tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4651702131770274712..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Garter Snake Immunity, Sodium Channels, and Evolutionary Expectations Dashed AgainUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69229734070596313082012-02-01T16:04:12.364-08:002012-02-01T16:04:12.364-08:00This kind of logical fallacy really irks me. Just ...This kind of logical fallacy really irks me. Just because you (OP)obviously lack a scientific understanding or have the inability to comprehend critical thinking does not lend you to assert your mystical beliefs, which are just an appeal to a theological authority.<br /><br />Although I realize arguing faith with the faithful is like trying to convince a rock to fly, I'll attempt to explain this reputable scientific paper to you and your fanatics. I don't expect any logical response. In fact, I don't even expect you to read this, just answer with some nonsensical religious fervor and an expectation I should stop trying to comprehend my world and make it better, but bow to a mystical invisible creator and go sacrifice a goat.<br /><br />So here it goes: Gene conservation does not mean static (unchanging). Small changes in an amino acid sequence can be tolerated with little or no structural deficit or change to the function. In fact, humans have 9 functional sodium channel variants, which have a very high sequence homology to mammalian variants (not 100%). Small changes occur at the gene level which are passed on during the process of reproduction. If the variation is successful, the successor has the opportunity to live a longer life, with more offspring. If the gene causes a mutation in a protein (eg. sodium channel) that causes a disfunction critical to survival, the organism dies. That, in essence, is "natural selection". However, there are no absolutes and biology is a complex field of study.<br />Accumulations of mutations can happen over the lifetime of an individual, and some of these have the potential to be passed to the next generation. Some mutations are beneficial, some lethal, some debilitating, and some benign.<br /><br />Complexity in no means suggests that a higher power MUST be involved, be it Allah, God, Jehova, Thor, the Tooth Fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It only suggests that we, as ignorant humans, must embrace our ignorance and strive to learn more. If we give up, as you have, to an ultimate power, we stop attempting to achieve something better and our discoveries cease to exist.<br /><br />Actually, let me pose a question to you. Why would a divine creator make us so faulty? A playground next to a sewer? Or how about breathing through the same hold we drink through? Also, do you seriously think that we humans are the pinnacle of evolution? Really? Personally, I hope not. It's sad that the arrogance of humanity causes so much fear that we're not actually the greatest creation...that there could (or probably is) something better. It limits us as we are, causes a rift between us and nature, and denies you of having a purpose of good without being threatened by vengeance. <br /><br />I wont deny you of your beliefs, as long as they don't deny me of reason and the pursuit of knowledge. Otherwise, either get informed or stop making religion look bad.yoshihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15922215746032877844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77407621962467157062010-03-11T21:06:39.707-08:002010-03-11T21:06:39.707-08:00CH, indeed Zachriel is an intelligent designer, wh...CH, indeed Zachriel is an intelligent designer, who designs arguments for evolution - for a living I suppose. I find that the arguments that they propose simply have faulty facts coupled with "good" logic or "good" logic coupled with faulty facts. Their argument-design goal is simple; make big claims using little evidence - their designer abilities; imagination and creativity kick off from there. So the creativity starts off at the fossil record which is species-centric, next stop RM & NS didit plus deep time, but never makes its way down to actual quantitative and qualitative changes required, the probabilistic barriers, which is entirely information-centric; a dead-end for Darwinists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30515300906081248702010-03-08T14:32:23.431-08:002010-03-08T14:32:23.431-08:00John1453: "Ilion, no need to get defensive or...<b>John1453:</b> "<i>Ilion, no need to get defensive or snarky; ...</i>"<br /><br /><b>John1453:</b> "<i>Get a grip.</i>"<br /><br />Chill, dewd!<br /><br /><br /><b>John1453:</b> "<i>... It's not relevant ...</i>"<br /><br />Exactly!Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49507682894396681532010-03-08T12:16:50.001-08:002010-03-08T12:16:50.001-08:00"A simple example is nylonase."
Well! ..."<i>A simple example is nylonase.</i>"<br /><br />Well! It took you long enough to get around to that (question-begging) assertion!Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16849843411452421832010-03-08T11:37:38.686-08:002010-03-08T11:37:38.686-08:00#John1453: An organism has to survive to reproduce...<b>#John1453</b>: <i>An organism has to survive to reproduce. </i><br /><br />Death rates are only one factor. Another important factor is fecundity. Another is juvenile care, including nesting. <br /><br /><b>#John1453</b>: <i>The only mechanism that most evolutionary theories have for the introduction of new genetic materia is mutation, which has not yet been shown to be able to produce novel structures or organisms.</i><br /><br />Of course they have. A simple example is nylonase. Establishing Common Descent is important to understanding most historical examples.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92006072214995423392010-03-08T09:55:01.260-08:002010-03-08T09:55:01.260-08:00"poor restatement of aspects of the Theory of..."poor restatement of aspects of the Theory of Evolution. It's not variable death rates, but the correlation between variations in heritable traits and variations in reproductive potential."<br /><br />It's, bottom line, death rates. An organism has to survive to reproduce. Natural selection has no "pressure" of any kind; it only removes genetic material. The only mechanism that most evolutionary theories have for the introduction of new genetic materia is mutation, which has not yet been shown to be able to produce novel structures or organisms.<br /><br />The correlations, etc., cited are irrelevant if the organisms do not survive.John I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10739187126377072292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64750375818017890452010-03-08T09:50:33.997-08:002010-03-08T09:50:33.997-08:00Get a grip. I did check your website, which did no...Get a grip. I did check your website, which did not say anything about any YEC belief. I did not relate any alleged YEC belief to any of the arguments we were making. Whatever. It's not relevant so I'll move on to more recent posts.<br /><br />regards<br />#JohnJohn I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10739187126377072292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34627553768637885762010-03-05T06:56:52.105-08:002010-03-05T06:56:52.105-08:00Ilíon: You question was 'ad hominem in nature ...<b>Ilíon</b>: <i>You question was 'ad hominem in nature not because you said anything pejorative (or complimentary!) about YECs, but because whether I am or am not a YEC has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments I make.</i><br /><br />Actually, being a YEC directly impacts your position. The Theory of Evolution predicts the Earth is of great age. This has been verified through many techniques, in geology and the physical sciences. This is in contradiction to 19th century predictions of a somewhat younger Earth based on classical physics and rates of cooling based on gravitational collapse.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47283096111759147672010-03-04T22:10:28.162-08:002010-03-04T22:10:28.162-08:00John1453: "... and Doppleganger indicated tha...<b>John1453:</b> "<i>... and Doppleganger indicated that you believed in a 4,500 year existence of humans.</i>"<br /><br />If associate professor (*) Page says, "<i>The sky is blue</i>," the wise man will go check for himself.<br /><br />Associate professor Page also said: "<i>As for Ilion's charges, well, I expect such hyperbole and aspersion casting from a computer technician with no background in scioence who desperately attempts to prop up his silly beliefs by regurgitating nonsense about evolution.</i>"<br /><br />Now, associate parasite Page knows that his factual claim is factually false, and (since he's not actually stupid) he knows that his implied argument is logically invalid, which is to say, illogical. And yet, he says this same thing I've quoted here. Constantly. <br /><br /><br />(*) i.e. Mr Page is a tax-funded parasite who seems to spend an inordinate amount of his tax-payer subsidized time trolling the internet. And cyber-stalking lil' old me.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16831097085918509282010-03-04T21:59:23.742-08:002010-03-04T21:59:23.742-08:00John,
I did not get defensive -- that accusation, ...John,<br />I did not get defensive -- that accusation, by the way, is almost always the expression of a passive-aggressive mindset.<br /><br />And if you don't like snarkiness from me, then don't ask an <i>ad hominem</i> question (especially one about me).<br /><br /><br />"<i>I merely asked a question and did not write anything pejorative about YECs.</i>"<br /><br />You don't really understand what '<i>ad hominem</i>' means, do you?<br /><br />You question was '<i>ad hominem</i> in nature not because you said anything pejorative (or complimentary!) about YECs, but because whether I am or am not a YEC has absolutely nothing to do with the <i>arguments</i> I make.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1959041661246523642010-03-04T16:14:38.811-08:002010-03-04T16:14:38.811-08:00Zachriel: Evolution, the change in heritable trait...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Evolution, the change in heritable traits over time, is directly observed. Evolution is a fact.</i><br /><br /><b>#John1453</b>: <i>Equivocation in terms, and consequently a point not proved.</i><br /><br />It's not an equivocation when using a well-established definition of "evolution" and drawing a careful distinction between that and the "Theory of Evolution." <br /><br /><b>#John1453</b>: <i>Evolution, in the Darwinian or neoDarwinian sense, is not merely the "change in heritable traits over time". It is much more than that. It is the belief (well, faith really) that mutation of DNA coupled with variable death rates will necessarily result in the development of novel structures and in such significant changes between ancestor and descendent organisms that they consitute entirely different organisms.</i><br /><br />That's a rather poor restatement of aspects of the Theory of Evolution. It's not variable death rates, but the correlation between variations in heritable traits and variations in reproductive potential. As for the differences between ancestors and descendents, the evidence clearly indicates that organisms have and do change substantially over time. The best evidence for that remains Common Descent. There's no point discussing mechanisms if you reject that organisms have descended with modification from common ancestors. Common Descent needs be established first. <br /><br /><b>#John1453</b>: <i>However, the Galapagos finches are not undergoing the kind of change that will lead to novel structures or to a significantly different organism. </i><br /><br />The rate of evolution in Galápagos Finches is much, much faster than required to explain the historical pattern. <br /><br /><b>#John1453</b>: <i>We will never see a Galapagos Finch become flightless, then become a shore bird, then become a flightless diving bird that only breeds on land, then become a whale-like organism that spends its entire existence at sea, and that then develops baleen and eats krill and then becomes huge.</i><br /><br />Instead, you have marine iguanas, vampire finches and flightless cormorants. In addition, the time on Galápagos has been quite short. We know this from the geology of the Islands. In any case, life adapts to its own needs without checking your arbitrary goals. <br /><br /><b>#John1453</b>: <i>The falsification merely becomes another "correction" (or epicycle) to the theory.</i><br /><br />Darwin posited coevolution in <i>Origin of Species</i> in 1859, so it's hardly an epicycle. Darwin was a careful observer, and his <i>Fertilisation of Orchids</i> in 1862 expanded on the subject.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73118822610391652102010-03-04T15:43:36.241-08:002010-03-04T15:43:36.241-08:00Ilion, no need to get defensive or snarky; I merel...Ilion, no need to get defensive or snarky; I merely asked a question and did not write anything pejorative about YECs. I don't know much about the people that blog here, and Doppleganger indicated that you believed in a 4,500 year existence of humans. I did not know whether he was using that as a slur against anyone who does not beleive in evolution, or whether he was referring specifically to something you had written on another thread.<br /><br />regards,<br />#JohnJohn I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10739187126377072292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85548915205752395362010-03-04T15:36:47.554-08:002010-03-04T15:36:47.554-08:00Zach: "Evolution, the change in heritable tra...Zach: "Evolution, the change in heritable traits over time, is directly observed. Evolution is a fact."<br /><br />Equivocation in terms, and consequently a point not proved.<br /><br />Evolution, in the Darwinian or neoDarwinian sense, is not <i>merely</i> the "change in heritable traits over time". It is much more than that. It is the belief (well, faith really) that mutation of DNA coupled with variable death rates will necessarily result in the development of novel structures <i>and</i> in such significant changes between ancestor and descendent organisms that they consitute entirely different organisms.<br /><br />There there is "change in heritable traits over time" is something that everyone believes in. Even my Mennonite grandfather believed in it, because he bred pigs and cattle and could the changes occur. Galapagos finch variation is evidence of it. However, the Galapagos finches are not undergoing the kind of change that will lead to novel structures or to a significantly different organism. <br /><br />We will never see a Galapagos Finch become flightless, then become a shore bird, then become a flightless diving bird that only breeds on land, then become a whale-like organism that spends its entire existence at sea, and that then develops baleen and eats krill and then becomes huge. However, given the darwinist theory of random undirected mutational change that sort of just so story is (in their minds) entirely possible.<br /><br />The point about the garter snakes, however, is smaller that that undermining argument. The garter snake article provides an example of the Borg-like character of Darwinian evolution. It absorbs every single falsification of its predictions into itself. The falsification merely becomes another "correction" (or epicycle) to the theory. The theory itself is not falsifiable; there is no finding that could not be absorbed by making some change to the myth itself. <br /><br />And just so that it's clear, I'm not using "myth" in the sense of a story that is not true, but in the sense of a story that--whether or not it is true or false--provides meaning and structure to the individuals who hold to it. (Hence, in that sense Christianity is also "myth", though a myth that I believe is true). However, I do note that Christianity is, or was, falsifiable: had the body of Jesus been produced, then it could not be believed that he physically rose from the dead.<br /><br />regards,<br />#JohnJohn I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10739187126377072292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46762570453799209012010-03-04T14:15:57.490-08:002010-03-04T14:15:57.490-08:00Folks:
===
Evolution, the change in heritable tra...Folks:<br /><br />===<br />Evolution, the change in heritable traits over time, is directly observed. Evolution is a fact. -- Zach<br />===<br /><br />Zach is a well-informed, intelligent, evolutionist. In other words, his arguments for evolution are about as good as they get.<br /><br />And yes, the above argument is typical. There is so much equivocation in evolutionary thought, and yet these people are not stupid. What this tells you is that evolutionary thought is bankrupt.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39768815845044254402010-03-04T11:14:08.620-08:002010-03-04T11:14:08.620-08:00Ilion: But neither of those two distinct meanings ...<b>Ilion</b>: <i>But neither of those two distinct meanings of the word 'fact' is even remotely covered by "well supported scientific theory."</i><br /><br />"Fact" can mean a direct observation, or it can mean <a href="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html" rel="nofollow">"confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."</a> On the other hand, a theory is not a fact, but an explanatory framework comprised of a number of interrelated claims. <br /><br /><a href="http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html" rel="nofollow">Evolution</a>, the change in heritable traits over time, is directly observed. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is comprised of a number of well-supported claims about evolutionary mechanisms and history.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38258477126285581722010-03-04T10:10:36.960-08:002010-03-04T10:10:36.960-08:00I make it a practice not even to read Page's p...I make it a practice not even to read Page's posts, anywhere. Thus, until just now, I'd seen only the portion of his response that Mr Hunter had chosen to duplicate.<br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter (to Page):</b> "<i>Do you believe evolution is a fact?</i>"<br /><br /><b>S L Page:</b> "<i>It depends on what you mean by evolution.<br /><br />Change through time?<br /><br />Certainly.<br /><br />Evolution as in the ToE? The ToE is a well supported scientific theory.</i>"<br /><br />The meaning of the question depends upon just what is meant by the word 'evolution' *and* just what is meant by the word 'fact.' 'Evolution' is used to refer to several distinct things; 'fact' is used to refer to two distinct things.<br /><br />But neither of those two distinct meanings of the word 'fact' is even remotely covered by "<i>well supported scientific theory</i>."Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22837908260413641212010-03-04T09:55:30.636-08:002010-03-04T09:55:30.636-08:00Cornelius Hunter: "Do you believe evolution i...<b>Cornelius Hunter:</b> "<i>Do you believe evolution is a fact?</i>"<br /><br /><b>S L Page:</b> "<i>Evolution as in the ToE? The ToE is a well supported scientific theory.</i>"<br /><br /><b>Zachriel:</b> "<i>Evolution is well-supported scientific fact. The Theory of Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory.</i>"<br /><br />Now, in Mr Hunter's question, the words 'evolution' and 'fact' both leave way too much room for evasive answers which appear on the surface to be direct, non-evasive answers. Nevertheless, our heros chose the obviously evasive response.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11390555919064360332010-03-04T09:45:24.180-08:002010-03-04T09:45:24.180-08:00John1453: "Is Ilion a young earth creationist...<b>John1453:</b> "<i>Is Ilion a young earth creationist?</i>"<br /><br />Is John1453 an <i>ad hominem</i>ist?<br /><br />Why! Yes, he is!Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2154317246008771552010-03-04T09:40:58.218-08:002010-03-04T09:40:58.218-08:00Cornelius Hunter: Do you believe evolution is a fa...<b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>Do you believe evolution is a fact?</i><br /><br />Evolution is well-supported scientific fact. The Theory of Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28934764836868153592010-03-04T09:39:29.485-08:002010-03-04T09:39:29.485-08:00Yeah, there's nothing like not yourself believ...Yeah, there's nothing like not yourself believing to be, you know, <i>actually true</i>, some set of claims that you're trying to convince (*) others to believe to be true, and which you try to insist they have no right to not believe to be true.<br /><br /><br />(*) Though, admittedly, 'convince' isn't quite the word to use of the anti-logical approach employed by "Darwinists" all up and down the food chain.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22169763793368178242010-03-04T09:05:29.912-08:002010-03-04T09:05:29.912-08:00Doppelganger:
====
Seems to be a fantasy version ...Doppelganger:<br /><br />====<br />Seems to be a fantasy version of events.<br />If that is the way YOU do such analyses, then YOUR analyses are suspect, however, I am unaware of anyone doing them the way you describe.<br />====<br /><br />Hmm, a "fantasy version of events." That is quite a claim. So data are not processed, homologous sequences are not compared, reruns are not made with various settings, outliers are not explained in evolutionary terms? Yeah, it's all just a fantasy.<br /><br /><br />===<br />"Do you believe evolution is a fact?"<br /><br />Evolution as in the ToE? The ToE is a well supported scientific theory.<br />===<br /><br />Classic evasion. Evolution is constantly mandated as "true," "a fact," "beyond a shadow of doubt," etc. Then when confronted, evolutionists suddenly clam up. Uh, uh, it's a "well supported theory."<br /><br />Where did that certainty go? How did the bravado suddenly disappear? Pathetic. They can't actually own up to their claim for obvious reasons, but they can't admit their absurdity. What a scam.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88293032664015565752010-03-04T08:12:25.894-08:002010-03-04T08:12:25.894-08:00#John1453: {you need to be able to sequence a dino...<b>#John1453</b>: <i>{you need to be able to sequence a dinosaur's genome then point to every mutation before you can determine that they evolved.}</i><br /><br />That is the source of your confusion. Darwin didn't need a theory of genetics in order to propose a valid scientific theory of evolution (whether you accept his argument or not). If we had to know everything before reaching any conclusions, science would be impotent. <br /><br /><b>#John1453</b>: <i>BTW, the Vampire Finch example was good. Is there an associated DNA change?</i><br /><br />Yes. For instance, the beak is sharper than any other subspecies. Again, we don't need a theory of genetics to be able to determine that <i>septentrionalis</i> has evolved. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X" rel="nofollow">Peter and Rosemary Grant</a> have observed generations of Darwin's Finches over the past thirty years. They can catalog the evolution of these species *independently* of any theory of genetics. But we do have a valid theory of genetics, and we can predict that there will be genetic changes consistent with mutational theory associated with these differences in beak and other characteristics. <br /><br />Abzhanov et al., <i>Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches</i>, Science 2004. <br /><br /><b>#John1453</b>: <i>Shoot, even after eons the Galapagos finches can't even out compete each other with evolved fancy bird-of-paradise-like plumage.</i><br /><br />Hardly eons; just a few million years. And again, evolution doesn't have to meet your arbitrary criteria. Song may be a more important mechanism, as it is in many birds. <br /><br />Grant & Grant, <i>Darwin's finches: Population variation and sympatric speciation</i>, PNAS 1979. <br /><br />Grant & Grant, <i>Mating patterns of Darwin's Finch hybrids determined by song and morphology</i>, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2008. <br /><br /><b>#John1453</b>: <i>Except that common descent has not been established.</i><br /><br />Of course it has, for applicable taxa. Let's concentrate on the Common Descent of Darwin's Finches, in particular the subspecies of <i>Geospiza difficilis</i>.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59943928076380260222010-03-04T06:41:48.796-08:002010-03-04T06:41:48.796-08:00"You seem to be saying you need to be able to..."You seem to be saying you need to be able to sequence a dinosaur's genome then point to every mutation before you can determine that they evolved."<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />BTW, the Vampire Finch example was good. Is there an associated DNA change?John I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10739187126377072292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48001039881437306222010-03-04T06:38:15.739-08:002010-03-04T06:38:15.739-08:00"once having established Common Descent"..."once having established Common Descent"<br /><br />Except that common descent has not been established.<br /><br />Furthermore, even if it were established, that does not entail that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution was the process by which the middle ear came about. It still has not been demonstrated anywhere that DNA mutation and associated decreased death rates can create new structures in an organism or new organisms.<br /><br />Shoot, even after eons the Galapagos finches can't even out compete each other with evolved fancy bird-of-paradise-like plumage.<br /><br />regards,<br />#JohnJohn I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10739187126377072292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39149495768838326182010-03-04T06:33:20.504-08:002010-03-04T06:33:20.504-08:00Is Ilion a young earth creationist?
regards,
#Joh...Is Ilion a young earth creationist?<br /><br />regards,<br />#JohnJohn I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10739187126377072292noreply@blogger.com