Want Some Answers ???


Evolutionism
Index
Home




Thanks for the reply Geoff.

And thanks for the booklet. You wrote,

>>thanks mark i think that long and the short of it is hat we both did what we felt we should do in writing to each other, on your last point, he answer is no, not as much as you hoped; but i am interested in seeing what people like yourself make of the scientific position and comments on my booklet will similarly be welcome, but i think they are predictable me i had thought you had read my treasury letter so he correspondence has been to some extent by the point a few comments in italics below<<

And after reading your booklet there’s predictability for me too. You have a continual problem of exchanging science for nature. You subtly equate science with nature, from which you infer science and the Bible should be equated in authority. You fail to realize science has limits, normal operational science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present.


Your “main concern” is that I’m “out to pigeonhole” you. My concern is your support for assumptions. You say, “There is room for Christians to see evolution as a possible mechanism God used in creation” (p.37 booklet). Looks like you pigeonhole yourself. But if I said that, you reply,

>>i should terminate our correspondence at this point; you made up your mind i was an evolutionist before i have you two cautions; you now seem convinced, since that is the way you feel free to pigenhole humans, what remains to be said<<

Well to argue that God’s system of creation involved death and suffering for millions of years is another version of Darwin’s old theory. I suggest death and suffering are NOT natural aspects of God’s creation, because when He restores the earth (Acts 3:21) its not back to more death and suffering, but a sinless, deathless state (how it began).

Jesus treated Genesis as historic and accurate, you reply, "
agreed wholeheartedly". Then if He as God 'knew all things', why not correct your view to His? If we read Genesis as He did, there’s days in Genesis not ‘billions of years’. Otherwise you (as Ross), will embrace “questionable theories as if they were irrefutable facts.” You reply,

>>i doubt this and very strongly Ross is no stanger to the debates over the facts<<

Well when Ross was debating Dr Gish on Focus on the Family. Gish questioned Ross about star formation. Ross said, ‘We see star formation in real time. You can take your pair of binoculars out tonight and watch it. It’s actually happening.’

Now that is false, no astronomer would endorse it. Yet Ross was certainly a stranger to that ‘fact’. Evidence for the big bang is not “
compelling or overwhelming” but with ongoing criticism. You claim to “have taught it in some detail for years” yet don’t know the overwhelming criticism of the theory? And your response,

>>all science is provisional but not therefore inescapable<<

That's no excuse! You teach the bang-theory as fact, yet don’t know it’s not universally accepted by scientists. There are huge unanswered questions about the universe. There are many theories how the moon, galaxies, and solar system originated (each with its various explanations and various problems).

A few articles for you to read, “Big Bang Under Fire” (in Time 1991). “Challenge to the Big Bang” (New Scientist 1993). “Down with the Big Bang” (Nature 1989). “Why Only One Big Bang?” (Scientific America 266(2):96 1992). “Big Bang not Dead but in Decline” (John Manix 1993). “Not with a Big Bang” (The Sciences 1990). So why does Genesis chapter 1 contradict the evolutionary order of creation? You simply say,


>>it therefore seems to me that you have the same problem or at least you need to be more carefully to avoid it<<

But if I accept evolutionary theory and Big Bang cosmology there’s far greater problems reading Genesis. Everything is contrary. I know you reinterpret it to fit your assumptions. As yet you've given no excuse to throw-out Genesis 1. The Bible says the earth WAS made before the sun and stars (vs.14-16). The sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day, NOT the first (vs.16).

You said, “
God bless Ross as one man who speaks the truth about God’s creation”. But he contradicts Scripture saying the universe and sun were BEFORE the earth. That’s not speaking the truth about creation or the Bible. He claims to have another book equal in authority. You replied,

>>should it have no authority? who wrote it? evolution? newton, compernicus? galileo?<<

But ‘nature’ is created, not written. Rom.8:22 says, nature ‘groaneth and travaileth in pain’ because of sin. We live in a sin-cursed universe so how can sinful fallible humans think their interpretation (& assumptions) of sin-cursed-nature has the authority of Scripture. Your booklet says, “I am continually grieved when I hear some say nature is cursed” (pg.48). But Scripture says creation is “cursed” (Gen.3:17-19 Rom.8:20-22) and Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Tim.3:15). Tribes in remote parts of the world have never come to a full understanding of God by observing nature. You replied,

>>you have not hear the missionary stories I have of people penetrating Africa and China to find in remote villages a knowledge of e creators; Romans 1 is TRUE, Mark whatever you say<<

Tell me ‘the missionary stories’. And why send missionaries? Did the “remote villages” have ‘born again’ Christians holding church services? No. They might ‘know’ about God by ‘nature’ (Rom1:18-22) but they couldn’t know God. “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom.10:14). This verse says preaching is vital, for nature has no audible voice. You replied,

>>Psalm 19<<

Yes Psalm 19 indicates creation points to the Creator. But creation is limited information about God, called general revelation. I wouldn’t say creation speaks as Scripture. General revelation isn’t ‘special revelation’ (ie Scripture). “Although the heavens are thus appointed to teach, yet it is not by articulate sounds that they do it. They are not endowed, like man, with the faculty of speech; but they address themselves to the mind of the intelligent beholder in another way” (Clarkes Commentary Vol.3 Job-Sos p.597). So nature reveals no specific truths about God, you replied,

>>many a scriptures falsify that idea My brother David has an ambitious to write a lille booklet against that idea; idea else i would like to steal his thunder and offer you a fuller explanation of his theme- the nature of God is visible in nature and the scriptures<<

If nature is all that, you won’t need ‘scripture’ to prove it. Scripture is written, nature is not and limited. You replied,

>>that depends on what you mean buy writing its written to me;<<

Consider Psalm 19. Vs1-4 discusses the declaration of God’s glory by creation. Verse 3 states ‘There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard,’ this refers to the universality of the message. The words in italics were not in the original Hebrew. So it literally reads, ‘no speech nor language, their voice is not heard’ (See NASB, NJB, and NRSV). So what’s emphasized is that the message of the heavens is non-verbal and unwritten. I said Bible words don’t change, but nature and man’s understanding continually change. You replied,

>>you ignore translation problems. the laws of physics don't suddenly change our grib on them has changes radically down the years that is not to deny that they are the thoughts of God as Keppler Jeans and others said<<

Yes translations and nature passes away, but God’s Word doesn’t. God’s thoughts are read in God’s Word, not by pondering nature. Physics laws don’t tell us what God is thinking or His desires. Or do Professors of Physics think they know God better? ‘Men in their wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe’ (1 Cor.1:18-21). Note, saved by ‘preaching’ not by nature. Since man has an incomplete and changing understanding of nature. So God’s Word is a written and final revelation of God, who is revealed in Christ.

>>i don't equate it with the Bible but it has an authority which i think is properly brought to the Bible, not to deny it but to help understand it<<

The fact is you elevate a body of knowledge with its changing character to the same level as the Bible. This concerns me, I'm committed to Scriptural authority. You also equate science with nature, so it appears science and the Bible should be equated in authority. Since nature has degenerated from its original perfection, watching animals devour each other doesn’t help us understand the Bible or God. The Bible reveals itself and as God's Word-revelation and stands alone – sola scriptura.

Now, no scientific method can positively prove the age of the earth. No age estimation method is foolproof. You reply,

>>I there are all sorts of fools<<

The qualified scientists who insist on a young earth are no 'fools'. The age of the earth does involve hypothesis and guesswork. You replied,

>>i'm tempted to say see above<<

See what? The reason for the ‘millions of years’ in evolutionary theory is to allow the theory to work. Given enough time, small changes might accumulate and life evolve. You replied,

>>i do no the reasons for millions of years of physical theory

Good, then you can see it originally comes from evolutionary thinking, not the Bible. By accepting the billions-of-years of secular rationalism Christians travel a path of increasing uncertainty in how to interpret Scripture.

>>that statement to me has no basis whatever in scripture at least you make your position clear and below<<

The basis is in scripture. Peter mentions those who “wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Pe.3:16). Paul warns in the last days some will “turn aside from hearing the truth and wander off into myths and man made fictions” (2 Tim.4:4). “Continue to hold to the things you have learned” (2 Tim.3:14). When the foundation of Genesis goes, the end can be total abandonment of the Christian faith.

>>not for me brother<<

So you think. The evangelist Charles Templeton wrote a book called “Farewell to God – my reasons for rejecting the Christian faith”. He long had doubts about the history of Genesis which seemed to contradict science. So he embraced Darwinism. In his reasons for rejecting the Christian faith are all the assumptions you endorse. This great preacher was lost to the faith and died a broken man.

Not for me” you say. Yet you deny the plain biblical chronology and sequence of God’s creative acts (Gen.1-2 Ex.20:8-11). You attack the very character of God, identifying His creative activity with the violent, painful, deadly and purposeless course of evolution. You subtly undermine the dignity and sanctity of human life, by transforming the Prince of Creation into a virtual after-thought of the creation process. So once Genesis is questioned that's what happens. Others go further ie., Bishop John Spong.

>>you mean the initial chapters surely las for revelation literal interpretations can be difficult if that means disqualifying the scientific method for passing any judgement then that position is untenable to me God is the creator?<<

Your idea of a ‘
scientific method’ is to use evolutionary philosophy to interpret the Bible. That is the foundation from which the modern world system launches nearly every ideological attack against faith in Christ. So what explosion creates anything that looks like order?

>>big bang-God's order you and I know why- there was a creator, not that i care to think of the 'big bang as the creation event'<<

Yes there is nothing 'creative' (or orderly) about an explosion. But the theory originated from people who had the intention of explaining the universe from an entirely atheistic naturalistic perspective. How everything happened without any supernatural intervention (S.Weinberg. ‘The First Three Minutes’ Basic Books, N.Y 1977. M.Rees ‘Before the Beginning’ Addison Wesley MA, 1997).

What Ross has done is pick a theory (that sounds
scientific) and built a theology on it. He even said, to a great degree his salvation was based on the Big Bang and old-universe concepts. As a teenage science buff searching for religious truth, he found the Genesis account was the only religious writing which he could make fit with the Big Bang and old universe, (which he already "knew" to be true). Ross even claimed he decided to become a Christian only when satisfied that Scripture fitted with the Big-Bang and old-earth ideas.

>>when you get my booklet read my quote of Spurgeon I have no choice as Christian and a created being but to take serious the God of creation and the way he has woven his testimony of himself into his physical creation<<

When Spurgeon says ‘science’ he doesn’t mean evolution/big bang. He had no leaning to the philosophy and science of evolutionism. He said, “In these days of science, falsely so called, (I am) determine with the apostle to know nothing among men save Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (Sermon No.1835 Ap.12 1885). “Hence I hold all preaching of philosophy and science in the pulpit to be altogether out of place” (Sermon No.84 Jun. 8 1856). I can see the wonder of God in creation too, but that’s not as clear as His special revelation. No one can really understand who God is, till they come to scripture.

Spurgeon didn’t believe “
God’s self revelation in science” proved a big bang and millions of years. He held a literal interpretation of Genesis. And spoke of a far greater revelation, “the science of Jesus Christ is the most excellent of sciences” (Sermon No.15 Mar.18 1855). So big bang & evolution are speculations originating from naturalism, you reply,

>>no they originate from scientific study<<

But they’re not facts of science, they are theories. A religion of belief systems with assumptions and hearsay. Evolutionists know that and say,

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." (H.Matthews Introduction to Darwin’s "The Origin of Species", Dent & Sons, Lon, 1971, p.xi)

I wrote, naturalism assumes that every law and force operating in the universe is natural rather than moral, spiritual or supernatural - that things made themselves – no divide intervention. You replied,

>>….hold it; forces is a technical term in science not to be bandied around in this way unthinkingly and I for one will not limit the Creation of he universe in turning bread to food and water to wine<<

Avoiding the issue? It doesn’t change the fact that ‘naturalism’ is inherently anti-theistic and rejects the concept of a personal God. Religion is the best word to describe naturalism. They say, all forces and science are naturally explained. They say, "No cosmic evolutionist can accept a miracle at any point of the natural process. To him a miracle as a part of Evolution would be unthinkable."

So your contention young earth creationists
“should logically avoid many fruits of modern science X-rays, digital watches” etc., reveals a lack of study of historical science. Perhaps the reason is explained in your booklet, “I owe much of my scientific knowledge to many unbelievers” (p.37-8). When I provided a list of the founding fathers of modern science, you replied,

>>a lovely list, you omit Faraday, shame on you<<

But he was mentioned. So your letter to the Treasury contained an unfortunate oversight, which you now ignore. If you overlooked all those scientists, then
‘shame on you’. Top qualified scientists reject big bang cosmology, www.cosmologystatement.org And also Dr. Gitt,

>>I have had my own conflict with him in the past- and what does he know of cosmology except to disagree with it<<

Gitt knows evolutionary theory well and reads extensively. I'm confident he's qualified. Read his book "Star and their Purpose: Signposts in Space". He refers to many cosmologists who would 'disagree with' you. In fact, there are many experts from many fields of science who reject big bang cosmology - Ph.D's in Biology, Physics, Genetics, Organic Chemistry, Mathematics, Zoology, Meteorology, Botany, Biochemistry, Medical, Geology, Paleontology, Astronomy, Theology, etc And Dr Wilder-Smith -

>>the man with 5? PhDs, must be God<<

So since you have read my list, you will now know (for the first time), a significant number of scientific experts disagree with your statement, “the evidence for (old age earth) is now compelling and overwhelming’. So now you will be able to write more accurately about the facts, the evidence is not ‘compelling and overwhelming’ it’s questionable. And Dr R Jones one of Australia's top scientists -

>>of course I wouldn't be;<<

A good scientist is known for his search of the truth, not someone whose mind is shut. Other scientists mentioned?

>>and how much do each of these know of cosmology<<

What do they say? Prof. L Vardiman (BS Meteorology MS & Ph.D Atmospheric Science). What does he know? “Evolutionary theory states that the earth and all life began as a gas several billion years ago” What does he believe? “I reject the theory of evolution because it is based on several faulty premises which are clearly contradicted by observation.” (p.306 In Six Days New Holland 2000). And another, E. Holroyd (BS Astrophysics Ph.D Atmospheric Science). “We have to be in awe of our God, who can orchestrate the entire heavens in such great detail”. What does he believe? “When God says in the Bible that He made the universe in six days, I believe Him” (p.258,263 In Six Days. New Holland 2000). There’s many likely you will be sarcastic because they are Christians.

You think the only people know anything are evolutionists. How about Dr John Hartnett? (Physicist/cosmologist). He said, “I would have described myself as an atheist, believing that the ‘big bang’ had all the answers… by inserting a few unprovable assumptions at your starting point, you can end up with virtually any model you like” (he publ. over 30 papers in scientific journals). Oh, and he’s a six day creationist now. And since young-earth scientists don’t accept Ussher’s (or Lightfoot’s) exact chronology, you reply,

>>and not helpful in the issue at stake-dating Adam/Gen 1 as the stupidity above example proves as Wellington said, A man who can believe that will believe anything- and apparently will try to force feed it on his fellow Christians as God Word<<

It’s no secret; most young-earth creationists do not believe a specific creation date can be ascertained. And Bernard Ramm that excellent theologian? You write,

>>no? he wrotes some of the people you do above and has a good layman summary of many matters such as Joshua's long day from a scientific viewpoint careful, I note above some dubious support of your thesis<<

Thank you. But Ramm doesn’t integrate God into evolutionary philosophy. And his comment - “Evangelicals must never bend their interpretations simply to concur with the latest science”. You reply,

>>I am not the man to hold that against him; the conflict between a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and God's self revelation in science has been obvious to me since childhood; we do need God's revelation in science to guide us Spurgeon again essentially admits the problem it is no solution to say, there is no problem<<

I'm not convinced the big bang and millions of years are proven. Even Ramm knew the difference between science and theory. He mentions about teaching evolution in schools, “as if it were a scientific fact and not a speculative theory” (p.139 The Evangelical Heritage. Word Books 1973). As for Hugh Ross, he has a version of history that rejects the connection Scripture establishes between sin, death and Christ’s atonement. You replied,

>>I know nothing of such a rejection by Ross and frankly doubt it very strongly<<

The Good News about Christ, our Saviour, is founded in Genesis. The origin of death is described in Gen.2:16-17, 3:1-6 (cf. Rom.5:12; I Cor.15:21-22). Death was the promised result of sin. But also the means by which man would be restored to God. In contrast, Progressive Creationism teaches that death and bloodshed existed long before man's existence, contrary to the Gospel. All die because of Adam's original sin. Progressive Creationism denies this, saying that animals died for millions of years before Adam and implying that Adam too was doomed to physically die, regardless of sin. For them, death and struggle are a part of life existing from the beginning.

Biblically, physical death is a clear penalty of sin - first demonstrated by the death of the sacrificial animals (beginning with those killed by God to clothe Adam and Eve). This penalty was also verified by the physical deaths of Adam and later, Christ, the perfect sacrifice and atonement. In this manner Ross and you (realized or not)
reject the connection Scripture establishes between sin, death and Christ’s atonement. So Ross denies death entered the world through Adam's sin (contrary to Gen.2:17, 3:19; Rom.5:12, 6:23 I Cor.15:20-23).

>>for the record so do I, not that I contradict these scriptures as regards mans relationship to God or our physical human destiny; death was demonstrably part of he original creation of God every leave in the forrest, every carivor tells us that;<<

And in the end the anti-biblical consequences become clear. Sin is regarded as a harmless evolutionary factor, causing Christ's work of redemption as the only possibility of man's salvation, to appear (nearly) absurd. And Adam's fall into sin is seen as a myth instead of reality, conveying a false impression of death and suffering in this world. And its assumed God used sin to create life. And death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation.

Your booklet says “all life needs death” (p.48) which is not true, Angels don’t need death and it’s contrary to life (1 Cor.15:54-56). Genesis says the animals and man were originally vegetarians (Gen.1:30-31). The Bible indicates a downward trend as man and animal diet became carnivorous (Gen.6:12 7:2 9:2-3 18:8 37:20 49:9). A restored earth will have animals vegetarians and peaceful (Isa.11:6-7 Acts 3:21). Plants and tree’s, were made by God to be cultivated from the beginning by humans. A system that was ‘very good’ NOT the world today.

So Ross claims everyone can know the gospel through the revelation in the heavens. He said about Jn.3:16 “
For God so loved the human race that He went to the expense of building…trillion stars…for billion years so…we could have a place to live.” You replied,

>>sorry i don't see the problem; he seems to me o be saying only that God made the Universe for us to live in; he is not saying that we lean the gospel from astronomy; winless you left that quote out… because he tells the truth about cosmology and modern physics as it relates to divine revelation I know none else on this planet who is as effective in doing that<<

My original quote has nothing ‘left out’. Ross IS saying exactly what you deny, read is literature -

The Bible includes an account of an ancient character, Job, who without the aid of Scriptures, and in opposition to the religion of his peers, discerned all the elements of the gospel the good news of how can find eternal life in God”. “The plan of salvation as stated in the Bible can be seen through observation of the universe around us. Thus all human beings have a chance to discover it. The Bible is only one of all religious writings which declares a message in full agreement with (and, of course, amplification of) the gospel message in creation” (p.179 181 The Fingerprint of God. See also p182 & Creation & Time p.56).

Ross’s full time ministry teaches the "good news" of the Big Bang and billions of years, not the gospel of God’s love. You reply,


>>nonsense.<<

Then read my quotes again. You call those like me a ‘creationist sect’, ‘arrogant or conceited.’ You reply,

>>you privileged; my claim of conceit is against those who feel they can simple reject out of hand the work of years in Scientific study- of creation mind you; not their creation, nor Newtons... but Gods!! isn't that the supreme conceit?<<

According to your views on nature, science and creation, I qualify. I was wondering why you don’t explain why Morris etc are ‘wrong’, you reply,

>>it would take a book; are you challenging me; you have a copy of an initial booklet; I was thinking mainly of dating where their out of hand rejection of radioactive agings it to me an unforgivable rejection of the basics of quantum theory<<

I would ‘challenge’ you to do fair research. The creationist groups you reject consist of large numbers of professional scientists from various fields of study. We can discuss dating methods if you wish. Interesting how you think it can be ‘unforgivable’ to have a wrong interpretation about a ‘theory’.

I mentioned Ross believes God set-up a cruel and ugly process of death and suffering, ruled over by Christ, for millions of years till man. And this is incompatible with a God’s character. You reply,

>>no comment<<

Which make me wonder if there’s ‘
no comment’ because this never crossed your mind, or because you believe God isn’t as good as scripture describes? He sees the sparrow fall and said "Blessed are the meek" - not blessed are the strongest and most aggressive!! How do you understand the goodness of God if He used death and suffering, a ‘nature red in tooth and claw’, to ‘create’ everything? You reply,

>>science- God's creation and self revelation doesn't matter?<<

This doesn’t answer the question. Regarding Prof, Lipson’s comments you say,

>>I know Lipson's writings and we have heard all kind of arguments many recently for design in science anti the traditional evolution argument which might he thought to naturalize this one still as you know i am not concerned to argue evolution unless a big bangger be an evolutions as you seem to think? I could quote to you some far more typid things from Physics Bulletin, in particular the cove prof in UK since died who reckoned he could have made a far better job of designing he human body; I'm glad I haven had to spend life in one of his bizarre creations. i think the eyes were on the chest..which was hinged about he stomak<<

If Lipson’s comment was interesting, how about Dr H. Arp? (From Mt Wilson Observatory USA, Las Campanas Observatories Cali.). He explains his reasons for rejecting the big bang model. He calls for it to be rejected by the scientific community, “In my opinion the observations speak a different language; they call for a different view of the universe. I believe that the big bang theory should be replaced, because it is no longer a valid theory” (p.118 The Continuous Cosmos).

How about this Professor, “If the universe came from a 'big bang', then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered). The more progress they made with their cartographic overview of space, the clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents beyond nearly empty reaches of space. The big bang model was strongly shaken by this discovery” (p.43-44 Creation. Vol.20.no.3 1998). Concerning my final comments you wrote,

>>you seem to be saying, Darwin's evolution takes time so science being wedded to evolution must use it over generations<<

The moment you think ‘science’ you think ‘evolution’ is fact. I was quoting evolutionist Dr D.Kitts, "Evolution at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer" (Palaeontology & Evolutionary Theory vol.28 Sept.1974 p.466). And quoting, Dr Colin Patterson (Palaeontologist Museum Lon.) "Its easy to construct stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test" (Personal letter). Here he clearly says evolution is NOT ‘wedded’ to science but it’s just stories (assumptions). So why believe in something you can’t see, have no proof, and isn’t happening?

Thanks for the opportunity to write. Sorry writing at length but it's important. Would you like a free subscription to Creation magazine?

Regards
Mark



Unfortunately the Professor's reply was not the brilliant answer hoped for. So he can have the last word. Below -

I dont think this correspondence is doing any goiod, you persit in telling lies about me even after they have been pointed out to you still I am not he man to leave lies unnoted…… Chrisianity is blasphemerd beause my colleages and students they equate it with lies and obfuscation of he truth do you really want to carry that on your conscience Mark………..nonsese,.......you mis read me entirely………This is a Lie….. lie……it would be no lie for you to accept that fact while continuing to oppose evolution……..you permetrate another Lie…….nonsence………..guesswork is your convention……….whos talking fiction…………..i refuse to be pigeholded by you lies;.....this is irrelevant………….pigaeons and lies again……….lies………….lies......DAMED LIES………….more pigeons………….more irrellevant pidgeons……….you have never been in discussion before with a Chrisian who is a fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand and Marsdon meddalist……….. pidgeons ………you don't listen what use is it to talk to you………..pidgeons……………… I havent after a lifetime in science 150 papers 1 book etc………………you will see agrro above of course……… don't talk rubbish…………if you find the above ARROGANT AND ALL THAT BEST NOT YOU COULD ONLY be guaranteed more of the same………i've given this eeter 23 runs through, much more could be said and i don't expect that anything i say will change your mind on anything.........i don't expect a reply but that's up to you of course thanks Geoff


Index
Home