an admission of dishonesty on steves part...??!
does he lie?--well the ref indicated he told the truth this time-ie he is telling the truth that he lied...
i shall not accuse him of dishonesty where he appears to say i reject natural selection,-and jack infers the same.maybe oversight rather than deliberate equivocation?
creationists are quite aware that there is information encoded in species that can give rise to variation and that mutational change may confer survival advantage in certain environments.there is for eg no quarrel that darwins finches adapted according to food source but such changes do not evidence bird to biologist evolution.
i have said this many times but just to reiterate-there is natural selection.i dont accept that develops one species beyond what is coded in it.do you know of any mutation that has added information?
oops-was that another tautology?!

thankyou lighter,that was very fair of you.
goulds admission is not the only one by evolutionists, and demands that i provide ref will only be met with -go look it up,like i,m often told!

shimrod -as you were quite civil,i will respond.
yes i do accept creation because the bible says so, but i think that in general science supports creation inasmuch that no thing comes into being without a sufficient cause and as i said before there is nothing scientific about saying that the absence of anything and everything can somehow arrive at a singularity that explodes...etc etc
you accept that on faith!
just because the bible is old does not mean it is unreliable.i take that as trustworthy on what i believe is a reasonable faith.
no -i dont expect to convert you but you never know!
and someone less entrenched may consider the arguments.