A New Theory of Evolution

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Evolution | 338 Comments

 
«
»
 

338 Comments

Bob Logan says:
May 2, 2010 at 2:44 pm

Darwin was right based on the knowledge available in the latter half of the 18 Century. Einstein may not have believed in the GOD of the bible but in creating the “The Theory of Relativity” he asserted that he did it by trying to understand the MIND OF GOD. Einstein’s GOD was one of theoretical mathematics and physics. My GOD is revealed through the works of men like Darwin and Einstein. Both have revealed in far greater majesty than any religious book ever could the beauty and simplicity of the material universe.My heart and soul goes out in thanks to all the Scientists who toil daily to try to reveal the logical MIND OF GOD. GOD works through these Scientists to allow us to ultimately know the MIND OF GOD.

kincadeda says:
July 12, 2010 at 7:22 pm

Great post Bob.

I’d like to add that IMHO many people out there mis-understand positions of many people in science pertaining to god.

In order to label a scientist an atheist or non-believer one has to define God. Going back in time often ones opinion about certain findings might be enough to label them a non-believer by the generally accepted version of God at that time.

Even today… given strict Catholic Dogma for example, it’s easy to see why Dawkins would say he’s an atheist… taken literally, I am an atheist (towards that God) also… but of course… I’m not.

OTOH, I certainly think Dawkins wastes his time, as to claim there is no God is non-sensical since every person has a different idea of what/who god is. How can one claim every version of God false?

On the third hand, since written and spoken words are linear and reality is NOT linear, I suppose one could say all versions anyone could describe verbally is false. :) )

“The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao”.

DAK

Ergo says:
May 9, 2010 at 12:03 am

Question for Perry Marshall: Perry, you’ve argued an airtight evidence-based case for ‘meaningful intelligence’ rather than ‘dumb luck’ as being the operating principle underlying the existence of living things on the planet.

However, given your scientific self-discipline for evidence-constrained inference (as opposed to the meandering ‘hand wavy’ excesses of Darwinism), I’m curious how you manage to still hold on to this one central tenet of Darwinian evolution: “interspecies transition” (or so I’ll call it here); in other words, that a species can evolve into a new, separate and distinct species (e.g. non-human apelike “hominids” evolving to become humans, etc, etc…) at all. Logistical difficulties notwithstanding, where or when, whether in nature or even, say, under artificial conditions in a laboratory, has such an ‘interspecies transition’ ever been scientifically observed to occur?

Thank you,
Ergo

[Please note: my use of the term "species" here is restricted to this non-esoteric definition: taxonomic group whose members cannot interbreed with members of other species; historically also called, "kinds".]

Perry Marshall says:
July 1, 2010 at 11:31 pm

Ergo,

2 things create new species:

1) Symbiogenesis (look it up on Wikipedia) – I’m not sure it’s been observed in the lab per se but it’s a merging of two species to form a new one.

2) Ohno’s 2R hypothesis – it’s not lab verified but genetics / DNA research strongly indicates that a genome doubled and a sea squirt evolved into a hagfish in one generation. Then another genome doubling occurred and a vertebrate became a jawed vertebrate in one generation.

These are extremely rare events but the indications are that they do happen, and evolution lurches forward suddenly rather than in the gradual morphing that the Darwinians always told us about.

Carbon-based Machine says:
May 18, 2010 at 12:07 am

I have a question, and I wasn’t sure where else to ask it:

Is it true that no (or very few) transitional fossils exist?

From what I understand, the Cambrian Explosion involved many species suddenly appearing ‘overnight’. Is this true? If so, how would their microscopic ancestors mutated so fast to form into these new species? I suppose that punctuated equilibrium would be a correct term, and I’d assume that intelligently-guided mutations could have quickly transformed some of these microscopic life-forms. It just blows my mind to think of how that would have occurred. For example, trilobites appeared suddenly in the fossil record, with all of their tissues, organs, body plans, nervous systems, and even their eyes fully intact.

Sean says:
May 19, 2010 at 10:11 am

Perry,
Great website! I’m glad to see that a strong (irrefutable?) argument against neo-darwinism has finally made it to the blogosphere. And you included proof of an intelligent creator as well. Excellent. Back in college I would argue with my science geek buddies in favor of Lamarckian vs Darwinian evolution. In 1989 I wrote a paper for a molecular genetics class entitled “Directed Mutation?” describing the evidence presented by a number of scientists for an apparently directed, adaptive genetic mutations.

I agree with everything you’ve put forward regarding the nature of the genetic code and the idea that this code could not arise by chance. I also believe in God, though not exactly the Sunday school version. I believe that a creative intelligence created the universe with all its components and physical laws and that God is still involved with the creative process from large-scale cosmological events to sub-atomic activity to the origin and evolution of life – the most fascinating aspect of creation. I believe God effects change through physical laws. I also believe that the physical laws with which we are familiar (gravity, EM, etc.) have a divine element that we have not yet been able to discern. This divine element keeps the wheels on the wagon so to speak.

Given that evolution occurs using physical laws, I’m interested in exactly how a molecule of DNA can sense and respond to changes in the environment. What is the molecular mechanism that can produce a specific phenotypic response to an external prompt in a differentiated body cell and then transduce this beneficial genetic change into the germ line of an organism?

The “Somatic Selection Theory” put forth by E.J. Steele in 1979 is summarized as follows: First, chance mutations are generated in somatic cells under environmental selection pressure of some sort. These modifications are selected and these cells proliferate. An endogenous RNA virus then picks up the mRNA responsible for the advantageous modification and transduces this information into the germline. Once in the germline, the mRNA is copied into DNA through the action of viral reverse transcriptase and incorporated into the parent chromosome by recombination with he corresponding gene.

Wow. There are a lot of “and then a miracle happens” statements in that summary, but at least people are looking at how evolution could occur other than through the natural selection of random mutations.

Keep up the good work,
Sean

Felix Rocha Martinez says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:45 pm

Perry S. Marshall,
Please read the article “Beyond the Book of Life”. In it I give the whole meaning of “Junk” genes. You may find it in http://www.cicatrices.com.mx
In the same blog you can find my Response to “Evidence for Turtle Evolution” written by creationists and my response in 3 parts to atheist Richard Dawkins’s “The Angry Evolutionist”. I am sure you will find them interesting.
Felix Rocha Martinez, frocham@yahoo.com

adistyer says:
May 21, 2010 at 5:18 am

Haven’t seen this here yet, but I thought it might stir some interest. I guess it cements Perry’s ideas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form

Enjoy!

JWhit says:
May 28, 2010 at 8:35 pm

Perry,
My name is John and I have been very intrigued by your series of emails on intelligent design. I’m only up to the second one but couldn’t wait til the end to ask you an important question.

Do you understand the Neo-Darwinism theory of evolution? Sounds like a stupid question I know but the analogies you make consistently point to an incredibly poor understanding of the theory. This is a quote from you:

Imagine that it (MS DOS) then developed networking features. Imagine that, sensing that it needed an email client, evolved Outlook Express. One day the Outlook icon was suddenly there on your desktop. You clicked on it and as you began to use it, it added and subtracted features to suit you.

This has absolutely no relevence to the theory of evolution. where is the selective pressure? where is the heritable variation? where is the genetic fitness? It seems you have confused Charles Darwin with Jean Baptiste Lamarck. tisk tisk

again I quote from you:

(Rog hits Grog over the head with a rock and kills him,
then they both get eaten by a hungry tiger. Survival of the
fittest… nothing profound about that.)

How is this survival of the fittest as defined by the theory of evolution? i ask again, where is the selective pressure? where is the heritable variation? where is the genetic fitness? you continue to show complete ignorance to the theory you are contesting.

again i quote from you:

And it’s also not because the “random mutation” model
works. It actually doesn’t. I’ve been debating this online
for 5 years and I have yet to have one person send me a
link or refer to a book that says, “Here is the actual
experiment that proves random mutations drive evolution.”

The mutations which drive evolution are by and large not random. any high school biology teacher worth his salt can tell you that. the variance in the population is caused largely by recombination and crossing over during meiosis. yet another example of you rebutting a completly fictional theory to make your own seem more sound.

I also know that you are wrong about random mutatations always being harmful and I can give you an example of this if you would like. I say this not to contradict my last statement, random mutations are not the main driving force of evolution(thats sexual reproduction) but because random mutations do play a part.

I must say though that you are doing a very good job of rebutting the theory of evolution as you apparently see it. the trouble is what you are rebutting is not the theory of evolution at all.

This leaves me with two possible conclusions.

The first is that you are woefully ignorant of what the theory of evolution actually is. this makes you a well intentioned if not well informed activist, not a great spot to be, but harly new.

The second is much more concerning. I am worried that you DO understand how evolution works but choose to be deliberately misleading to your readers. since you seem to be a very smart and well informed man I’m afriad im going with option two at the moment.

Perry Marshall says:
July 1, 2010 at 11:27 pm

The following is from Jerry Coyne’s book “Why Evolution is True” (c)2009. (Oh, and by the way this is a really excellent book from the standpoint of making a strong argument for common descent).

Coyne says:

“On the basis of many laboratory experiments, scientists have concluded that mutations occur randomly. The term “random” here has a specific meaning that is often understood, even by biologists. What this means is that mutations occur regardless of whether they would be useful to the individual. Mutations are simply errors in DNA replication. Most of them are harmful or neutral, but a few can turn out to be useful. The useful ones are the raw material for evolution. But there is no known biological way to jack up the probability that a mutation will meet the current adaptive needs of the organism.”

This is just simply false. Frankly he should know better – there is no reason for him not to be aware of McClintock’s work etc etc. Some of the best research in that field is done at Coyne’s university, the U. of Chicago.

This is THE standard, party-line, atheist version of evolution, my friend. Read Coyne’s book, read a Dawkins book.

I fully understand that there are many other mechanisms. But you can’t generally go to a bookstore and buy a book that explains any of them in language that normal people understand.

If his book were up to date it would say something more like this:

“On the basis of many laboratory experiments, scientists have concluded that evolutionary mutations do not occur randomly. In fact, DNA has elaborate mechanisms that prevent errors in DNA replication. Redundancy in the genetic code ensures that many small mutations are neutralized instead of harmful. But in general, copying errors are almost always harmful and have never been proven beneficial to DNA in any laboratory experiment.

“On the other hand, DNA has a marvelous function called Natural Genetic Engineering. It kicks in when an organism is under stress. Mutations only happen when necessary. DNA intentionally mutates by re-arranging genes and chromosomes. A predictive algorithm chooses mutations that are likely to meet the current adaptive needs of the organism. These evolutionary mechanisms are called Natural Genetic Engineering, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics and genome doubling.”

As for DOS and computers – you ask:

“where is the selective pressure? where is the heritable variation? where is the genetic fitness?”

The Internet is an environment that has all kinds of selective pressure. As is the marketplace for software. If Darwinian evolution were true then copying errors of software programs would occasionally improve them. You can easily define fitness of software in both mechanical and economic terms. But the randomness theory of evolution does not give us better software at all, ever.

bombit123 says:
June 2, 2010 at 4:19 am

As all i can say to your debate and discussion, this kind of subject is never ending and only gives confusion to the readers. Like the 10^73 chance of life will appear to the earth. My opinion is that, we are here because that little chance is right enough to make life appear. Its only and opinion, however.
But who knows? Maybe Sir Perry’s Theory is right or maybe wrong. It’s like wondering why ever waste time living if you will end up dying? All we can do is to wait for the sufficient information to come or maybe its unacquirable afterall. Be open minded and practical. Have you ever wondered of how did you gained some consciousness? If you really think deeper about it, its really hard to imagine that the root of it is the atoms or some quarks. Anything can happen in this infinite reality.

tlgaia says:
June 7, 2010 at 5:14 am

Perry you wrote:
> Show me a code that is not designed.

arent animal languages a type of code? were animal languages designed?

very interesting blog post and comments, thanks everyone so far =)

tlg

Perry Marshall says:
July 1, 2010 at 10:41 pm

animal codes are products of DNA so they don’t count

Andreb says:
June 7, 2010 at 7:28 am

Hello Perry,

Thank you so much for your website and your e-mails. I’ve been reading them with profound curiosity and an open mind and I enjoy your reasoning very much. I’d like to ask you a couple of questions.

In an e-mail I received from you, you state:

“A protozoa under stress will splice its own DNA into over
100,000 pieces. Then a program senses hundreds of variables
in its environment and re-arranges those pieces to produce
a new, better, evolved protozoa.”

My questions are:

1) How do the protozoa “feel” it is under stress? What is the mechanism that makes it “sense” the variables in its environment and thus splice its own DNA?

2) How can such a mechanism work in sexual reproduction? I mean, does the DNA present in the spermatozoid carry with it the “stress input” necessary to command the intelligent splicing due to the pressure of the environment? How does it even sense the environment?

Thank you very much for your attention in advance.

In Christ,

Andre.

Perry Marshall says:
July 1, 2010 at 10:41 pm

Cells sense their environment just like we do. Exactly how? I’m not the guy to ask. But pick up a text on microorganisms and you’ll find all kinds of interesting things.

As for (2) this is called “epigenetics.” Wikipedia has a good story about how children born during the dutch famine had different metabolisms than kids born at different times.

Plutarch says:
June 9, 2010 at 1:38 pm

At one point you state:

1. DNA is a code
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed
3. Therefore DNA is designed
4. Therefore there is a God

An essential premise is missing here, i.e. that we know the origin of the DNA code. This you have assumed to be God and therefore have begged the question.

In another place you state that noise is sometimes intentionally added to improve the performance of digital systems (dither) but that it does not improve the signal. That is an arguable statement, but what is not arguable is that it improves the performance, just as it was discovered that the performance of mechanical equipment used on aircraft in World War II was actually improved by the juddering of the plane which made the equipment run more smoothly. This was purely fortuitous (random) addition of “noise” that improved performance. Therefore you cannot use the “noise” argument to state that a random change in DNA can never produce a better-performing animal that natural selection will favour.

pramodkaimal says:
June 16, 2010 at 5:34 am

Mind itself is an Intelligent creation (if all this is a “creation”? as what this Mind is ONLY capable of (THINK in TIME SPACE & CAUSALITY (TSC) TSC is MIND), but one is AWARE that this mind is a just a part of this totality, so all this lengthy talks and mental gymnastics is because the part is TRYING to UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE. JUST BE AWARE, AWARENESS, ISNESS, KNOWLEDGE AND BLISS IS IS.

pramodkaimal says:
June 17, 2010 at 12:02 am

I posted some views yesterday, the 16th of June, that MIND being PART of THIS THAT IS, and QUESTIONING BEING THE Nature of MIND, the PART (MIND) TRYING TO UNDERSTAND (understanding being it’s NATURE OF FUNCTIONING) (Like Nose trying to SMELL THE ORIGIN of WORLD) is just Mental GYMNASTICS. But it seems to have been moderated out… so be it, be to thy selves. Good day.. happy gym to all participants

Yanbo says:
June 17, 2010 at 11:46 am

Mr Marshall,

I would first like to thank you for taking the time to research this topic as many of the overzealous members of the evolution camps do not. However, and correct me if I am mistaken, you have based the entirity of your “disproving” of Darwinian evolution on the fact that, in your work as a communications engineer, corrupting of data is never good. However, DNA is not only a language, it has punctuation. There are specific sections of DNA which say “Right, this is the end of this protein chain. Move onto the next one and release this protein.” By corrupting these punctuation marks, the ribosomial system would discount the genetic “full stops and “commas” and join two proteins together with hitherto unexplored consequnces. And who is to say that one day that two proteins were joined up in such a way that they form a new, beneficial protein which may instigate different behaviours upon our hypothetical cell.

Yours Sincerely

Yanbo

Eagle777 says:
June 17, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Hi Perry and all readers,

Your videos got my attention and I read a few of the blogs. I agree that everything created was by Gods word and was spoken into being. We don’t have to understand how it works, we just believe it.
I read your explanation of Genesis but the way way you see it makes the Bible lie and we know that cannot be. You do agree that the plants and animals were created before Adam in Genesis 1. Then Genesis wil be false as it states that Adam was made a living soul before most of the other life forms.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

And then later the animals.

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.

Remember the 7th day? God RESTED. Past tense. So we are talking of two creations in Genesis 1 and 2.

Do you see that?

I will post the explanation after you have seen the problem.

Chris

Perry Marshall says:
June 29, 2010 at 8:41 pm

listen to my genesis 2 lectures at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/the-new-atheism/

If we follow your interpretation of Genesis, then Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2. Not if you apply mine.

Eagle777 says:
June 30, 2010 at 4:45 am

Hi Perry,

I listened to your interpretation and it does not ring true. The whole Boble must glow or agree with what you see elsewhere in the Bible.

You say that Adam was born from a mother. That would make Adam the first born son of God and not Jesus.

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;

He was the first born from a female by the pure Word of God. No sexual act involved. Since then we can be reborn by the pure Word of God (with no dogmas and men’s words mixed in). The unadulterated Word.

We see what happened to Eve when she did not believe the whole Word and the serpent beguiled her and she had a son that was not Adam’s son ( Cain) then Adam knew his wife and the twin brother was born (Abel) that was the son of Adam. From then on Sons of God was born by sex and not the Word of God like they should have been. That is where Genesis 6 comes in.

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Adams sons later saw the daughters from Cains side and started mixing with them.

You see Genesis 1 as the actual creation and Genesis 2 as spiritual. It is the other way round.

It took God 6000 years to think and speak it all out and then rested for 1000 years (2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. ) Then measured time stopped and the actual creation started which could be millions or trillions of years. When Adam and Eve fell 6000 years ago measured time started again.

You can say God took 6000 years to create His Eden and it took Satan 6000 years to create his eden. We are now on the brink of the seventh day.

Perry Marshall says:
October 10, 2010 at 2:29 am

Genesis 4:1 “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.”

jviddie37 says:
June 30, 2010 at 10:39 am

Does the fact that DNA has an alphabet of only four letters make a difference? Because it looks like it would, if only four letters were able to interchange to make up a three letter sequence to code for an amino acid then the range of possibilities increases. Maybe that’s why it would produce something “intelligible” in the cell much more often.

ramsaik10 says:
July 2, 2010 at 8:52 am

All is ONE & one is ALL when the EGO is annihilated. EGO also called “edging out god” is the definition that one gives to oneself. Either by limiting oneself to be a human (father, mother, child only) or recognizing oneself as the eternal light (joy, peace, truth along with the worldly relationships). ONLY those who reached minimal EGO will pop-up the question “WHO AM I” coz they have no identity in their mind having comprehended the ever changing state of the body, mind and life (hence no eternal definition). The rest swirl in the whirlpool of the world and hence have no time to address existential queries. Depending on the EGO state one will gyrate towards either one of the ends. When one is in the here and now, only then will one comprehend the oneness of the universe and experience their oneness with the universe, and thus experience SYNCHRONICITY which leads to the state of “AHAM BRAHMASMI” or I am the universe (Godhood). Then they stop thinking for themselves and accept life as it is and lead their lives from moment to moment as the situation demands, without oscillating between the past and the future. Thus with no liabilities of TIME their space too reflects Brotherhood. In fact as the ancient Hindu’s and modern Quantum know the reality itself becomes fluid, morphing according to ones state of mind. This is the reason the EVOLVED ONES visit planet Earth time and again to expound the truth of oneness through the iconic god’s prevalent at that time. In truth there is no GOD, just one’s oneness and the beliefs one holds, be it rational self-confidence or irrational GOD. This is the reason why no one can either prove or disprove the existence of GOD since primarily it is the mindset that resolves every day life and thus their opinion of GOD.

In the end the eternal paradox of the universe holds true- Only when I am nothing(no ego) do I exist as everything(one with the universal consciousness) as expounded in ZEN(un-defined Buddhism) or the Beatles’ number “Nowhere Man”). Coz when you are ONE where is the other to project one’s ego. It’s like telling the mirror who I am.

http://ramsaik10.wordpress.com

levgilman says:
July 2, 2010 at 3:10 pm

A reply to
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/testable-hypothesis-id-3/comment-page-2/#comment-4553
(where “reply” link doesn’t appear)

Consider a program consisting of two modules. The first module replicates genomes with random mutations and sends them to the second; the second module translates genomes into phenotypes and tests them in a model world, then sends to the first module the ONLY information going that direction – identity numbers of genomes whose phenotypes succeeded in the test. By the way, mutations don’t need to be completely random – what makes this algorithm Darwinistic is lack of information other than the metioned identity numbers passing from the tester to the genome breeder.

As one possibility, take a breeder that takes random pairs of survived genomes (without modelling mate selection) and creates the third one by any algorithm, possibly very nonrandom, with the only limitation that the two parental genomes are its ONLY input.

There is nothing wrong in having selection criterii artificial, but if you are in trouble with that – OK, what if selection goal is color pattern to attract real bees, with bee visits authomatically registered?

Do you claim that no system fitting the description above can evolve functionality that isn’t built-in and appears designed?

rbarnes says:
July 6, 2010 at 11:42 pm

I am troubled by your conclusions, you assume that there is a god. Man created god so there is your flaw. If you read the history of the church you will see where church leaders created things such as heaven and hell, angels, the devil and much more. Man has created god out of ignorance and needing something to explain why they are here. After many years of study my eyes were opened with what the church really knows and still forces it on the people for two reasons, Power and Money! They prey on the weak, the poor and the ignorant.

You make assumptions and come to conclusions that based on one great flaw, there is no such thing as an all powerful god controlling things. you use the arguments:

Least Plausible Hypothesis:
ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: “I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies.”

There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called “Occam’s Razor”, and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be “the most parsimonious”, meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.

On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them “If you hear hoof beats, don’t automatically think of zebras”.

Argument By Scenario:
telling a story which ties together unrelated material, and then using the story as proof they are related.

kincadeda says:
July 12, 2010 at 7:39 pm

rbarns:

Good point about the Church and God… BUT IMHO there is ‘some’ evidence of God in that there are similar reports about the experience of God among all the “mystical” characters throught history: Jesus, Lao, Tzu, Buddah, etc. Their teachings are very similar in many respects… I think you can find info by doing a search.

That said, I like your point in that defining God would be done differently by everyone… and certainly the Church “created” their own version and built up a huge dogma around itself for self promoting, etc.

Further, and lastly think of God as the sunset tonight… EVERY person would probably experience it differently and write down or speak somthing different about it… that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

DAK

kincadeda says:
August 7, 2010 at 11:28 am

I don’t see how all this religious talk is on topic… “God”, after all, is a subjective idea… different to everyone. I believe there is a “god” for example… yet I”m sure I”m “atheist” to all sorts of versions of god spewed by radical types.

DK

Comment Page 5 of 6« Oldest...«23456»

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.