Changes

114 bytes added ,  20:29, March 25, 2008
no edit summary
Line 14: Line 14:     
By itself, this demolishes one part of the evolutionists’ argument and makes it, clearly, a case of arbitrary imposition of modern values. In a context such as the above, ‘radically different design’ would have indicated to an ancient reader either no deity, or else a deity whose means was chaos and instability, or a deity who did not have mastery over creation.<ref>Holding, 2006</ref>}}
 
By itself, this demolishes one part of the evolutionists’ argument and makes it, clearly, a case of arbitrary imposition of modern values. In a context such as the above, ‘radically different design’ would have indicated to an ancient reader either no deity, or else a deity whose means was chaos and instability, or a deity who did not have mastery over creation.<ref>Holding, 2006</ref>}}
 +
==External Links==
 +
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6P6bXA50c0&feature=related Neo-Darwinism's Homology Problem]
    
== Bibliography ==
 
== Bibliography ==
Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,601

edits