You are reporting the following comment to the PledgeBank team:
My oh my, I do seem to have upset you.
So, evolution is not about one kind changing by gradual changes into another. Well, that's a new one. So, evolution has changed has it?
So, let's see, accepting that premise, that evolution does not mean that, could you explain, in words of one syllabal, just how we are supposed to have moved from the single cell in some 'primeval soup' into present day man?
Years ago, in the distant past, I had a coloured chart hanging on my bedroom wall. It was the Evolutionary Tree. IT really was qquite attractive, wth the gradual branching out of the various phyla branching out. There was the progress of the fish through to amphibian, to land animal, to the various types of vertabrates and even, through a number of branches to man. I used to look at it, and believe it. And then I began to apply some logic. It can't work!
Let's take logic. If all life came from a single spark of amnio acid or whatever. Then from that first reference point, came all the flaura and fauna seen in the world today. But now you are telling me that evolution is not about changing from one thing into another. And I'm the fool?
Sorry, I actually can't take you seriously anyway,as your language - I haven't been called a 'twit' in years - shows that you do not have a firm belief in what you say. If one has to reduce their arguments down to the level of insult and ridicule, then you lose your argument.
I might not be an intellectual heavyweight, but I do think things through without a bias or bigotted position to uphold. It is for this same reason that so many of Richard Dawkins peers reject his remarks.
One thing is for sure, I have no doubts whatever that about 10,000 or so years ago, God created the entire universe in six periods of twenty-four hours. the evidence we both look at can support that contention. Just as it can support evolution, if we ignore certain parts of it.
PetePete Hodge, 12 years ago.