Yesterday, I was at a pachyrhinosaurus bone bed at Pipestone Creek, in Northern Alberta, about 500 km northwest of Edmonton. This bone bed is buried quite deep, under about 500 or 600 feet of clay or more, but exposed along the edge of a creek. It is estimated to be at least the size of two football fields, and I was informed that thirty-two animals have already been excavated from a small area, about 10 feet by 40 feet. Interesting that these bones are found just under a shallow layer of shale, about 6 inches to 18 inches in thickness. This horizontal shale/sandstone layer is found below hundreds of feet of clay, which is similar to the clay found underneath the stone. Some kind of catastrophic event is concluded to have happened, which involved flooding and drowning. These pachyrhinosaurus animals were about 6 meters in length from nose to tail, with the head of adult animals being more than a metre in size. A plaster covered skull fossil weighs about 1200 pounds. Juvenile and baby pachys were also found in this bone bed.
Interesting thing about bone fossils is that if you have a moist finger, it will stick to the fossil, and will not stick to other bones. Also, in general, it is thought that herbivore animals have porous centers to the big bones, while carnivores have hollow centers to the big bones, but that might not be absolutely true in every case. I don't know yet exactly how this is relevant to "Genesis Again", but thought you might find it interesting.
It moves us forward in this way: Those we are to disciple will see that there is passion and devotion and sacrifice which signifies how real God is to us. Those who are strangers may see that something new has happened and that God is real. Those who are aliens and spectators, who are somewhat attracted by hype or friendliness, will begin to see the passion behind the friendliness. People are people, and they need other people, passion and cause and purpose. Entertainment will also attract them, but it will not bring commitment. The love of God as reflected in us.... such is obedience and such also is the glue that binds hearts to Christ.
Quote: " Science makes predictions, uses evidence, and adapts as our understanding grows." Science is a discipline, a way of observing things and drawing conclusions. It is not science that makes predictions; it is human beings who are called scientists that make the predictions. This is a very important distinction. Science does not adapt. It is people who revise scientific procedures who adapt. Early scientists used their eyes to observe. Modern scientists use microscopes and telescopes to aid their eyes in their observations. Early scientists used simple math; modern scientists use complicated algorithms and integrated models.
Most scientists use correlations to attempt to draw conclusions. But establishing cause and effect through correlations can be faulty.
The reason that Steve and others use the statements of scientists to counter their own conclusions, is that their own statements do not always logically require the deductions and position conclusions that they make. This is a legitimate form of argumentation; nothing wrong with it. Evidence often does not only lead to one conclusion; often it leads to several possibilities. Having your mind closed to other possibilities is not the fault of science; it is a failing of the scientists who practice science.
You seem to assume certain conclusions without examining them, such as "why we find fossils from billions of years ago". The whole point is whether those fossils really were from billions of years ago, or whether the reasoning behind the age-verification of these fossils is faulty. You seem to be accepting this age-verification on blind faith, without understanding the sampling process or the assumptions behind the measurements of mineral half-lifes, and the fact that fossils age is determined based on where they are "supposed" to fit in the geological history, based on where other fossils are found. Ian Juby in one of his you-tube videos gives a good example of the inaccuracy of measuring ages of some fossil layers, and how circular reasoning resulted in a final age determination. This is not a good scientific practice, but it happens very often in this branch of science. Objective measurements of age are not really that objective at all.
I suggest that you visit Ian Juby's You-tube videos, and that you check out Walt Brown's book, both of which are available on the internet. Walt Brown's book will take you awhile, since it is over 400 pages of heavy reading.
Many people often think that evolution is a scientific explanation and "creation" is a religious explanation. Nothing is further from the truth. Macro-evolution is actually a religious explanation for our existence, which depends on supernatural events such as genesis of life from non-life (for which there is no scientific evidence), or such as the big bang (which has never been observed, is not testable, repeatable as scientific "facts" must be). Nor is there a preponderance of evidence for the development of "more advanced" species from other species. Nor is there any significant observable evidence of the constant attempt of various species to differentiate into new species. The cited "evidence" is sparse, and highly debatable.
The evidence of DNA replication indicates self-correction in DNA mistakes, as well as the simple unlikelihood of survival of significant DNA mutations that might lead to new organs or new species.
It is also interesting that the theory of uniformitarianism was first initiated not by scientists, but by a lawyer named Charles Lyell, who postulated that "the present is key to the past". Ironically, "As his eyesight began to deteriorate, he turned to geology as a full-time profession.["(Wiki) Although Lyell was a teacher of Darwin, "Lyell, a devout Christian, had great difficulty reconciling his beliefs with natural selection . '(Wiki) Eventually he did somewhat reluctantly endorse evolution as a theory.
Charles Lyell got his idea of uniformity, the present is the key to the past, from James Hutton, who originally apprenticed as a lawyer but who trained and became a physician.
It is also interesting that Charles Darwin was not originally a scientist, but rather had an education and degree in theology. He began with attempting to get an education in medicine (which was pushed by his doctor father), but neglected those studies, and eventually achieved an "ordinary" degree (Bachelor of Arts) in order to become a parson (his father's second choice). It appears he was not too interested in following his father's wishes. He never did become a parson.
He was influenced slightly by Lamark who theorized on ''acquired" inheritance, which has since been discredited. He was also influenced more by Thomas Malthus, who postulated that the world would run out of capacity to sustain human life as the human race continued to populate. He had lots of money from his father, and this allowed him to roam the world, as well as to get in the door with various teachers, societies, and educated men.
Thomas Huxley was defender of Darwin, and influenced the thought of the day. In one debate, "Thomas Huxley's legendary retort, that he would rather be descended from an ape than a man who misused his gifts, came to symbolise a triumph of science over religion..... Huxley portrayed a polarisation between religion and science. He campaigned pugnaciously against the authority of the clergy in education, aiming to overturn the dominance of clergymen and aristocratic amateurs under Owen in favour of a new generation of professional scientists (Wiki)" ."
The influence of Darwin's own thoughts and speculations on evolution and survival of the fittest, as well as the adoration and support of the people of the day, led to Darwin's perception of God and faith and the body of Christ.
quote] "To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design, ] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[ He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[ Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[ but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[ and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. (Wiki)"[/quote]
It would have been better for him and for science if he had remained an agnostic about evolution.
For those who are interested, creationist Ian Juby has a new video on youtube about the errors of whale evolution, as well as "the faint young sun", and other topics. youtube.com/user/wazooloo You can also view his previous videos on this site, or view his presentations on the miracle channel.
Not all churches have lost members. "The Christian and Missionary Alliance has experienced steady and significant growth since its inception. In 1925, there were just 25,000 members in 392 churches.[9] Membership reached 50,000 members in 1950 and by 1976 had reached 150,000.[9] In 2006, there were 417,008 members in 2,010 congregations.[9] ….[10] As of January 1, 2011, there was recorded more than 2,000 U.S. churches with a combined membership of more than 430,000 regularly gather to celebrate Jesus in multiple languages, according to the C&MA website." But you are right, elder Lubbert, that most churches have declining membership, and some, like the Rom Cath that seem to have high membership still, have very low attendance and participation rates. In North America and Europe. On the other hand, in Asia and Africa, memberships and participation is generally growing. Complacency, apathy, lack of passion, lukewarmness, lack of trial and testing, lack of real committment, and affluence have all combined to reduce the desire of many for a God who saves and rules. The thorns and thistles of the world are reducing the yield of the Word sown. In many cases, the churches fertilize the weeds as much as the crop.
Check out Ian Juby's you-tubes. He describes how the age of some fossils changed due to circular reasoning. The age of some fossils originally based on "objective" radio-isotope measurements was assessed at 269 million years and then dramatically reduced to something like 20 million years when they realized it would not fit into the preconceived paleontological hierarchy.
The age of fossils is based on a model. The model postulates how long it takes for certain animals to evolve, and works backwards from what we have today. It also correlates fossils to rock layers. If the radio-isotope dating does not match the perceptions about the age of the fossils, then it will be revised and redone until they match, usually in favor of the perceived age of the fossils. This appears to be so regardless of whether the rock layer appears to be too old, or whether it appears to be too young. For example, instances of layer inversion, where younger fossils are found in layers underneath the older layers. The whole model hangs on the theory, and then the model is used to prove and demonstrate the theory. Circular reasoning.
Radio-isotope dating depends on uniformity and consistency. If things have changed over time, such as atmospheric concentrations, radio-activity bursts and stimulations, it would be difficult if not impossible to measure the impacts of anything beyond human history. We suspect things have greatly changed over time, and that is why the age of people dramatically declined since the days of Noah, indicating a lack of uniformity. The decrease in the age of people also fits with the genetic changes and even with elements of genetic deterioration, mutations, etc, which have a huge tendency towards degradation, even though genetically we would postulate under the assumptions of the evolutionary theory that people who live longer have a genetic advantage to pass on those genes.
You have made some good points here. So my question is, can you apply your generalization to this situation of the silurian salt beds? Did they have ocean life remains in them. And do we apply the same logic to the remains of sea life found on mountain tops, that seas must also have deposited that sea life in place?
If we can assume that mountains moved dramatically from their original location under the seas, can we assume the possibility that these salt beds were also formed through some rather dramatic events, rather than a simple slow in-situ evaporation process?
Your example of how some lakes, Great lakes, (and of course the Salton Sea, the Dead Sea, and Manitou Lake) have dramatically higher salt content than the rivers that run into them, does demonstrate that lakes and oceans tend to increase salt concentrations over time. Five hundred feet of salt underground along with other layers to a cumulative depth of 2000 feet, is quite a bit, however.
I just became aware of another book called: "Unlocking the mysteries of creation." The Explorer's guide to the Awesome Works of God. copyright 2002. by Dennis Petersen. Master Books, Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638.
I have just opened a copy of this on CD, and I don't know if the book is available on-line. But it raises some very interesting questions just in the first fifty pages, and makes points about the unreliability of radiometric dating, for example, among other things. The book is about 240 pages long with numerous references sited. Dennis first obtained a B.S. (science), and a M.A. in museum administration, spending several years as a museum curator, and then later took courses at a Canadian Bible College, and then taught there for four years. He founded the Creation Resoure Foundation in California.
I'm not suggesting that he is more expert than everyone else, but he asks good questions, and reveals many inadequacies of the evolutionary paradigm.
So in addition to Walt Brown's book, this one might be worth reading.
Just a correction for a mistatement I made above: the amount of ordinary present day seawater to evaporate to produce between 500 to 2000 feet of salt, would not be 1500 to 6000 feet. 1500 to 6000 feet of water would be required to solubilize all the salt at the maximum capacity of water to hold salt in solution. Normal seawater would require about ten times that much, about 15,000 to 60,000 feet, if it was assumed to be directly vertical water above the salt beds. However, if the area of seawater was much larger than the salt beds, for example about ten times as large an area, then the water would not have to be that deep, and then 90% of the seawater could evaporate before salt started to precipitate. If the residual seawater accumulated above the salt beds, then it could deposit all the salt there.
If much of the origin of the salt water was subterranean, it may have had a much higher concentration of salt than ordinary seawater. Given the apparent volcanoes that existed in the region at one time, and the heat associated to increase evaporation rates, maybe something else happened than mere entry of ordinary sea water and its evaporation at normal atmospheric temperatures.
The method by which God created, reveals His character, don't you think? An interesting video by Juby interviewing three scholars/scientists/speakers/writers who have researched on the implications of evolutionary thought on social morality. It's called the Dark Side of Darwinianism. The dogma's of evolution, natural selection towards survival of the fittest, onwards and upwards eugenics, are discussed in this video. http://www.youtube.com/user/wazooloo
Correction: in the second paragraph, I meant to say that a moist finger will stick to a bone fossil but not to stones in the same layer as the fossils. In that way you can distinguish a bone fossil from the stone around it.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Yesterday, I was at a pachyrhinosaurus bone bed at Pipestone Creek, in Northern Alberta, about 500 km northwest of Edmonton. This bone bed is buried quite deep, under about 500 or 600 feet of clay or more, but exposed along the edge of a creek. It is estimated to be at least the size of two football fields, and I was informed that thirty-two animals have already been excavated from a small area, about 10 feet by 40 feet. Interesting that these bones are found just under a shallow layer of shale, about 6 inches to 18 inches in thickness. This horizontal shale/sandstone layer is found below hundreds of feet of clay, which is similar to the clay found underneath the stone. Some kind of catastrophic event is concluded to have happened, which involved flooding and drowning. These pachyrhinosaurus animals were about 6 meters in length from nose to tail, with the head of adult animals being more than a metre in size. A plaster covered skull fossil weighs about 1200 pounds. Juvenile and baby pachys were also found in this bone bed.
Interesting thing about bone fossils is that if you have a moist finger, it will stick to the fossil, and will not stick to other bones. Also, in general, it is thought that herbivore animals have porous centers to the big bones, while carnivores have hollow centers to the big bones, but that might not be absolutely true in every case. I don't know yet exactly how this is relevant to "Genesis Again", but thought you might find it interesting.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
It moves us forward in this way: Those we are to disciple will see that there is passion and devotion and sacrifice which signifies how real God is to us. Those who are strangers may see that something new has happened and that God is real. Those who are aliens and spectators, who are somewhat attracted by hype or friendliness, will begin to see the passion behind the friendliness. People are people, and they need other people, passion and cause and purpose. Entertainment will also attract them, but it will not bring commitment. The love of God as reflected in us.... such is obedience and such also is the glue that binds hearts to Christ.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Quote: " Science makes predictions, uses evidence, and adapts as our understanding grows." Science is a discipline, a way of observing things and drawing conclusions. It is not science that makes predictions; it is human beings who are called scientists that make the predictions. This is a very important distinction. Science does not adapt. It is people who revise scientific procedures who adapt. Early scientists used their eyes to observe. Modern scientists use microscopes and telescopes to aid their eyes in their observations. Early scientists used simple math; modern scientists use complicated algorithms and integrated models.
Most scientists use correlations to attempt to draw conclusions. But establishing cause and effect through correlations can be faulty.
The reason that Steve and others use the statements of scientists to counter their own conclusions, is that their own statements do not always logically require the deductions and position conclusions that they make. This is a legitimate form of argumentation; nothing wrong with it. Evidence often does not only lead to one conclusion; often it leads to several possibilities. Having your mind closed to other possibilities is not the fault of science; it is a failing of the scientists who practice science.
You seem to assume certain conclusions without examining them, such as "why we find fossils from billions of years ago". The whole point is whether those fossils really were from billions of years ago, or whether the reasoning behind the age-verification of these fossils is faulty. You seem to be accepting this age-verification on blind faith, without understanding the sampling process or the assumptions behind the measurements of mineral half-lifes, and the fact that fossils age is determined based on where they are "supposed" to fit in the geological history, based on where other fossils are found. Ian Juby in one of his you-tube videos gives a good example of the inaccuracy of measuring ages of some fossil layers, and how circular reasoning resulted in a final age determination. This is not a good scientific practice, but it happens very often in this branch of science. Objective measurements of age are not really that objective at all.
I suggest that you visit Ian Juby's You-tube videos, and that you check out Walt Brown's book, both of which are available on the internet. Walt Brown's book will take you awhile, since it is over 400 pages of heavy reading.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Many people often think that evolution is a scientific explanation and "creation" is a religious explanation. Nothing is further from the truth. Macro-evolution is actually a religious explanation for our existence, which depends on supernatural events such as genesis of life from non-life (for which there is no scientific evidence), or such as the big bang (which has never been observed, is not testable, repeatable as scientific "facts" must be). Nor is there a preponderance of evidence for the development of "more advanced" species from other species. Nor is there any significant observable evidence of the constant attempt of various species to differentiate into new species. The cited "evidence" is sparse, and highly debatable.
The evidence of DNA replication indicates self-correction in DNA mistakes, as well as the simple unlikelihood of survival of significant DNA mutations that might lead to new organs or new species.
It is also interesting that the theory of uniformitarianism was first initiated not by scientists, but by a lawyer named Charles Lyell, who postulated that "the present is key to the past". Ironically, "As his eyesight began to deteriorate, he turned to geology as a full-time profession.["(Wiki) Although Lyell was a teacher of Darwin, "Lyell, a devout Christian, had great difficulty reconciling his beliefs with natural selection . '(Wiki) Eventually he did somewhat reluctantly endorse evolution as a theory.
Charles Lyell got his idea of uniformity, the present is the key to the past, from James Hutton, who originally apprenticed as a lawyer but who trained and became a physician.
It is also interesting that Charles Darwin was not originally a scientist, but rather had an education and degree in theology. He began with attempting to get an education in medicine (which was pushed by his doctor father), but neglected those studies, and eventually achieved an "ordinary" degree (Bachelor of Arts) in order to become a parson (his father's second choice). It appears he was not too interested in following his father's wishes. He never did become a parson.
He was influenced slightly by Lamark who theorized on ''acquired" inheritance, which has since been discredited. He was also influenced more by Thomas Malthus, who postulated that the world would run out of capacity to sustain human life as the human race continued to populate. He had lots of money from his father, and this allowed him to roam the world, as well as to get in the door with various teachers, societies, and educated men.
Thomas Huxley was defender of Darwin, and influenced the thought of the day. In one debate, " Thomas Huxley's legendary retort, that he would rather be descended from an ape than a man who misused his gifts, came to symbolise a triumph of science over religion..... Huxley portrayed a polarisation between religion and science. He campaigned pugnaciously against the authority of the clergy in education, aiming to overturn the dominance of clergymen and aristocratic amateurs under Owen in favour of a new generation of professional scientists (Wiki)" ."
The influence of Darwin's own thoughts and speculations on evolution and survival of the fittest, as well as the adoration and support of the people of the day, led to Darwin's perception of God and faith and the body of Christ.
quote] "To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design, ] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[ He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[ Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[ but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[ and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. (Wiki)"[/quote]
It would have been better for him and for science if he had remained an agnostic about evolution.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
For those who are interested, creationist Ian Juby has a new video on youtube about the errors of whale evolution, as well as "the faint young sun", and other topics. youtube.com/user/wazooloo You can also view his previous videos on this site, or view his presentations on the miracle channel.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
Not all churches have lost members. "The Christian and Missionary Alliance has experienced steady and significant growth since its inception. In 1925, there were just 25,000 members in 392 churches.[9] Membership reached 50,000 members in 1950 and by 1976 had reached 150,000.[9] In 2006, there were 417,008 members in 2,010 congregations.[9] ….[10] As of January 1, 2011, there was recorded more than 2,000 U.S. churches with a combined membership of more than 430,000 regularly gather to celebrate Jesus in multiple languages, according to the C&MA website." But you are right, elder Lubbert, that most churches have declining membership, and some, like the Rom Cath that seem to have high membership still, have very low attendance and participation rates. In North America and Europe. On the other hand, in Asia and Africa, memberships and participation is generally growing. Complacency, apathy, lack of passion, lukewarmness, lack of trial and testing, lack of real committment, and affluence have all combined to reduce the desire of many for a God who saves and rules. The thorns and thistles of the world are reducing the yield of the Word sown. In many cases, the churches fertilize the weeds as much as the crop.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Check out Ian Juby's you-tubes. He describes how the age of some fossils changed due to circular reasoning. The age of some fossils originally based on "objective" radio-isotope measurements was assessed at 269 million years and then dramatically reduced to something like 20 million years when they realized it would not fit into the preconceived paleontological hierarchy.
The age of fossils is based on a model. The model postulates how long it takes for certain animals to evolve, and works backwards from what we have today. It also correlates fossils to rock layers. If the radio-isotope dating does not match the perceptions about the age of the fossils, then it will be revised and redone until they match, usually in favor of the perceived age of the fossils. This appears to be so regardless of whether the rock layer appears to be too old, or whether it appears to be too young. For example, instances of layer inversion, where younger fossils are found in layers underneath the older layers. The whole model hangs on the theory, and then the model is used to prove and demonstrate the theory. Circular reasoning.
Radio-isotope dating depends on uniformity and consistency. If things have changed over time, such as atmospheric concentrations, radio-activity bursts and stimulations, it would be difficult if not impossible to measure the impacts of anything beyond human history. We suspect things have greatly changed over time, and that is why the age of people dramatically declined since the days of Noah, indicating a lack of uniformity. The decrease in the age of people also fits with the genetic changes and even with elements of genetic deterioration, mutations, etc, which have a huge tendency towards degradation, even though genetically we would postulate under the assumptions of the evolutionary theory that people who live longer have a genetic advantage to pass on those genes.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
You have made some good points here. So my question is, can you apply your generalization to this situation of the silurian salt beds? Did they have ocean life remains in them. And do we apply the same logic to the remains of sea life found on mountain tops, that seas must also have deposited that sea life in place?
If we can assume that mountains moved dramatically from their original location under the seas, can we assume the possibility that these salt beds were also formed through some rather dramatic events, rather than a simple slow in-situ evaporation process?
Your example of how some lakes, Great lakes, (and of course the Salton Sea, the Dead Sea, and Manitou Lake) have dramatically higher salt content than the rivers that run into them, does demonstrate that lakes and oceans tend to increase salt concentrations over time. Five hundred feet of salt underground along with other layers to a cumulative depth of 2000 feet, is quite a bit, however.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
I just became aware of another book called: "Unlocking the mysteries of creation." The Explorer's guide to the Awesome Works of God. copyright 2002. by Dennis Petersen. Master Books, Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638.
I have just opened a copy of this on CD, and I don't know if the book is available on-line. But it raises some very interesting questions just in the first fifty pages, and makes points about the unreliability of radiometric dating, for example, among other things. The book is about 240 pages long with numerous references sited. Dennis first obtained a B.S. (science), and a M.A. in museum administration, spending several years as a museum curator, and then later took courses at a Canadian Bible College, and then taught there for four years. He founded the Creation Resoure Foundation in California.
I'm not suggesting that he is more expert than everyone else, but he asks good questions, and reveals many inadequacies of the evolutionary paradigm.
So in addition to Walt Brown's book, this one might be worth reading.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Just a correction for a mistatement I made above: the amount of ordinary present day seawater to evaporate to produce between 500 to 2000 feet of salt, would not be 1500 to 6000 feet. 1500 to 6000 feet of water would be required to solubilize all the salt at the maximum capacity of water to hold salt in solution. Normal seawater would require about ten times that much, about 15,000 to 60,000 feet, if it was assumed to be directly vertical water above the salt beds. However, if the area of seawater was much larger than the salt beds, for example about ten times as large an area, then the water would not have to be that deep, and then 90% of the seawater could evaporate before salt started to precipitate. If the residual seawater accumulated above the salt beds, then it could deposit all the salt there.
If much of the origin of the salt water was subterranean, it may have had a much higher concentration of salt than ordinary seawater. Given the apparent volcanoes that existed in the region at one time, and the heat associated to increase evaporation rates, maybe something else happened than mere entry of ordinary sea water and its evaporation at normal atmospheric temperatures.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
The method by which God created, reveals His character, don't you think? An interesting video by Juby interviewing three scholars/scientists/speakers/writers who have researched on the implications of evolutionary thought on social morality. It's called the Dark Side of Darwinianism. The dogma's of evolution, natural selection towards survival of the fittest, onwards and upwards eugenics, are discussed in this video. http://www.youtube.com/user/wazooloo
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Correction: in the second paragraph, I meant to say that a moist finger will stick to a bone fossil but not to stones in the same layer as the fossils. In that way you can distinguish a bone fossil from the stone around it.