I sometimes wonder of Sibley's right.

[Peter Henderson]

https://www.facebook.com/creationnewsl/ ... 1100096041

To Michael Roberts: Suppression of evidence? Remind me again of the content of the letter you signed with known secular humanists which seeks to ban some evidentially supported ideas from schools.

http://bcseweb.blogspot.com/2011/05/cre ... ad-in.html

Richard claims that atheists know Genesis has to be true in order for Christianity to be true and that’s the reason we attack it. I nod in agreement. Personally my only grievance with a talking snake convincing a woman made from a spare rib to eat an apple, the spare rib woman then convincing a man made from dust to do the same, and this being the reason that death exists is simply because I know how important it is to Christianity. Other than that it’s a perfectly legitimate explanation.

[a_haworthroberts]

"Evidentially supported" = the ideas are either found in the book of Genesis, or they are untested and unproven hypotheses based on what is found in Genesis.