a model that tells "stories" that

"Never Happened in Nature"
"is ALL WRONG"
"Had to be Discarded"
"is LAMENTABLE that it got published in text books"

as "Nothing fundamentally wrong with it"...

What is amazing is your efforts to not only SPIN the text but then to pretend that "we don't see you do it"!!

How facinating!

 

[BobRyan]

RAUP said
By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information...

But UTEOTW said

I would argue that the correct reading of the quote would be that the horse series had to be "modified"

Indeed by climbing out on that limb so far that you have to say "ALL WRONG" is really "Nothing fundamentally WRONG with" you have to take what Raup calls "DISCARDED" and wildly contradict Raup and Simpson by taking the totally bogus position "Modified slightly NOT discarded because there was NOTHING fundamentally WRONG with that perfect example of STRAIGHTLINE smooth orthogenic transition shown with EACH fossil arranged in a sequence that NEVER HAPPENED in nature and yet was PRESENTED as IF it did!"

 

[BobRyan]

Atheist Darwinists claim that the failed fraudelent "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" fossil sequence (ORDER that fossils were ARRANGED in that SHOWED straightline smooth orthogenic transition with EACH fossil SELECTED and then ARRANGED in the fraudulent series) --

But a true devotee to the cult of evoutionism - in EXTREME cases - has to pretend to be so fact intolerant that they can not comprehend this "reversal" by atheist darwinists that reject a debunked story leaving it for "another one".

UTEOTW
I then back my claim by showing where Simpson talks about the variable rates of all kinds of physical aspects of the horse.

Yes - Simpson argues for a DIFFERENT sequence showing fossils in DIFFERENT lines and NO smooth orthogenic transistions SUCH that in those lines you would find "NO FURTHER CHANGE" from the start in the shape of the foot.

UTEOTW
I challenge you to support your claims about the horse series ever being fraudulently in the wrong order.

Truly pathetic UTEOTW that the most basic aspect of the facts are so distant for you and that you must contradict Simpson and Raup in your every attempt to prop up what THEY call the "DISCARDED" series.

You have my prayers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

After your response to this post on the other thread

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=795257&postcount=22

I must say that I am through with you on this thread also.

In that post I link to your words and then post the text of the author you quoted. In that quote, he recites your very words and in the next breath declares your interpretation "wrong" and the one I have been giving you "correct."

You will not even accept the word of the man you quote when he tells you that you are misquoting him. It is obvious that you will then accept no answer to your quote mining, no matter how reasonable.

I have wasted too much time on this over the last few weeks. You are too deluded, too blinded, too pathological or too something to be reasoned with. Maybe some of all of it.

I have made detailed, well reasoned responses on this thread to several of your quotes showing how you are not presenting the quotes as the author intended and you are not presenting the author's real opinion. But in your zeal, you ignore the logic.

I see now that you would never listen to anything I have to say since you will not even listen to the person you are quoting when he says you are "wrong."

I have good reason to belive you do not even read my posts. My last round on this thread again dealt with a handful of your misquotes. You don't even seem to feel the need to defend them, you just reassert them.

It is not true that a lie told often enough becomes the truth no matter what you choose to practice.

You are beyond reason and beyond hope. I cannot bring myself to waste anymore time on you. You are content in your delusions and cannot be brought out of them.

I find it very sad indeed, but there is nothing I can do. It is hopeless to reason with you.

I just hope that others can see your blindness as a warning of the the depravity in which adherence to the lies of YEism will bring you.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW - at some point your fact-intolerant posts have to come to an end.

I had hoped that you could deal objectively, factually and honestly with at least one glaring fact that so debunks and exposes your transparent methods here -- and nothing has been more glaring, more obvious, more apparent that your own "spin" on what Atheist Darwinists call "ALL WRONG" and "Lamentable" and state "NEVER HAPPENED in NATURE" --

Your spin is to take that SAME fraudulent, debunked, discarded horse series and boldly cry out "Nothing fundamentally wrong with THIS".

Just as you do with the entire mythology of evolutionism that is ALSO "ALL wrong", "Discarded" by Bible believing Christians, "Lamentable" and "Never happened in nature"!

EACH time you see those attributes assigned you seem willing to jump right in and claim "YES but still Nothing fundamentally wrong with it".

How sad.

Look at your failed tactic in that last post - your logic shows that your failure on that other thread to support your slander using Patterson - has led you to also fail on this thread to support your misquote of Simpson where you "spin" and "Transpose" the attributes given to the failed fraudelent hosrse series into "yes discarded and ALL wrong BUT nothing fundamentally wrong with it"

 

[BobRyan]

Pretending that someone has to believe in the Bible account of Genesis BEFORE they see your blunders exposed on this thread where you failed time after time to SHOW an actual misquote and where YOU YOURSELF actually ENGAGE in "spin" and misquote HERE -- is truly unimpressive.

 

[El_Guero]

Bob,

Kudos for your not saying: "Thanks for playing - good bye."


:Fish:

 

[BobRyan]

Time for some "lessons learned" here.

Key point: The way evolutionism survives in a sea of truth - is by cofining itself to tiny islands of obfuscation and misdirection where there is a lot of vaguely defined variables. Like roaches when a light is switched on - the evolutionist arguments flee the light of day!

Once you come to grips with that fact - the "soluiton" is quickly seen to be in the form of confining the debate to the most "knowns" possible.

Hence this thread focus is "ideal" for several reasons.

#1. We do not let UTEOTW go off to bash some other Bible believing Christian in some ill-defined context where there are plenty of unknowns for him to hide his arguments.

I deliberately point UTEOTW's arguments at "my quotes" - because I have all the history - all the context and I have seen UTEOTW commit the "inference blunder" so many I time I can "rely" on him to do it again here.

So no unknowns.

#2. I select quotes of Atheist Darwinists who freely admit that they are discarding one of their pet "examples" showing it to be (in their words) "All wrong" when it comes to it's fraudulent display of straightline smooth orthogenic transition after transition with EACH specimen it "selects" and then "ARRANGES" to tell the lie it tells.

#3. The result is that not only do we have the Bible believing Christian side of the equation denouncing evolutionism in general and this fraudulent early horse series in particular - but we have devoute atheist evolutionists discarding that fraudulent series.

UTEOTW predictably climbs wayyy out on a limb on this one in two key areas:
A. "making stuff up" about my claiming that "Atheist darwinists" are now Bible believing Christians because they debunked this fraudulent horse series. His "Misquote" is in fact nothing more than his own "inference". This was shown repeatedly here.

B. "Willingly" spinning and transposing the position of atheist darwinists so that "All wrong" and "lamentable" and "never happened in nature" is treated to the UTEOTW "spin" in the form "YES but STILL nothing fundamentally WRONG with it".

He eagerly climbed out on the limb - and I obliged him by chopping it off.

#4. His classic escape tactic was to try numerous times to derail this discussion and get it onto the subject where Atheist Darwinists WOULD support him - namely the subject of evolutionism in general - vs Christianity and Creation. (And some of you fell for that dodge for a little while allowing UTEOTW to return to his element).

IF you let him go there - then he GAINS his old allies back (The well-known atheist darwinist icons of evolutionism) - and in that environment UTEOTW has many more excuses to "deny the obvious".

For that reason I never engage in that rabbit trail on this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Two points of interest here -

#1. UTEOTW actually takes a blatant approach to his "misquote of BobRyan" and deliberatly misquotes - multiple times -- SHOWING that his real fallacy here is "projection". He projects his own tactics out as if they are the faults of others in misquoting someone.

#2. When confronted - UTEOTW gloss over the facts and merely repeats himself. When that does not work he tries "revisionist history". He can be relied upon to do that repeatedly.

 

[BobRyan]

Lesson 2:

One could easily observe on this thread that UTEOTW directly spins-transposes-and-contradicts the words of Atheist Darwinists who are themselves "discarding" the failed horse series as they say things like "Never Happened in Nature" when speaking of that "arranged sequence" that SHOWED straightline smooth orthogenic transition after transition with EACH fossil it selected.

We see UTEOTW CLING to the failed sequence "anyway" saying "yes but still nothing fundamentally wrong with it".

We SEE UTEOTW claim that he INSERTS the idea into my quotes of Atheist Darwinists that "they are no longer evolutionists" and then claim that his own INSERT MAKES my exact quote of atheist darwinists "a pathetic lie".

We SEE UTEOTW try to spin and transpose Patterson such that ANY Bible believing Christian that dares to quote an atheist darwinist is by definition lying, or misquoting NO MATTER how exact!

----------------------

"Fine" you say - "so what if UTEOTW is a wild raging devotee to the cult of evolutionism. Surely you have to admit that the Atheist Darwinists BobRyan quotes ARE being objective and honest by contrast to UTEOTW as THEY admit freely to the blunders with the horse series. So exposing UTEOTW's blunders does not discredit those more honest atheist darwinists".

So for Lesson two - we look at how this discussion applies to others in the Evolutionist camp - beyond noting UTEOTW's own personnal blunders.

 

[BobRyan]

First we note that AFTER UTEOTW admitted that he was INSERTING text "by inference" into my quotes and then accusing me of dishonesty based SOLELY on HIS admitted INSERT -- Charles Medows came here stating "I AGREE fully with UTEOTW".

So I point out this sequence to Charles - that he his claiming AGREEMENT with UTEOTW right at the point that UTEOTW admits to this deceitful "tactic".

The "Logical thing" for Charles to have done at that point was one of two things.

#1. To simply say "well I do not agree with UTEOTW in that - and I have not yet found any quote of YOURS that is a misquote but I believe I have evidence that OTHER Christians are misquotig"

OR

#2. to say "Well I can not jump off that cliff with UTEOTW but I have on my own found this quote and this quote of yours to be a misquote and here is the detail review of where they are in error".

But notice that CM does NEITHER!! He simply swears allegiance to UTEOTW's failed charges and offers NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that I have misquoted as UTEOTW claims!!

And admittedly CM claims to cling to Evolutionism at some "lesser degree" than UTEOTW - but still there is some kind of religious devotion to even FAILED arguments of UTEOTW on this board by CM!

The "point" being that Christians that are in compromise on the subject of evolutionism - with evolutionists are in a state of "anti-knowledge" they are as UTEOTW demonstrates - LESS objective than even their atheist darwinist icons or other evolutionist-believing partners.

In Christ,

Bob