|
|
|
|
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 2751 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/16/2005 11:19:06 AM | ^^ the very model of modesty 
To take a firm stand to say "There is no God", excludes obviously an open mind as to the possibility of said Supreme Being, hence arrogant presumption. You could you flip it on it head. And say it’s likewise an arrogant presumption to insist there is a god, gods, terra-forming aliens or giant spaghetti monsters.
All things may be possible… but may not be equally probable.
I’ve always thought the position that the universe was created with the intent of making it look older was an unusual one. I actually had a discussion with someone who said that it was because god wanted the palaeontologists to have fulfilling lives. (I swear, that’s what she said. That one still makes me smile.) But if we’re arguing for universe created as if it had history, we could also insist the world was only created 5 minutes ago. And our idea of a past is all in our minds. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/16/2005 2:22:45 PM |
By copying and pasting i mean taking from other peoples work and not using what you yourself have learnt.
I resent the acusation that I plagerise other resources. If I quote something I always put [ quote] [ /quote] around it, even offline resources. When I have time I aslo include the referance in my text. I use journal, web, book and personal comonication referances and make mention of this when I do, admitedly I only include the book name or the webadress on ocasion, but if asked I will always provide the refeance.
But the fact of the matter is, that much of what I write is my own work. Do you realy want me to come up with a referance for myself? Perhaps the reason what I write seems so familiar to you is because I have been educated with the same sort of resources as you? I don't know to be honest. Maybe I just THOUGHT I was ussing the information stored in my brain when in fact I was ACTUALY spending hours looking for suitable information from the internet and books, then copying it out without referanceing it!
OK so for one point that i must make clear. I AM NOT AMERICAN... my teachers are not american. I attend Canadian universities where my Archaeology teachers have taught all around the world and do not follow the American school of thought.
Actualy, thats my mistake, I should have been clearer in my discription. As others on this site will reasure you, I use USAmerican to refer to the United States, and American to refer to the americas in thier entirety.
As I have never mentioned this to you before, you could not have known that was what I ment. Therefore I apologise for the missunderstanding, it was my fault.
But good try at trying to make my professors appear uneducated and worthless.
I did not atempt to make your professors seem uneducated and worthless at all. I mearly tried to state that the americas are a few years behind in the depth of thier archaeological knowledge (although they are quickly clossing that gap thanks to rapidly improving inforamtion exchange networks such as the internet and GUIENivere)
And also that the langague ussed in lectures is not formal scientific langague. It is next to imposible to teach efectivly in scientific language and as such, few if any lecturers talk to thier sudents that way. Lectures are also smart enougth to know that there are a wide range of pupils in thier classes, some who know a lot about the subject, some who know nothing at all, and as such lecturers adjust the langague to make it easy for ALL students to understand.
i resent the fact the you implied that i did and that you basically talk down to everyone else in the posts.
I'm sory if I offended you, I do not meen to seem like I am talking down to anyone. I just try to adjust what I am saying so that it can be understood by all that are reading it. That dose not meen just you. I know that there are some people on here with very little scientific education, and as such I try to make sure they can still folow what I am saying. I use big words where big words will do and smal words where small words will do. No atempt to belitle anyone is ment. (that means talking down to by the way!) {LMAO, sory I couldnt resist that, old joke I know!  but its still funny!}
You take material you find from the internet and copy and paste it into the post box. Which is fine if thast how you want to live your life is by the copy and paste method. you don't have to prove references for any of your plagerized work
Its so very obvious your at Uni at the moment. Plagerise this and Plagerise that. The real world outside is not like that you know. This is a forum, not a science journal. You do not nead to have great spelling, you do not nead to refernce everything, you do not even nead to be right. This is a forum.
But I still take offence at the sugestion that I have plagerised anything. I have provided often provided refernces and have never claimed work that I did not write as my own. I can not help it if I happen to have an encyclopedic knowldge of sertain subjects.
so i am not going to go out and find a copy of the paper i used two years ago to find you a reference, you like to copy and paste to do it so u go right ahead.
I don't even require a perfect refence. Just give me something to go on so I can refine my search. What was the authors name? Or where did he work? Or what year was it writen? Or What was it called? Or anything that might help me find the work so that I can check it out please.
No i disagree with his attack and twisting everything i have said in my post.
How have I twisted what you said? Any time I have referenced something you sai it was a DIRECT quote.
Right because it is completely possible for my to reference what my professors have taught me... ok well i can try.
This is actualy one of the easiest things to refernce. It goes like this... my Archaeology lecturer at Uclan told me, "all feraris are cars but not all cars are feraris."
See, very easy.
I read the thread minus the pointless ones which mostly come from a select few who really have nothing to add for themselves. Why should i cite if no one else is?
I belive ou will find if you reread the thread, that many people on here cite thier referances. I have done so, Feral has done so, Dryad has done so, even Canadian_Romantic has cited referances where apropriate. I belive you will also find, that many people have been asked for referances for what they claimed, but only those who had not just made something up of the top of thier head actualy cited them when asked.
I don't think those rules should apply to me just because i go against what everyone else is saying because i can at least form my own opinion and thoughts on something.
Actualy you do not go against what most people on this thread is saying. Canadian_Romantic dose, but we havent bullied him into leaving. We hold you up to the same rules and standards that we apply to the creationists. we must be fair and transparent in our reasoning and investigations, otherwise we can not have a fair discusion. You do not get special dispensation just because you happen to be an Evolutionist like most of the rest of us, THAT would be unfair.
i mean how stupid of me. and i thought being involved in the forums would be a good thing. but i can see now that it isn't. nothing gets accomplished the forums are just a waste of time and a place for everyone to **** and complain because the world did them wrong.
I am inclined to agrea with you to a degree. We do alot of ****ing and moaning, but its all in good fun, honest. 
Right i am totally the smoking gun. What was i thinking. He has every right to attack me and say that my education is useless and to assume i'm American.
I did not asume you were USAmerican, I can read a profile you know. I apologised for that missunderstanding earlier as it was my fault.
I will not bother pointing out that I have not attacked you. Feral has already done an excelnt job of deconstructing that, no nead for me to rub salt in. 
Because thats the way the world works.
Yup, it is. Now she gets it! lol, sory I can't help it sometimes. 
Having an opinion makes me american, i forgot.
An opinion is it? well why didnt you say earlier then. could have saved us both a lot of debating and **** fighting. If only I had known that it was JUST and opinion. I would have told you what the scientific data said then left you to your opinion, after all, everyone is entitled to thier opinion.
Better change my blood lines. It is an attack when he takes something i said and twists it into something completely different. But that is how the American system works so what can you do just play the same games they do.
I'm not sure I am reading this properly. Are you saying that I am American? " But that is how the American system works "??? I am not playing games, and I am not attcaking you. I have not twisted what you said. as I have ussed DIRECT quotes.
And here goes. I disagree with your suggestion i would like some references to back it all up with.
I'm not sure I understand this either, I have not made any sugestions to you, well other than asking for a shag anyways! (well picked up on by the way Dryad, do you read Gaelic then?) Which suggestion do you disagree with?
I have always tryed to keep my posts humorous and to avoide being disparaging about others. When I do make jokes at others expence, I apologise straigt away. I have no evil intentons to anyone on this forum.       | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2005 8:41:40 PM |
Imagine there IS a God...
I'll reiterate. Imagine there is a God... (This is important, bear with me)
I am not an overly religious man, But I am also open minded enough, and have seen so much in evidence on Planet Earth to realise that a "Higher Power" of SOME kind obviously exists.
To what evidence do you refer? If it is necessary for others to imagine there being a God, why would it be that:
To deny even the possibility of some kind of supreme being is arrogant presumption at best.
Could it not also be that to insist upon the existence of a particular supreme being without substantive evidence might be arrogant presumption, as well?
In saying that, it would seem logical, that since Islam and Judiasm actually have the same original roots as it were, (2 brothers) and Christianity a subsequent off shoot of Judaism, that there IS but 'one God', but we humans have built up much over the years to 'add' to our understandings of said Supreme Being.
At which point we come to the apparently biased logic that seeks to define that particular being...
That, or Planet Earth is an on running experiment by several alien species, co-joined in cause and effect scenarios to see how 'humans' will react.
It sure would then explain many of the world's "religions".
And, finally, one single arguably imaginary alternative. What sort of evidence might support this hypothesis?
Also, I would like to hear your thoughts as to why it is an arrogant presumption to deny a supreme being.
Point here isn't to argue the existence, Brain, but the possibility of the existence of a supreme being.
As far as my thoughts, they are my opinions...
Not everyone thinks or feels or believes like you do.
Precisely.
'Science' can not explain, by it's current methodology, a host of things we call 'supernatural' or 'para-normal' for example. Either we will in future find the means to do so, with increasingly sophisticated technologies, or perhaps we may need to re-examine the very 'scientific methods' we employ at present.
I disagree. Science has not yet discovered the potentially extant means with which to measure and quantify the "supernatural" or "paranormal," but I suspect the methodology would be sound, in the event such means were to be discovered. Would you happen to have a suggestion as to what re-examining the method might yield in terms of new ability to process information?
I belive ou will find if you reread the thread, that many people on here cite thier referances. I have done so, Feral has done so, Dryad has done so, even Canadian_Romantic has cited referances where apropriate.
I don't know, Raziel. I don't remember ever citing anything... Unless you're talking just the "I've heard it said..." kind of stuff.
You do not get special dispensation just because you happen to be an Evolutionist like most of the rest of us,
I do have to jump in here, as well. Not to criticise anyone, but I was under the impression that we had established the concept of "evolutionism" to be the straw-man "religion" equivalent (similar to secular humanism, I suppose) that the folks at AiG were applying to their opposition. I, for one, am not any sort of evolutionist, nor am I a Darwinist or an anti-creationist. I'm me. I accept the theory of evolution, I agree with a lot of the points Darwin made, and I don't believe creationism is science. Does that really make me a member of some ill-defined "movement," or am I just looking at this in too paranoid a fashion?
Which suggestion do you disagree with?
Mine, I believe. The one about "evolving" some skin... | |
|
joek22
|
Joined: 6/18/2005
Msg: 2754 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2005 12:35:07 PM | | so true no matter where in the world or what time your in ingnorence is bliss look at the dark ages!! they where DARK for a reason, because the lords kings knights and ladies were all ingnorent. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2005 6:23:15 PM | To deny even the possibility of some kind of supreme being is arrogant presumption at best.
To deny even the possibility of invisible, intangible Sasquatches trained in ninjitsu is an arrogant presumption at best.
See how that works?
The premise is that it is arrogant not to believe in something that cannot be objectively proven. That doesn't pan-out real well if you take the accepted English definition of arrogance into consideration.
If a used car dealer tries to sell me a car and I look under the hood and there is a hamster on a treadmill instead of an engine and he says its the economy model, I am not going to believe him. That does not make me arrogant. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2005 6:31:58 PM | Okay, both Dryad and MLR have made this point, but I feel the need to make it too.
"To deny even the possibility of some kind of supreme being is arrogant presumption at best."
Since it is an unprovable proposition it would then follow that to insist on the existence of a supreme being would be equally an arrogant presumption. So by your reasoning, am I to assume that you are agnostic? By your own logic, it is the only position which is not arrogant presumption, and, frankly, I would tend to agree. The only qualification I would make is that one can be agnostic and lean towards theism or agnostic and lean towards atheism. I would be the latter, as I simply see no rational reason, or compelling evidence to assume the conjecture. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2005 9:48:19 PM | Also, to take only a small portion of what someone says, and then try to tear it to shreds out of context, is even more laughable. Top it off with wild nonsensical examples then borders on the ridiculous.
Are you aware that that is exactly what you just did?
If my example seems to be nonsensical, that is because it is supposed to be. This is because your proposition that I should believe in a diety or any other supernatural phenomena for which their is no objective proof simply because you say that otherwise I am arrogant is a basic logical fallacy.
Look, the analogy I used made perfect sense and illustrated the poor logic of your underlying premise. I am not going to repeat myself when the point was crystal clear the very first time. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2758 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2005 9:50:31 PM |
And the more both sides rant about logic, the more illogical they actually become on this topic for some reason.
"This topic", .....is about the teaching of creationism in science class.
If those who are proponents of this have as their only argument: logical fallacies, ....it kinda' becomes the focus of the debate.
If they can build a convincing argument from a scientific perspective as to how creationism "belongs in a science ciricula", they don't need to employ fallacies, ...no?
The onus is on them to put forth a reasoned argument that adheres to the dialectic that is inclusive of science, not religion. Religion isn't the issue. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2005 9:54:00 PM |
As I had mentioned previously, the human race is ganing knowledge on all fronts at an ever increasing exponential rate every year. A few years ago, concepts like man flying, able to reach speeds faster than sound, man on the moon; Well, I could go on and on, with the advances mankind has made as a species. Having said that, what with even new discoveries all the time scientifically, etc, it stands to logical reason, that even proofs for at least even the existence for some kind of supreme being, or beings plural will be found.
The problem here is that you argument degrades to "In time, everything can be found". I can just as easily claim that in the future, proofs against such a God/Goddess' existence will be found. Does this make it true?
Technologies today will be outdated soon, much like we have cast aside many an old technology or item of the past. My opinion, as stated as an opinion before, is that while we 'today' can not place 'god' in a test tube, we may however 'tomorow'.
Even the very 'scientific methods' we employ today, no doubt will be outdated at a future point in time.
This tends to fall into the problem of defining a boarder between Natural and Supernatural. If God can be quantified and proven empirically, then doesn't he become natural? Doesn't this process exclude supernatural? Just what exactly makes something supernatural?
So, for any one person or persons to exclaim 'there is no god', in reality they are saying, they are a self declared expert almost on the cosmos itself, and have somekind of conclusive proof that there is no said supreme being of sorts.
Also as mentioned, I feel that it is sometimes not so much the argument for what constitutes the existence of a higher power, but what exactly that definition of actual said supreme being may, or may not be.
Two things:
1. This is why most Atheists are Weak Atheists, or Agnostic Atheists. They acknowledge that it is possible for Gods to exist, but they will not believe without evidence.
2. Those who are Strong Atheists, or actively deny the existence of Gods do so by trying to find logical contradictions of the very concept of Gods in a worldview. They don't presume to know everything, but instead try to show that any kind of God that fits the bill as being a). Creator of the universe and b). Capable of creating said universe are still contradictory to what we know... They can get sidetracked with popular conceptions of Deities (ie. Loving ones), but their goal is the same.
Yes, there are those that seem to want to push their religious beliefs on others, as the only way that is right in their mind, but equally dangerous are those on the other end of the spectrum, who are just as dogmatic in their defences of atheism.
The same hyper emotional state seems to be brought out from both camps when the word 'god' is mentioned in any way, those for, screaming just as loudly as those against.
It seems like you tend to assume all Atheists here are Strong Atheists, which isn't the case. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2760 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2005 10:08:00 PM |
True, but my gawd man (excuse the expression) they are still ranting about this 112 pages later..LOL
Not one proponent for "creationism in science" has put a statement on the table supporting their view that wasn't flawed logic. Who knows, maybe they'll see the light by 113? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2005 10:15:25 PM | Last I read in the Forum Rules, all posters have a right right to their opinions.
You and some others seem to broadcast that it is only YOUR opinions that should matter in the universe as we know it. Your argumentitive attitudes show a seemingly incapable allowance for any thought or idea outside the scope of your existence.
This phenomena is what is known in psychology as projection.
I explained to you why I did not feel that a person is necessarily arrogant because they do not believe in a diety or other supernatural being. This relates to the topic of this thread, which is Evolution Vs. Creationism as one is a belief and the other is a theory. I did not insult you, claim to be an expert, or state that I could not tolerate that you had a different opinion than me.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/19/2005 12:25:21 AM | Many who see evolution as scientifically credible are agnostic or atheists. It seems to me that it is not reasonable to assume that a person is arrogant (has an unduly high opinion of him or herself) because that person does not accept an idea that another person has not objectively proven (especially if said idea involves the supernatural). But, that is just my opinion.
I wonder what CR would have to say about the premise that a proponent of atheism would necessarily be arrogant. We haven't heard from him since the 15th and I really miss his scientific acumen and sound arguments regarding topics related to religion and politics. Although I have disagreed with him on many points in the past, I respect his intellect. CR could greatly contribute to the discussion and enlighten many with his sound reasoning skills and witty (though respectful) banter. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/19/2005 12:34:28 AM | awwww, well golly gee whiz..I was missed....lol
But, some of us do have lives after all...lol
Seriously though, MLR, as you have heard me state very emphatically before, I am the first one in line to support ANYONE'S right to believe in whatever they choose, no matter how much "I" may disagree with it.
Having said that, I disagree with WS, in that, as Forrest Gump would say:
"Arrogance is as Arrogance does."
WS says 'other religion' in his profile, so I am not sure what 'religion' he may be proclaiming here. Either way, there ARE 'arrogant' individuals in this world, some atheists, but also some religious. But to take a broad view like he does is too much I think.
But, maybe a re-reading of the rules would help?
i.e.; it is ok to say we have an opinion, or belief..
(but emphatic statements tend to smack of sensationalism, no matter which side of the debate we may be on.) | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/19/2005 9:56:22 PM | I encourage everyone else to not even discuss this with anyone making any claim as to the validity of evolution--instead just give them this site and ask them to come back when they have something original to say.
So, why are YOU even on here to begin with?
Where does one begin, with all the Forum Rules you have broken in your post...
Tsk, Tsk...
One thing I will point out though, is that 'talk.origins' and 'wikipedia' are now under careful scrutiny and investigation for misinformation, slanderous postings by the common public, unsubstantiated, non-scientific claims, and outright lies...
And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Maybe YOU should catch up on the latest International News so as to come back better informed, and more prepared in your fallable arguments, and, oh yes, re-read the Forum Rules for posting in here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2005 7:36:43 AM | | I can see how this could be an invalid question, but I'd like to see what others think here. Say we get some scientist playing around with his idea of what might or might not have happened with abiogenesis, and he comes up with something. You know, gets RNA to form in a laboratory environment, goes away for a while or just sits there monitoring the deal, and something akin to DNA forms. I'm sure there are "generations" involved here, if only at the level of one thing replicating another and that one doing the same. Eventually, our fictional scientist winds up with (after, say, a couple billion of these generations) DNA. Sure, he figures out the mechanisms that go into it, but I'm taking this another direction, so bear with me. Poof!! (essentially) A new life-form (in the making?), a new set-up! Life "created in a lab! And that's the point. Could that be taken (should it happen, of course) to be "proof" for Creation, or would it, as is much more likely, be shouted down and denounced as secular humanist abomination, man trying to be God? I guess it's a question of whether or not this would make sense as an argument to get Intelligent Design into science classrooms. Any thoughts? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2005 9:44:40 AM | On the 'actual' topic of this thread, I see where the judge in Penn., USA ruled against ID being taught in the school.
In part of his decision, he berates some of the school board members for lies about their case for ID.
While I may disagree with many other points of his argument, I certainly do agree with throwing it out on the very premise of some lying to gain ground.
That sickens me, that some have to think they need to revert to lies or coverups to make a point.
The ends do NOT justify the means, especially in this case. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2005 10:10:35 AM | | Are you suggesting I'm not being relevant? I hope not, and that I'm reading that wrong. It's a legitimate question. Would not laboratory-achieved abiogenesis pose a potential evidence for Intelligent Design as the origin of life on Earth? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2005 10:25:02 AM | "Would not laboratory-achieved abiogenesis pose a potential evidence for Intelligent Design as the origin of life on Earth?"
Feral, I think you are in mirror world. Are you suggesting that the intelligent process of demonstrating that life can form from natural processes somehow means that intelligence has to be involved in those natural processes? That's loopy brother. You're confusing a demonstration with a metaphysical assumption. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2005 10:40:43 AM | | To a degree, I agree with you. But, what I'm asking is not all that far-fetched, is it? You get a guy, or a bunch of guys together, they set up the parameters to enable life and pull it off. How is this any different than what the Creationists say when they go into the deal about "creating the heavens and the earth," then whipping up some movable meat to populate it? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2005 10:53:26 AM | | Because the scientists' aim is recreate conditions they believe to have existed and test to see if life can spontaneously arise from them. Their intelligence only comes into it in so much as how they reason through the attempt to factor themselves out of the process, which is the whole point. Abiogenesis is not Artificial Intelligence, which would be more along the lines of your point. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:09:55 AM |
Are you suggesting I'm not being relevant? I hope not, and that I'm reading that wrong. It's a legitimate question. Would not laboratory-achieved abiogenesis pose a potential evidence for Intelligent Design as the origin of life on Earth?
Hi Feral; I had simply 'popped in' to make that statement about the court decision; I had not even read your post before mine. So, yes, you read it wrong, and also yes, I think what you added is relavent. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:44:23 PM | How is everyone? Sorry I know this is off topic but I haven't been able to get on in awhile. My computer has been down and I just got in a terrible wreck. The truck I was in went thru a telephone pole and no, before you ask, I wasn't driving. I banged my head up badly and broke my wrist and ribs on my left side. Congragulations on the thread I can't beleive it's still here. Merry Christmas everyone and have a happy New Years!
Jimmy | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2005 8:44:40 PM | Yah, Jimmy the Creation/Evolution thread is still around a hundred and some odd pages later. Some novel points have been raised and many people have given some interesting insights into the subject matter.
As far as your predicament, I wouldn't have figured you would have been driving. I am glad you weren't more seriously injured. I hope the insurance of the responsible party takes care of the damages and injuries. Happy holidays to you too. Take care of yourself and get well soon. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2005 10:02:42 PM |
Because the scientists' aim is recreate conditions they believe to have existed and test to see if life can spontaneously arise from them. Their intelligence only comes into it in so much as how they reason through the attempt to factor themselves out of the process, which is the whole point. Abiogenesis is not Artificial Intelligence, which would be more along the lines of your point.
I'm with you, Wonka, but I was just thinking on it, and it does seem as though it could go either way, doesn't it? Especially when you factor in the argument that, while the scientists might be trying to recreate a primitive Earth environment, they can't be absolutely sure. Then, you wind up with those who would claim that this is exactly the way that a hypothetical higher power might have done it. I'm not arguing the scientists' intent or methodology, just curious whether or not it could count as a point in favor of ID. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2005 5:57:03 AM |
Aww that's cute, a Kreationist that is afraid. By the way the most recent study of Wikipedia shows that it is more reliable than a printed encyclopedia. Anyone that thought that what I was linking to was exhaustive and the final reference is not very smart to begin with.
I am not sure who exactly you are replying to, since you have not quoted anyone for a rebuttal to.
BUT, your personal attacks will no doubt have you end up in the 'account suspended' file soon.
Also your repeated changing of the thread topic will also have the same result.
As far as your claim for 'the most recent study of wikipedia', please supply references for this please, as the LATEST internet news accounts show it under investigation for the things I mentioned previously.
And, Please, also make up your mind?
You say wikipedia is more reliable than a printed encyclopedia, then the very next sentence say it should not be a final reference.
Which is it??
Then further you say to cross reference things at a library which contains, what? ENCYCLOPEDIAS.
If it wasn't for the study of evolution (and all other areas of biological analysis) then the Kreationists (and everyone else) would have died long ago without all of the medicine and treatment insights we have gained.
Perhaps YOU should get yourself to YOUR local library ASAP, as the concept and study of evolution has only been around for a couple hundred years, whereas the study of medicine has been around for several thousand years. | |
|
|
| Page 111 of 156
|
97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137 |
|
Home
login 
