The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

The scientists who publish in them disagree with you.

What you actually mean is These aren't scientific journals/publications that agree with the current consensus on evolution For you that means Not scientific.

Nary a scientific investigation amongst them. Perhaps you would be so kind as to single out one investigation in particular that you think provides scientific support for creationism, and I will explain why I disagree.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....a Medieval Artist could only draw an anatomically correct Dinosaur if they or somebody else had also ACTUALLY seen one!!!

Disregarding the fact that these look nothing like dinosaurs, and so the point is moot, you show a frightening contempt for the human imagination.

J C wrote: »

touché!!!!:pac::):D

I love it when you say this - it's almost like you understand. :pac:

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

The scientists who publish in them disagree with you.

What you actually mean is These aren't scientific journals/publications that agree with the current consensus on evolution For you that means Not scientific.

What I mean is they aren't scientific journals/publications. They reference religious supposition instead of scientific research.

ScarlettOHara

well fiddle-dee-dee how times have changed. If mammy were alive she'd wash this entire thread's mouth out with soap. Not even when Rhett went to see Belle did I ever witness such disrespect

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...when a child draws a Dinosaur it ISN'T a result of their imagination...they are remembering ACTUAL drawings / video images of reconstructed Dinosaurs!!!!
....a Medieval Artist could only draw an anatomically correct Dinosaur if they or somebody else had also ACTUALLY seen one!!!

So... dinosaur fossils didn't exist 800 years ago? The various dragon myths are thought to be based on the occasional dinosaur fossil find followed by the inevitable Chinese whispers and nth-generation crude drawings. What you're showing looks about as accurate as you could expect a drawing to be if it were based on someone's vague re-telling.

We know quite a few significant dinosaur fossils were unearthed centuries prior to their formal description in the 1800's. There was even one found in 300BC in China.

Anyway, if humans and Dinosaurs co-existed, wouldn't we expect there to be literally thousands of examples of such depictions? Why is it that when we go to even earlier cave drawings, regardless of where they are in the world, they never depict any animals other than the ones we find in the fossil record at for that time? No dinosaurs at all.

So, I've not been paying much attention, did you bother to address my criticisms of your useless replies to the 13 questions? Have you taken another shot at them at all? Or have any of the other creationists given it a shot?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...so ARE you saying that you don't know what information is or how to recognise it definitively?

You're being asked a question. How do you define information. Responding with mockery is avoiding the question. That is a rather dishonest tactic as well as being rude.

MatthewVII

ScarlettOHara wrote: »

well fiddle-dee-dee how times have changed. If mammy were alive she'd wash this entire thread's mouth out with soap. Not even when Rhett went to see Belle did I ever witness such disrespect

Right. Whatever you're having yourself.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Nary a scientific investigation amongst them. Perhaps you would be so kind as to single out one investigation in particular that you think provides scientific support for creationism, and I will explain why I disagree.

What about? -
More Precise Calculations of the Cost of Substitutionhttp://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_2/cost_substitution.htm

or

The Specified Complexity of Retinal Imagery
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm

wolfsbane

MatthewVII said:

As for the Creation Research Society, I must admit I switched off a bit when i read the boastful line "peer-reviewed by degreed scientists". Something about that sentence just isn't right.

What is your problem with it? Since evolutionists constantly claim creationists do not publish in peer-reviewed journals, I think it appropriate CRS high-lights this.

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

What is your problem with it? Since evolutionists constantly claim creationists do not publish in peer-reviewed journals, I think it appropriate CRS high-lights this.

I just thought that having peer review by qualified people is pretty much a pre-requisite, not a luxury, ie there should be no need to tout the fact. Also, peer review is usually undertaken by recognised experts in those fields. Claiming that the peer review is undertaken just by people with degrees (as any number of people doing science in university can claim) is slightly underwhelming.

wolfsbane

MatthewVII said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I have Divine revelation informing my case. You have - evolutionary dogma?

He has something which stands up to scruting. You are clinging to a vessel that sinks a bit lower with every scientific discovery.

My, how we differ: evolutionary dogma seems to me to be the one sinking lower with every scientific discovery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, for I insist it was designed better than it is now. But even today's imperfect ear is still an amazing structure.
So what happened? How did the ear devolve? Punishment for sin?

Correct - glad you've been paying attention.

It might be worth bearing in mind that there is no such thing as a perfect structure, the ear can merely adapt as best it can over years of natural selection to its contemporaneous environment.

That is true for a fallen biosphere - but it was not so at the beginning. It was perfect then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The more science discovers of complexity, the more laughable evolution appears. Throw in a few more capital letters and exclamation marks and you're practically the new J_C. Evolution over the course of this thread before our very eyes. You saw how J_C's resilient refusal to accept facts and reasonable explanations meant he could survive on this thread and have adapted likewise to confer a survival advantage on yourself. Your genetic material is safe

Yes, I see how your refusal to face the truth about specified complexity, for example, is mirrored in your refusal to concede there are other reasonable explanations than your own. Dogma is a problem for you, for you refuse to see you have it.

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Specified Complexity of Retinal Imagery
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm

Didn't read the other one, but this is not a scientific paper offering evidence for creationism. This is a paper which details how the eye works, then assumes that evolution cannot account for it. It is peppered with colourful analogies detailing the unlikeliness of random wiring (completely ignoring the concept of evolution over time eliminating randomness) to make evolution seem silly to the reader. It offers no evidence to support creationism, merely tries to discredit evolution by jumping to a series of conclusions for no apparent reason. Most of the references are to other articles in the same journal (some of which I had a quick glance at and were similarly unscientific). Therefore I do not accept this as scientific evidence for anything apart from human gullibility.

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I see how your refusal to face the truth about specified complexity, for example, is mirrored in your refusal to concede there are other reasonable explanations than your own. Dogma is a problem for you, for you refuse to see you have it.

wolfsbane wrote:

I have Divine revelation informing my case

*cough*

wolfsbane

MatthewVII said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, I see how your refusal to face the truth about specified complexity, for example, is mirrored in your refusal to concede there are other reasonable explanations than your own. Dogma is a problem for you, for you refuse to see you have it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I have Divine revelation informing my case
*cough*

You miss my point. It is not that dogma is necessarily bad, but that ignorance that one has it definitely is. I realise I hold dogma. You...

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

You miss my point. It is not that dogma is necessarily bad, but that ignorance that one has it definitely is. I realise I hold dogma. You...

You miss my point. I am not holding onto the idea that evolution is real because someone told me so, or because I have an idea which is unshakeable to all the evidence against it that is presented. I think evolution is right because the evidence we have suggests it. If we had incontrovertable evidence against evolution and a way of explaining why we see the intermediate fossil forms that we do, I would be all for it.

You seem to have this idea that evolutionists are zealots who seize upon an idea and cling to it. People who follow science are open to manipulation by evidence only, not by dogma. That is what it means to be scientific, to not jump to conclusions and to always be open to accepting you are wrong in the face of evidence.

You hold no such malleability, hence you are dogmatic and incapable of being persuaded by any sort of evidence.

And on your first point, I would say yes, dogma is necessarily bad when it comes to trying to explain things which have a scientific basis.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is not that dogma is necessarily bad, but that ignorance that one has it definitely is. I realise I hold dogma.

I asked you a while back, but I don't recall seeing any reply:

You continually link to articles that certainly I never read, and I suspect that almost nobody else does either.

You also say that you don't understand anything about biology -- I'd have thought that the large amount of time that you spend on this thread would be a good opportunity to learn something about it.

So, instead of just linking to stuff that others have written, why not try reading them, summarizing them and posting your understanding?

kiffer

I picked a paper at semi-random from the links that Wolfie linked to...

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r01/

Awful paper (even ignoring the fact it just crams the biblical time timescale in, with out any evidence) ... ends up saying that the ice age ended 2000 years ago, seems to throw in a little anthropogenic climate change denial.

robindch

kiffer wrote: »

seems to throw in a little anthropogenic climate change denial.

Belief in creationism and denial of anthropogenic climate change are highly correlated amongst populations of religious fundamentalists. Haven't quite established why yet...

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

What about? -
More Precise Calculations of the Cost of Substitutionhttp://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_2/cost_substitution.htm

or

The Specified Complexity of Retinal Imagery
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm

Two essays. Remember the bit where we said science will involve an investigation/hypothesis test, a results section and a discussion? Have you been paying attention. I think you're just teasing me because you know you can't come up with the real thing...

darjeeling

wolfsbane wrote: »

http://www.grisda.org/origins/54005.pdf
I take you you agree that rapid post-Flood diversification is a part of the creationist argument?

wolfsbane wrote: »

BSG: A Creation Biology Study Group
http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36813

Thankyou Wolfsbane for these links. I'm not sure if you actually read these articles before posting the links, but they give a good example of a researcher trying to fit biology into a creationist framework, and failing.

The first paper you cited describes biological speciation as occurring through genetic changes in the genome:

Todd Charles Wood wrote:

[...] because of the apparent morphological stability of modern species, we infer that diversification must be caused by a permanent alteration of the organisms' genomes. [...] The stability of stripes in the tiger lineage argues for the stability of the genetic mechanism that produces them.

[...] genomic or genetic alteration is a permanent genetic change, so it meets one criterion for a diversification mechanism.

[...] the AGEing progess was originally conceived strictly to provide a genetic explanation of diversification [...]

Rapid intrabaraminic diversification is attributed to Altruistic Genetic Elements (AGEs) which are designed by God to cause permanent, beneficial genomic changes.

What Wood is saying is that species are marked by genetic differences in their genomes, and it is the accumulation over time of these differences that leads to speciation - not so different from evolution, there.

Wood diverges from evolutionary orthodoxy in suggesting that mobile genetic elements might once have acted in some divinely ordained manner to cause rapid speciation. He gives no good evidence for this, and there's no reason to believe it happened, other than a need to shoehorn evolution into a literal Biblical framework. I'll leave that aside, though, because he's gone on to give us far more to chew on.

The BSG page linked carries Wood's later paper comparing the chimp and human genomes (here). Reading it, we see Wood completely thrown on finding that the human and chimp genomes are really as similar as evolution predicted:

Todd Charles Wood wrote:

Certainly if felid sequences can vary by that amount [~5%], what is to preclude the conclusion that the much lower differences observed between human and chimpanzees genomes indicates their cobaraminic status?
[...]
how can we maintain that felids or mycoplasmas share a common ancestor with their genomic differences, and deny that the smaller differences between humans and chimpanzees could not also arise from a common ancestor? The only way to do this is to favor other data in baraminology, and to deny the primacy of the genome in determining true phylogenetic or baraminic relationships.

Todd Charles Wood wrote:

We could understand the genome as a repository of some of the information necessary for the physical composition of the organism (Wood 2001). In that case, far more important than the genome may be its cellular context, which interprets and applies the information stored in the genome.
[...]
The similarity of the human and chimpanzee genomes offers evidence that the genome could primarily be a repository. [...] original nucleotide identity could be as high as 99%. At that high level of similarity, perhaps it is not impossible to believe that God created humans and chimpanzees with identical genomes.

So Wood now says that differences or similarities between genomes are a red herring - they don't tell us about species relationships after all! He is also proposing that the same genome in different cellular contexts can result in animals as distinct as human and chimp - a fantastical notion! Why do animals true-breed, and fetuses develop normally if they are so vulnerable to changes in cellular context? Why do trans-species clones turn out as copies of the genome donor, rather than resembling the donor of the empty egg or the surrogate parent? Wood is talking nonsense.

Wood is in a bind. He knows the genome is the chief contributor of phenotype. He knows that changes in the genome accumulate over time, that they alter the phenotype, and that they lead to speciation. He knows that smaller genomic differences between species indicate a closer evolutionary relationship. But he has to reject all of this because he can't accept that chimps are our closest relative.

Todd Charles Wood wrote:

Having found most popular [creationist] arguments about the human/chimpanzee genome similarity insufficent, I find myself in the unenviable position of devising my own explanation. Since I have none [...]

And there we have one of the leading practitioners of creation science telling us baldly that it doesn't work. Still, he would rather tear up what he has learned of biology, and say he knows nothing, than conclude that his literal view of the Bible is mistaken.

Pahu

Parallel Strata

The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time.

Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. [Fossil trees are found worldwide crossing two or more strata]…Had burial been slow, the treetops would have decayed. Obviously, the trees could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences26.html#wp1009156

Mickeroo

Pahu wrote: »

Parallel Strata

The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time.

Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. [Fossil trees are found worldwide crossing two or more strata]…Had burial been slow, the treetops would have decayed. Obviously, the trees could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences26.html#wp1009156

Parallel layers are only a rule in sedimentary rock,like limestone,also layers can be bended and folded by earthquakes,you can see evidence,nay proof, of this in this very country. I garauntee you get channels in the topmost layers of the grand canyon because it's made from limestone, in places anyway,and limestone is a permeable rock,do you know know what that means? There is also fossilised mollusk and coral found there. You ever been to the burren? Or any karst region in ireland? You can clearly see fossils in limestone. Mt st helens is a volcano,naturally volcanoes can bury trees quite quickly etc, as can earthquakes. Polystrate trees are common in volcanic areas and some limestone areas and areas with lots of coal deposits. For them to have been caused by a global flood the sedimentary basins they are found in would have to be huge,possibly global...duh, but they're always quite small, which suggests no global flood. You no doubt think plate tectonics are fictional too, but yet the geology of scotland,donegal and the appalachian mountains are the same,why do you think that is? do you think its coincidence that the western seaboards of europe and africa fit into the eastern seaboard of the americas like a jigsaw.

This is not a question of beliefs or faith but common sense.

kiffer

Pahu wrote: »

Parallel Strata

The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time.

1, You would only expect to see channels like that in certain situations... for example you won't see any channels within limestones or things like mudstones deposited in deep sea situations...
you won't see any channels in many ocean situations if sediments have settled gently over time through the water column.

2, Channels are seen in many places, would you like some photos of these channels in rocks around Ireland? I'm pretty sure I have some on file, iirc you can see them often in the Old Red Sandstone in Wexford.
You often see them in situations where you have obvious unconformities, or in braided rivers systems and river delta systems.

Again it seems you are just dumping stuff in the thread with out looking into its validity in anyway.

As far as seeing these channels in the walls of the Grand Canyon goes...
The lower strata (the Vishnu Group) in the GC are mostly Gneiss, a metamorphic rock... Metamorphism generally obfuscates and obliterates fine detail, but the Vishnu group seems to have been deposited in a back arc basin (in an ocean/sea).
Then above that is limestone which formed again in ocean situations, so you don't expect to see channels within that.
...but...
At the unconformity between the gneiss and the limestone you could see erosional features... you may see channels... unless of course the erosion was caused by ice sheets, in which case you could see different signs of erosion.

but to be honest, I'm not up to speed on the details of the Grand Canyon.
But it's clear that the person who wrote the original bit about channels not being seen in strata clearly isn't up to speed on basic geology.

Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. [Fossil trees are found worldwide crossing two or more strata]…Had burial been slow, the treetops would have decayed. Obviously, the trees could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences26.html#wp1009156

There are many rapid deposition situations, geologists are well aware of these.
Volcanic ash (as in the Mt. St. Helens example) is not comparable to a 2km thick succession of turbodites (an individual turbodite being another rapidly deposited feature)

The text you have quoted is really very simple and very simply wrong...
Reality is much more complex than the article makes out.
Creationist often make gross oversimplifications of details before they try to shoehorn things into there immutable biblical paradigm...

2Scoops

Pahu wrote: »

Ctrl+C Ctrl+V

Science plz.

kiffer

Mickeroo wrote: »

Parallel layers are only a rule in sedimentary rock,like limestone,also layers can be bended and folded by earthquakes,you can see evidence,nay proof, of this in this very country. I garauntee you get channels in the topmost layers of the grand canyon because it's made from limestone, in places anyway,and limestone is a permeable rock,do you know know what that means?

Sedimentary layers are generally laid down 'parallel', but there are a number of things which can effect this... flow features, cross bedding, angular unconformities caused by (uplift + tilting -> erosion -> subsidence -> more deposition) and so on.
folding and tilting are post depositional and I give the author enough credit to assume he means sedimentary layers are parallel when originally deposited but can be folded later ... I might be assuming too much.

There is also fossilised mollusk and coral found there. You ever been to the burren? Or any karst region in ireland?

There is a lovely spot on the northside of Dublin, where you can see ancient karst surfaces which have had more limestone deposited above them...

EDIT: I'm thinking of an area near Lane, there is a little valley in the limestone with Karst floor, which has been in filled with conglomerate. My memory is sketchy though...



Much like infilled channels this shows an area that was once below sea level allowing deposition, then above sea level allowing the karst formation, and then below sea level again allowing more rock to be deposited on top. Exactly the sort of thing you need to have happen for the channels (that the text author erroneously claims do not exists) to form, although in this case we have karst landscape forming rather than streams forming channels, I would expect this to be more common in the case of limestones.

You can clearly see fossils in limestone. Mt st helens is a volcano,naturally volcanoes can bury trees quite quickly etc, as can earthquakes. Polystrate trees are common in volcanic areas and some limestone areas and areas with lots of coal deposits. For them to have been caused by a global flood the sedimentary basins they are found in would have to be huge,possibly global...duh, but they're always quite small, which suggests no global flood. You no doubt think plate tectonics are fictional too, but yet the geology of scotland,donegal and the appalachian mountains are the same,why do you think that is? do you think its coincidence that the western seaboards of europe and africa fit into the eastern seaboard of the americas like a jigsaw.

This is not a question of beliefs or faith but common sense.

J C

kiffer wrote: »

Have you read descriptions of animals from those times? Weasels give birth out their ears(left ear for female babies, right for male) and mate through their mouths, dolphins kill crocodiles with the sharp fins on their backs.

The catobleps has the body of an ox, thick legs, the head of a hog, a neck like an empty intestine... Its gaze and/or breath can kill or turn you to stone, but its weak neck means it must look down almost all of the time...
Turns out it's probably a worthog.

....those were obviously 'old' evolutionist accounts of Weasels and Dolphins....with observation and logic sorely lacking.... just like 'modern' evolution has an equally unobserved and preposterous account of muck spontaneously evolving into Man!!!:eek::D

.....I guess something with "the body of an ox, thick legs, the head of a hog and a neck like an empty intestine" could be something that multiple mutations might possibly cause ....though it sounds like it would never live to reproduce ....once again another good evolution story 'falls flat on its face' ... or in this case, on its (thankfully) 'empty intestine'!!!!
:eek::pac::D

wolfsbane

MatthewVII said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You miss my point. It is not that dogma is necessarily bad, but that ignorance that one has it definitely is. I realise I hold dogma. You...
You miss my point. I am not holding onto the idea that evolution is real because someone told me so, or because I have an idea which is unshakeable to all the evidence against it that is presented. I think evolution is right because the evidence we have suggests it. If we had incontrovertable evidence against evolution and a way of explaining why we see the intermediate fossil forms that we do, I would be all for it.

It is your out-off-hand dismissal of any contrary scientific argument that establishes the dogma-driven nature of your 'science' - as I put it, your refusal to concede there are other reasonable explanations than your own.

You seem to have this idea that evolutionists are zealots who seize upon an idea and cling to it. People who follow science are open to manipulation by evidence only, not by dogma. That is what it means to be scientific, to not jump to conclusions and to always be open to accepting you are wrong in the face of evidence.

A pity then evolutionists so often prove themselves to be non-scientific.

You hold no such malleability, hence you are dogmatic and incapable of being persuaded by any sort of evidence.

I am quite prepared to be put in the postion where I would have to concede that all the evidence appears to support evolution, while still holding my religious conviction that the facts will later turn up to refute that. From what I gather from the scientists in the Creation movement, I'm in no danger of having to do that anytime soon.

And on your first point, I would say yes, dogma is necessarily bad when it comes to trying to explain things which have a scientific basis.

Hmm. Nature has not only a scientific basis. God created it, so His word about it is just as valid as man's scientific research.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is your out-off-hand dismissal of any contrary scientific argument that establishes the dogma-driven nature of your 'science'

You haven't provided any actual science yet, remember?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I am quite prepared to be put in the postion where I would have to concede that all the evidence appears to support evolution, while still holding my religious conviction that the facts will later turn up to refute that. From what I gather from the scientists in the Creation movement, I'm in no danger of having to do that anytime soon.

I don't believe that you are, since some facile, non-scientific reassurance from creation journalists is all that it takes to convince you otherwise.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Nature has not only a scientific basis. God created it, so His word about it is just as valid as man's scientific research.

Maybe. But man's scientific research all points in the same direction. Unless you've found some creation science in the last few days??

J C

ScarlettOHara wrote: »

well fiddle-dee-dee how times have changed. If mammy were alive she'd wash this entire thread's mouth out with soap. Not even when Rhett went to see Belle did I ever witness such disrespect

...Scarlett honey child, it just ain't fittin' ... I say, it just ain't fittin'...

....a bit like evolution when one examines the EVIDENCE!!!!:pac::):D:cool::eek:

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

...it just ain't fittin' ... I say, it just ain't fittin...

....a bit like evolution when one examines the EVIDENCE!!!!:pac::):D:cool::eek:

You and Scarlett are a fine match - mad as a box of frogs. :eek:

Anyway, what is this 'evidence' of which you speak??