Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Sunday, February 21 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1313
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 11:34:51 -0800
From: "Arthur V. Chadwick" <chadwicka@swau.edu>
Subject: Re: Cambrian Explosion in Berkeley
Prof. J.Y. Chen of the Chinese Academy of Sciences gave a lecture Tuesday
at the University of California, Berkeley, under the auspices of the U.C.
Museum of Paleontology. Prof. Chen's lecture was similar to the one he
gave at the University of Washington in Seattle on Feb. 3 that was
mentioned previously.
Prof. Chen is one of the world's top experts on Cambrian animal fossils.
His main point was that the major animal phyla arose suddenly and fully
formed in the early Cambrian. Since the early Cambrian fauna from
Chengjiang, China, includes soft-bodied animals, the absence of precursors
presents a serious challenge to Darwinian evolution (the usual excuse being
that the precursors were soft-bodied and thus did not fossilize well).
Prof. Chen made his point forcefully and repeatedly, and compared the
seriousness of his challenge to Darwinism with the irreducible complexity
argument of Mike Behe.
The lecture was well-attended. Over 50 people were there, including
Berkeley paleontologists James Valentine, David Lindberg and Jere Lipps,
and evolutionary biologist Harry Greene.
Questions after the lecture were fairly technical, focusing on details of
the fossils described by Prof. Chen. Clearly, no one was eager to tackle
the "challenge to Darwinism" issue.
Following the lecture and discussion, dozens of participants crowded around
the impressive collection of fossils which Prof. Chen had brought with him
from China. Later that evening he spoke at Prof. Lipps's class, which I
missed due to a prior commitment.
The correspondent pointed out to Prof. Chen that criticizing Darwinism in
the U.S. can be quite
controversial -- even risky. Prof. Chen laughed, and said he wasn't
afraid. He
remarked that in the U.S. it's OK to criticize the government, but not
Darwinism, while in China it's OK to criticize Darwinism, but not the
government.
Prof. Chen is speaking at universities around the United States in advance
of a conference to be held next June near the Chengjiang fossil site in
China. The conference, sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, will
focus on the origin of animal body plans. Research for the Chengjiang
project was partially financed by the National Geographic Society.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:51:31 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Cambrian Explosion in Berkeley
Prof. Chen is one of the world's top experts on Cambrian animal fossils. =
His main point was that the major animal phyla arose suddenly and fully
formed in the early Cambrian. Since the early Cambrian fauna from
Chengjiang, China, includes soft-bodied animals, the absence of =
precursors
presents a serious challenge to Darwinian evolution (the usual excuse =
being
that the precursors were soft-bodied and thus did not fossilize well).=20
Prof. Chen made his point forcefully and repeatedly, and compared the
seriousness of his challenge to Darwinism with the irreducible =
complexity
argument of Mike Behe.
"Cool since Mike Behe's arguments have been shown irrelevant this might =
be a poor choice. Mike claimed that IC systems could not arise gradually =
and yet people have shown mechanisms through which such systems could =
arise gradually."
Questions after the lecture were fairly technical, focusing on details =
of
the fossils described by Prof. Chen. Clearly, no one was eager to =
tackle
the "challenge to Darwinism" issue.
"Which could be explained by various reasons."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:18:50 -0800 (PST)
From: cliff@sfo.com
Subject: Chen's challenge to Darwinism
Darwinism includes two ideas: evolution through natural selection
and gradualism. Only the latter is challenged by Chen.
So creationists will be heartened by Chen's ideas only to the
extent that they are true Darwinians who believe that if gradualism
is wrong, evolution is wrong.
Cliff Lundberg
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:58:00 -0600
From: Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>
Subject: Re: The Deep Hot Biosphere
I'm pretty sure that "black coal" is a fossil fuel since it contains
fossils of trees which did not likely grow 100 km below ground surface.
I've seen tree stumps which are over two feet in diameter. This week I
saw a tree trunk or limb about four inches in daimeter and about two feet
long laying horizontally on top of a bed of coal.
Bill Payne, Professional Geologist
Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
2100 RiverChase Center, Suite 450
Birmingham, AL 35244
Tel: 205-733-7624 Fax: 205-985-2951
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:56:23 -0700 "Terry M. Gray"
<grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> writes:
>Hi everyone,
>
>I'm just finishing up Thomas Gold's book *The Deep Hot Biosphere*.
>Gold is
>an astronomer/cosmologist (I think) who has maintained for a number
>of
>years that natural gas, oil, and black coal are not "fossil fuels"
>but
>rather have an abiogenic origin with hydrocarbons being a primordial
>component of the deep earth (deep being >=100 km).
>
>Apparently, his hypothesis has been around for some time and this book
>is
>his latest effort to promote it. Included in this book is an argument
>for
>life deep in the rocks and he speculates on an origin of life in the
>rocks
>rather than on the surface.
>
>I'm wondering if anyone else has seen this book or knows something of
>Gold's views, especially anyone with a geology background. Of
>course,
>since Gold's views are counter-establishment, folks with a geology
>background may be biased against them. But, that's okay. I'm
>interested
>in hearing opinions of folks with a bit more expertise in this area
>than
>what I have.
>
>Thanks.
>
>TG
>
>_________________
>Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
>Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
>Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
>grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
>phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:18:34 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Kevin (I think) said recently:
>Kevin also wrote:
>
>"I have no problem with that (you disagreeing that is). However, the
>fact
>that you and your classmates missed the point does not refute my
>conclusion."
>
>I'll take my physics professors at Carnegie Tech's word for it
>that we did not miss the point. It was a pleasing exercise.
>
How else do you think you missed the point if they didn't also? Being
Carnegie Tech professors is no guarantee that they understood the
cosmological implications of the concepts they were teaching. They might
have even had a sinister agenda (Oh! the Horror!) in that they hoped you
would swallow their materialistic bilge without thinking for yourself.
>
>"The law of conservation of momentum is a fundamental physical law; so
>much
>of modern science is based on it that if it were proven to be false, or
>if
>exceptions were to be found, the vast majority of accepted theories in
>most
>disciplines would either collapse or have to be reconfigured."
>
>No disagreement on this, of course.
>
Then what I saw next should have been obviously right to you.
>
>"That's why I called such an exception a non-natural phenomenon, because
>it
>would violate the very nature of the physical universe as we understand
>it
>to be. And if that were the only exception extant, it would be more
>likely
>to be a non-natural anomaly rather than a representation of new physical
>laws."
>
>And that's where we must part company, of course.
>
Naturally; Heaven forbid that you should ever agree with me. ;-)
>
>There are, of course,
>an infinite number of ways the phenomenon could be observed w/o violating
>the law of momentum conservation. Natural ways.
>
Sorry, but you sound awfully confused here. Let me repeat myself slowly so
that you can better follow me; then you can tell me what the above statement
is supposed to mean. According to the law of conservation of momentum, the
sum of the individual momentums of two macromolecular objects after a
perfectly elastic collision must be equal to the sum of the individual
momentums of these same objects before that collision. No exception to this
law has ever been observed, nor would you expect to ever observe one since
the law of conservation of momentum is part of the very character and
structure of the universe; such exceptions would mean having to rethink our
entire view of what the universe is really like. For this same reason you
would not expect to find any natural law, force or mechanism that could
circumvent the law of conservation of momentum; such would be a violation of
the nature of the universe and would again require us to rethink our view of
the universe. As such, if we found two macromolecular objects that, when
they collide, produce a sum of their individual momentums that is greater
than the pre-collision sum had been, this would qualify as an exception to
the law of conservation of momentum, which would mean that a complete
reconstruction of reality would be necessary, even if you hypothesized a new
natural force to explain it. There would be no other choice. Considering
how catastrophic that would be perceived, I believe that even the most
hard-hearted materialist atheist would be more willing to accept that this
is a single anomolous phenomenon being caused by some unknown non-natural
force.
>
>I found a little top one day, many years ago, which, when I start it
>spinning, continues to spin "forever," or at least until I reach ot and
>stop it. Is it demonstrating a non-natural phenomenon? Of course not.
>
It would be if it really did spin "forever" (whatever the heck that's
suppose to mean); you would have a perpetual motion machine. If you can
patent it you would become rich.
>
>Is it violating the law of energy conservation? You tell me.
>
You would be violating far more laws than just the laws of conservation of
momentum and energy. If you can explain how it works you would win the
Nobel Prize, since this would be the first verified case of such violations,
but you would first need to reconstruct our view of the universe, plus the
very basis for all of science, practically from scratch. You would be
better off invoking a non-natural explanation for this one and only
phenomenon; it would be more believeable than a complete reconstruction of
reality.
Yes, of course I'm being sarcastic, but so I am assuming are you. If in
fact you are serious then your ignorance of basic physical concepts is
appaulling and those Carnegie Tech professors did a greater disservice than
simply fooling gullible students into believing their materialistic
claptrap. Obviously your top would not spin forever, or even "forever",
because the momentum you imparted to it would be gradually eaten away by
collisions with the air molecules and by the friction generated by its
interaction with whatever surface it was spinning on. Even in a complete
vacuum, spinning on a frictionless surface, the top would not spin forever;
electromagnetic energy alone would be enough to slow it down and eventually
stop it. (Plus a complete vacuum and a frictionless surface are ideal
concepts that cannot be made and do not exist in nature.) As such, far from
being a violation of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy, it's
behavior is actually a result of those laws, plus the laws of motion,
gravity and thermodynamics.
Why you even chose to use this as an example (an example of what, I don't
know) is beyond reason. Maybe you should go back to college and learn some
physics right this time.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 22:55:51 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Kevin later wrote:
>Kevin wrote:
>
>"Einstein's theory of relativity did not prove any physical law to be
>false,
>to my knowledge; all it did was to refine those laws so that they were
>more
>accurate under specific circumstances."
>
>It's a question of degree, of course.
>How much of a change of accuracy would suit you?
>
You seem to be rather confused about a number of things here. Let me see if
I can set you straight (assuming you will read this with an open mind,
naturally, and not simply continue to assume that I am talking through my
hat).
We know that Einstein did not prove any physical law wrong, because if
anything he asserted the validity of all known laws at a time when
physicists were beginning to doubt it. As he explains in his book
_Relativity_, a poweful concept in classical mechanics is the principle of
relativity, which in essence is that the physical laws must be the same in
any frame of reference. (There are of course limitations on the kinds of
reference frames permissible, but these are not germaine to the discussion.)
At the same time, the constancy of the speed of light (known as the law of
propogation of light) was considered to be a proven fact. The problem was
that according to classical physics the speed of the propogation of light in
a moving frame of reference should be lower than the speed of the
propogation of light in a stationary frame of reference. However, this
would contradict the principle of relativity. Since the law of propogation
of light was considered a proven fact, physicists at that time were more
willing to abandon the principle of relativity. But then that would also
mean abandoning the idea that the physical laws were the same in all frames
of reference, which would open up the same can of worms as finding out that
the law of conservation of momentum has exceptions.
Einstein solved the problem in a radical new way. He began by asserting
that the law of propogation of light -- and by extension any physical law --
was the same in any frame of reference. This became the first of the two
postulates he would use as a basis for the theory of relativity. Then he
asserted that there was no such thing as an instantaneous interaction. This
was an inference based on the work of Maxwell and Hertz, both of whom showed
that any electromagnetic interaction could only take place at a certain
maximum speed. If then there were no instantaneous interactions at all,
then there must also be a maximum speed of interaction. Einstein asserted
that this maximum speed of interaction was the speed of electromagnetic
interaction; that is, the speed of light. Using the principle of
relativity, Einstein further asserted that the maximum speed of interaction
must be the same for any frame of reference. As such he concluded that the
speed of light must be a universal constant. This became his second
postulate.
So we can see that so far, the basis of the theory of relativity is based,
not on the assumption that any physical law is false, but on the assumptions
that not only are they all true, they are true for all frames of reference.
However, Einstein's two postulates, when combined with the principle of
relativity, created a paradox that could not be resolved by classical
physics. At that time, classical physics was based on the assumptions that
time, space and mass were absolute and that the speed of interactions was
relative (hence classical physics allowed for the possibility of
instantaneous interactions). Instead Einstein used the relativity of
simultaneity (simultaneous events in one frame of reference are not
necessarily simultaneous when viewed from a different frame of reference) to
argue that in fact space, time and mass were relative and the speed of
interaction was absolute. He was taking his cue from Mach, who stated that
**physical** theories should be devoid of **metaphysical** constructs. Mach
considered absolute time and space to be pure mental constructs that could
not be reproduced by experience. Einstein agreed, and so replaced what he
considered to be the metaphysical absolutes of time and space with a
material absolute, the maximum speed of interaction.
All that remained was to work out the mathematics. This is where the
refinement of certain known laws comes in. Not in the laws themselves, but
in our abstract mathematical description of them. If the laws are real, if
we can prove them to be true, then they act the same under any set of
circumstances. But if we are not aware of what the full range of those
circumstances could be, if in fact we are mistaken as to what the very
nature of those circumstances are, then our abstract, mathematical
description of those laws may be flawed. The refining I referred to has
nothing to do with proving or disproving an accepted law; it has to do with
improving our description of that law.
An example of such an improvement concerns Newton's second law of motion.
The first law states that if a body is not acted upon by an external force,
its momentum remains constant. Momentum is sympolized by "p" and is equal
in magnitude to the product of the body's mass and velocity; hence p=mv. A
mathematical description of this law would be p=mv=c (where "c" is a
constant, not the speed of light). This law is also called the law of
inertia, inertia being a fundamental property of matter that resists change
in velocity and being equal in magnitude to the mass of a body. As such, in
the absence of an external force velocity remains constant, whether the
velocity is equal to zero (in which case the body is at rest within a
specific frame of reference) or the velocity is not equal to zero (in which
case the body is in motion within a specific frame of reference). This in
turn leads to the law of conservation of momentum, which is represented
mathematically as s(mv)b=s(mv)a, where the first term is the sum of all the
individual momentums before the collision and the second term is the sum of
all the individual momentums after the collision.
The second law, however, states that if an external force is applied to the
body, the rate of change of momentum is proportional to the force acting
upon the body. Since the force acts upon the body for a period of time, a
mathematical description of this law would be Ft=mv2-mv1, where F is force,
t is time, v1 is the initial velocity and v2 is the final velocity. The
simplest case involves a body that was at rest (v1=0), so the formula can be
simplified to Ft=mv. If we then solve for F we get F=m(v/t), where (v/t)
becomes the change in velocity. Another term for change in velocity is
acceleration ("a") so we can change the formula to F=ma, which is the most
familar mathematical representation of the second law of motion.
Einstein had no reason to doubt that these laws were true; what's more, he
used them in thought experiments to determine what affect speed would have
on a body. For example, since force is another word for interaction, and
since the maximum speed of interaction is the speed of light, he asked what
would happen if a body had a force applied to it that accelerated it up the
speed of light. Using the Lorentz transformation, Einstein was able to show
that as the body accelerated, time would slow down for it, so that from a
stationary frame of reference it would appear that the time over which the
force acted on the body got shorter. In other words, the force would have
less time to act on the body the closer it got to the speed of light, thus
the affect it would have would get less as well. In other words, if the
force remained unchanged, acceleration would decrease, until finally when
you reached the speed of light, acceleration would be zero.
If you rearrange the force formula we derived earlier, you would get that
a=F/m; as you can see it implies that there is no decrease in acceleration
as velocity inceases. Newton obtained this formula because he believed that
the nature of the set of circumstances over which it applied included
absolute time, absolute space, absolute mass and relative speed of
interaction. That's why Newton's second law of motion never predicted that
the rate of change of momentum would decrease as velocity increased.
Einstein didn't disprove this law, but he did show that the nature of the
set of circumstances over which it applied actually included relative time,
relative space, relative mass and absolute speed of interaction. As such,
he made it possible for Newton's second law of motion to predict that the
rate of change of momentum would decrease as velocity increased. His new
formula was a=F((1-(v^2/c^2))^1.5)/m; as you can see it implies that there
is a decrease in acceleration as velocity inceases. It also, however,
demonstrates that Newton had not been wrong, only limited in his scope. As
long as the ratio of v^2 to c^2 is so low as to be practially zero (which
would be true for any velocity under 10,000 km/sec), the F term remains
unchanged. In other words, for the kinds of velocities technology is
currently capable of producing, Newton's derived formula gives results that
are plenty accurate enough. It is only at higher velocities that it begins
to produce inaccurate results, and even then it's not until you reach the
very high velocities that the inaccuracy becomes significant. All Einstein
did was eliminate that inaccuracy.
So if you still believe that Einstein proved some known law to be false,
which was it, since it obviously wasn't Newton's laws of motion.
>
>There was, of course, a physical law of phlogiston at one
>time. The science that replaced it was somewhat more
>than a refinement.
>
Phlogiston was not a physical law, which is to say it was not an abstract,
mathematical model of a general principle of nature, like combustion. It
was a hypothetical **substance** said to be found only in combustable
materials, which revealed itself as flame when the material was burned. In
essence it was more like a theory, an attempt to explain how combustion
worked, rather than a simple, basic description in mathematical terms of
what combustion was. Besides, it was a purely philosophical concept that
was borrowed by science back when science was no better than a philosophical
discipline itself. There was never any physical evidence to support its
existence, and when people went looking for that evidence they found none.
For a concept to be a physical law it must be supported by evidence; after
all, virtually all physical laws were deduced from basic, simple
observations that anyone can do for themselves, and which students often
repeat in high school and college. You should know this; curious that you
do not.
>
>What you wrote, "But there has never, to my knowledge, been a case when a
>physical law was found to be false by new evidence," is still an absurdity.
>
And yet you still cannot or will not give even one example to prove me
wrong, or explain what physical law Einstein or any other scientist proved
wrong. Making bald assertions you either cannot or will not defend is the
height -- or should I say depth -- of absurdity.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:38:54 +1100
From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: GVS
Dear Karen
Karen G. Jensen wrote:
> Dear Brother Jonathan,
>
> Continuing about the GVS,
>
> >Sediments are generally deposited horizontally, Steno recognised this in
> >the 17th
> >century!
>
> Yes. Nevertheless, for a while in the 1950's the GVS was interpreted as a
> sloping offshore deposit (down the side of the shelf). That view has been
> abandoned, and its slope (which is east-dipping anyway!) is considered to
> have been caused by the accreation.
Point taken. I had understood you to say that the sediments were laid down on a
steep angle. My mistake obviously. I think Steno would be happy too!
> >>With 12 km of burial I imagine things would be quite lithified
> >>but at those sort of depths brittle beds start deforming in a ductile manner.
> Your rocks should
> >>have been metamorphosed to lower greenschist metamorphic facies. Is this the
> case?
> >> No, it is called "monotonous" clear to the bottom, but overlies metamorphic
> seafloor materials >>-- mafics.
> >
> >The sequence may well be monotonous - thick turbidite successions usually are.
> >That is why they are called "flysch", an Austrian word meaning boring. Only
> >kidding..... Monotonous or not, have they been metamorphosed? To what grade?
> >
> No. It overlies metamorphosed sediments, but it is not at all
> metamorphosed. The limestone nodules in it are diagenetic, but there is no
> metamorphism.
The literature on the GVS which I have looked up, especially the work by
Ingersol
(spelling?), speaks about zeolite to pumpellyite-prehnite facies metamorphism (a
bit lower grade than the greenschist I nominated), typical of burial to those
sort
of depths.
> >> >> To me it looks like mega-deposition and mega-tilting, but not mega-time.
> >> >> Consistent with Genesis 7-8.
>
> >> >No Karen, not consistent with Genesis 7-8, but with only what with your
> >> >reading is of it. My Bible does not say anything about mega deposition
> >>or mega
> >> tilting.
> >> >
> >> It says water prevailed for 150 days, and covered the highest hills. Water
> >> on a whirling sphere can be expected to do geological work. That is why I
> >> think mega-deposition and mega-tilting are consistent with it.
> >
> >Still your interpretation that the flood was world-wide in our
> >understanding of the
> >word.
>
> Clearly.
>
> A year long global inundation would be expected to do geological
> work of
> >course. The problem is that the geological record does not support such
> >an event.
>
> The currently accepted reading of the geological record does not support it.
The "currently accepted interpretation" has been current for 200 years. This
does
not guarantee it future success of course, but does mean that it has well stood
the
passage of time.
> >That is why geologists stopped using the flood to explain the bulk of the
> >geological record by the end of the 18th century. Leonardo da Vinci
> >recognised a lot of these in the 15th century. The sort of evidence that
> convinced
> >them was the sort that has been discussed by Glenn, Steve, Kevin, Pim and others
> ad
> >nauseum, so I won't repeat it here. The only people who have tried to argue
> otherwise
> >do so because their theological stance forces them to do so
>
>
> The only people? Forced? For me it happened very differently. I believed
> the evolution-long ages scenario past the Masters level (having heard
> nothing else).
> After becoming a Christian, I wondered where the fossil record fits in
> Scripture. Reading Genesis 1 with paleontology in mind, I thought maybe
> each day represented part of the geological record, but quickly realized
> that this doesn't work, geologically or theologically. When I saw the
> concept of a worldwide water catastrophe, I saw that this explains the vast
> layers and the fossil record better than any long ages model could.
Thanks for the insight on your own journey, such details help illuminate the
process we call go through to understanding. Did you do this independently or
in
conjunction with a church with which you believed? If the former you are a very
rare beast indeed, in the latter, you have made my point?
If it was through a church teaches acceptance of a young earth then prior to
your
joining you had no reason to think otherwise. If you had come to faith through
a
church which did not teach this I don't think you would have had to make that
change.
Given the diversity of opinions in geology, one would expect at least some
people
to defend a young earth and/or a world wide catastrophe in say 4000 BC, if there
was any scientific evidence for it, regardless of the religious implications.
However they don't. Even most Christian geologists don't. I must have met or
know of professionally close on a thousand geologists. Perhaps 10% of them are
Christians. Only a few (five?) of these hundred or so are YECs. They are all
YECs
because they think that the Bible requires them to believe so. Some have
admitted
to me that this is despite the fact they have not a shred of geological evidence
to
support them. In contrast, if people don't believe that the Bible categorically
teaches a young earth, then they don't have have to read the geological data in
the
same way. I would argue that they are free to follow the evidence where it
takes
them, in a way that non-believers and YECs alike cannot. However none that I
know
of do. The burden on Christians who work in such cognitive dissonance is very
great, Luke 11:46.
Remember too that the people who demonstrated in the 18th century that the
geological record was not the result of a single, world wide flood were, in the
English speaking world, generally devout Christians who believed in a world wide
flood. Having concluded that the geological record was not the result of the
flood
they did not abandon their faith, but continued to practice it. They simply
realised that it was incorrect to explain the geological record in terms of a
single event (Biblical or not). The same happened in the 19th century when the
drift deposits interpreted as being flood were recognised as glacial debris.
> >> And it says that the ordeal passed in about a year. That is why I say it
> >> is not consistent with mega-time.
> >
> >Only if you try and explain the entire geological record by the flood.
> >
> Almost. With considerable geological work when the dry land appeared (Gen
> 1:9) and in the aftermath of the Flood, which still continues.
An what criteria do you use to separate flood from post flood sediments (apart
from
biostratigraphy) when much the same types of rocks occur in both pre-Neogene
(flood
rocks by your definition) and Neogene rocks (your post-flood rocks) , just as
they
do in both Precambrian (your pre-flood) and Palaeozoic-Paleogene (your flood
deposits again) rocks?
> Mark 4:9
> Your sister in Christ,
>
> Karen
In Christ
Jonathan
Answers in Genesis? Yes! (But are we asking the right questions?)
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1313
********************************