RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: FTK Research Thread, let's clear this up once and for all< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:28   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 23 2007,21:27)
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,10:54)
Okay, Steve, here's the fast answer...

I would say that it is damn hard to believe that we can say "transitionals" should not be questioned, unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types.  Goodness knows, there have been many "transitionals" that have been proven hoaxes or misunderstood.  In regard to common descent, there is so much more to consider than looking at a series of fossils and saying "hey, cool, that proves I was the byproduct of an ancient microbe".  

So, at this point in time, I believe that we are no where near the point of saying that the relatively small amount of "transitionals" we find in the fossil record is "proof" of common descent.  DNA seems to be the key to understanding more about common descent, so I'll wait for further research to answer the millions of questions that are still being asked before I believe that the naturalists creation myth is actually a fact.

Good enough?

I'm mildly curious as to, uh, why on earth you think anyone should pay the slightest attention to what you think, FTK . . . . . ?


Since, ya know, you don't actually know anything that you are talking about, and all . . . . .

Hush now Lenny, I'm reading through the er....wonderful evidence FtK sent to me. I wonder if I will get any answers to my reactions to the....startling content.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:29   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:28)
Heavens no, I don't think that what you're reading is evidence for creation.  Goodness, you haven't even started...here, maybe that will help give you an idea of what his book covers.  The first part is merely an introductory, and then he goes into his points against evolution.  Part II is where he introduces his theory and how it may provide an explanation for many other observations about planet earth.

Seriously, the whole site will take hours to go through.

He doesn't seem to have any points against it though.

I mean, I concede I may only be in the intro bit, but so far he's just said that things are the way he says and then moves along.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:30   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,17:27)
 In fact, I don’t think any one particular theory is “fact” or much better than the others.  

I see.

So if my theory says the earth is flat, that's OK with you?

Or, uh, is it just "theories" about EVOLUTION that you think should all be treated equally . . . . .


(sigh)

No wonder nobody takes you seriously, FTK.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:33   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:30)
 I'm merely stating why I have difficulty accepting the ToE as "fact".

And why, again, should anyone care if you have trouble accepting ToE as fact, or if you have trouble accepting heliocentrism as fact, or atomic theory as fact?

Since your entire knowledge of science would fit on the back of a postage stamp (if you drew lots of pictures), I'm not sure why on earth anyone should give a flying fig what you think about the matter . . . .?


After all, even with your, uh, years of studying peer-reviewed science, you STILL can't even tell if the earth is 4.5 billion years old or only 6,000 years old.

(snicker)  (giggle)

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:34   

Now, someone please correct me if I'm wrong but (I have split these up by numbers to make it easier to read):

"1. They show design.

2. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs."

1. This is the ad hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

2. This is a lie, isn't it?

[addendum]

"If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats."

Where the hell is he pulling this from?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:34   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:12)
Certainly, I'm in no position to draw any conclusions from what they've told me.

No kidding.


And yet you do, anyway.


Odd, isn't it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:38   

For goodness sake Lenny, leave it alone would you? I don't disagree with what you're saying but I actually want her to reply to me, and she might not do that if she thinks you're the only one posting.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:38   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:30)
 So, like I've said many times in the past, I'm not locking into the mindset of the "scientific community" without hard empirical evidence, and I'm certainly keeping an open mind in regard to other explanations.

What other pronouncements from the, uh, scientific mindset are you open to questioning, FTK?

When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to cosndier alternative to germ theory?  Why not?

Are you open-minded to the "other explanation" of geocentrism?  Why not?

Atomic theory is just a part of that "scientific mindset", FTK -- do you cosnider "other explanations" for that?

Or is it only evolution that gets your undies all atwitter (because it offends your religious sensibilities)?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:40   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:06)
LOL....Ian, sweetie, you've really gotta calm down.  I thought Lenny was the only one around here who freaked on every sentence he confronts.  

I'm not the one who stormed out all in a huff, dearie.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:41   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:06)
 But, Brown is one of the more respected creation scientists out there

BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Hey FTK, why do all the old-earth anti-evolution creationists think that Wally Brown is full of cow crap?


Are they all just atheist god-haters?  (snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:43   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,22:34)
"1. They show design.

1. This is the ad hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

"They show design" might be part of a PHEPH error, but by itself those three words aren't. 'course, I've been awake too long, so i could easily be wrong.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:44   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,21:38)
For goodness sake Lenny, leave it alone would you? I don't disagree with what you're saying but I actually want her to reply to me, and she might not do that if she thinks you're the only one posting.

All she's gotta do to shut me up is . . . well . . . answer my questions.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:44   

Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,21:43)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,22:34)
"1. They show design.

1. This is the ad hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

"They show design" might be part of a PHEPH error, but by itself those three words aren't. 'course, I've been awake too long, so i could easily be wrong.

it's more the context they were in. Essentially he was saying that since things show design, they must be designed, which, I believe, is AHEPH.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:45   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 23 2007,21:44)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,21:38)
For goodness sake Lenny, leave it alone would you? I don't disagree with what you're saying but I actually want her to reply to me, and she might not do that if she thinks you're the only one posting.

All she's gotta do to shut me up is . . . well . . . answer my questions.  (shrug)

well she's answering mine, (sort of) and I'd rather she continued, because this is getting....interesting.

[edit] Make that VERY interesting.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,22:06   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,20:55)
I'm convinced you never will, which makes this whole excercise more an issue of cruelty on my part as I'm pretty sure at this point the only reason I have for continuing to pose questions to you is to laugh at the continuing irony of your answers.

There's a bit of an ethical dilemma inherent in this site. We censor almost nothing. This is not just because we're a great bunch of guys, but because frankly, when the creationists talk, they make creationists look stupid. This is useful to us. It's nice to have a creationist around making basic, Bio 101 type errors. (and Physics 101, and Geo 101, and Information Theory 101...) and also, we're entertained by it. Letting someone make a fool of themselves is not the most ethical thing in the world. On the other hand, they're doing it voluntarily, so we're not really culpable. It's a muddy issue that nags at me.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,22:09   

Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,22:06)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,20:55)
I'm convinced you never will, which makes this whole excercise more an issue of cruelty on my part as I'm pretty sure at this point the only reason I have for continuing to pose questions to you is to laugh at the continuing irony of your answers.

There's a bit of an ethical dilemma inherent in this site. We censor almost nothing. This is not just because we're a great bunch of guys, but because frankly, when the creationists talk, they make creationists look stupid. This is useful to us. It's nice to have a creationist around making basic, Bio 101 type errors. (and Physics 101, and Geo 101, and Information Theory 101...) and also, we're entertained by it. Letting someone make a fool of themselves is not the most ethical thing in the world. On the other hand, they're doing it voluntarily, so we're not really culpable. It's a muddy issue that nags at me.

Frankly, unless they are goaded into it by someone being uncivil, I think it should stand. If someone doesn't want to make a total arse out of themselves, they don't have to say anything. The moment a person speaks, they give themselves up for ridicule and mocking.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,22:19   

This book is really really weird. I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,22:29   

Keep up the work Ian.
I waded through that site also (in an ongoing "dialouge" with AFDave).  Your picking up more BS than I did, probably because I would just skim past some of the more inane comments as boiler plate.

But for some reason Ftk thinks this writing is the pinnacle of scholorship (or at least "consiliant" scholorship).

My $0.02 is to find one topic that you have some reasonable chance of knowing (like, how to spell it correctly) and paste WBrowns supposed claim.  Then find out from Google (this is where the proper spelling comes in handy) how many scientific papers are available that totally contradict said claim from Brown.

Pick any one.  I like the Hydroplates spewing supercritical water and spitting massive chunks of earth to the asteroid belt myself.  The math is detailed, but ends up boiling THEN freezing the earth.  Good stuff that, almost a fine vintage of tard.  (Note to self.  Reorganize tard file to rate on subject AND vintage)

I'm sure some reader here can C&P either a post from here, RD.net, Pandasthumb, Pharyngula, IIDB, or other site that has taken this tard to task in one form or another.  You could use this as a personal test to hone your skills in tard knocking.  Figure out the rebuttal then ask or search for past takedowns to find out how well you did.

Ftk,
you could defend WBrowns writings in whatever detail you would like.  Please find a claim that you hold near and dear to your heart and close to what you percieve as your intellectual strength.  Then post this claim here to see some honest rebuttals.  But first, I think Arden still has it out for you to convince him that you have read and comprehended a peer-reviewed paper.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,22:32   

Quote (Mike PSS @ June 23 2007,22:29)
Keep up the work Ian.
I waded through that site also (in an ongoing "dialouge" with AFDave).  Your picking up more BS than I did, probably because I would just skim past some of the more inane comments as boiler plate.

Thanks for the support, and don't worry, I'm going to read the whole damn thing. I may have to depart soon (it IS 04:34 here) but I'll be back tomorrow. I've got ALL of tomorrow, and I read QUICKLY.

I'm not going to let this drop because if I actually find some evidence for creation (I'm not holding my breath) then I'm going to damn well post it here, and have it as my MSN name so EVERYONE can see the holy grail has been found.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,22:33   

Quote
The funniest example I've encountered, by the way, was, the guy who taught my thermo class told the physics department secretary office to stop forwarding him every moronic free-energy or anti-relativity manifesto mailed to them. "We don't," the secretary office told him. "We distribute them evenly among the whole faculty."


ACK!



Henry

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,22:35   

Another 'gem':

"Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease."

Frankly, I'm lost for words.

[Edit] The fun never stops with Walt Brown.

"Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer." False dichotomy surely? "Either miricle or designer"

(go easy on any spelling or grammar mistakes I might make, I'm REALLY tired)

[another edit] I appologise for the amazing growing posts, but I feel compeled to say that this book is the most gripping thing I've ever read. Even if I am having to listen to Crockett's Theme on continuous loop to stay awake.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,22:53   

The last one had enough edits, so here we go again, hop on board the merry-go-round.

"18.   Vestigial Organs

Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors.a They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs.b For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths.c Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened. "

I'm running a competition based on this post. It's called spot a logical fallacy. Note, not THE logical fallacy, just one of the many contained in this "page" of the "science book" I'm reading (note to FtK, if this all seems harsh, it's because it's FAR to late for me to be totally pleasant).

{special edit}

"Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells.a The forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as digestion and respiration. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms."

OUTRIGHT LIE.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,22:56   

Right, that's it.

It's 05:00, and I'm going. I'll be back tomorrow.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,23:11   

This is all surpassing strange.  

Not long ago I attended a talk presented by Dr. Yohannes Haile-Selassie, who directs the physical anthropology department of the Cleveland Museum of Natural history, on fieldwork his team is conducting in the Middle Awash Valley in Ethiopia. There, several seasons of hard work in a hot, dry, and remote environment have yielded very interesting fossil discoveries that illuminate a particular phase of hominid evolution. The presentation also outlined the implications of these findings for current models of hominid descent, and described the further excavations that are planned with hopes of resolving questions and testing hypotheses.

That is thrilling stuff, depicting human origins over time scales that induce vertigo (this research concerned events that occurred something like 40,000 centuries in the past). It also exemplified the hard work being done by working scientists around the world in pursuit of a deeper understanding of human origins and, more generally, the history of life on earth. These reasearchers proceed without taking note of the ridiculous polemics initiated by creationist and ID-creationist communities: there is too much difficult, time consuming, expensive, and exciting real science to be done.  

The contrast between this effort and the Baroque armchair bullshit of the Walt Browns and William Dembskis of the world could not be more clear. I for one am often dismayed by the stubborn ignorance displayed by the likes of FTK as they conduct an "open minded" march around the moebuis strip of creationist belief. But I also understand that that march never stops, because it can't, because it is motivated by group membership and identification, as I observed elsewhere vis Behe.

Discussions and debate such as this one, in which bizzarre inventions such as "hydroplate theory" vie for a place alongside serious scientific work, induce in me a sort of deep weariness, and a sadness, too. So I mostly stay out.

But its all rather a shame.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,02:12   

FTK opined:
Quote
Also, there are soooo many other things to consider in regard to macroevolution.  Just one such example of *many* would be animal instincts, which I believe to be something that defies evolution.

WTF?! You're a dog owner! Variation and selection are the cause of all the different dog breeds, which I'm sure you know have rather different instincts. Ever been around a heeler or corgi puppy, and had them nip at your feet and ankles? That's a damned specific instinct not too common in bloodhounds, for example. I'm absolutely flabbergasted that someone who should have intimate knowledge of this subject could be so completely unaware.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,02:40   

Quote
WTF?! You're a dog owner!


oh sure point out the obvious irony.

:p

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,03:10   

Quote


"Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity."


This 90 degree rotation of the biological jargon is pretty much diagnostic of antievolutionist rhetoric. From stuff I wrote back in 1996:

 
Quote

Date: Tue Apr 30 1996 18:35:58

I've decided to change the name of the "Lie A Day" feature to "But is it deception?" Many people get hung up on the connotation of lie being "an untruth that is both knowingly and deliberately told". Rather than wrangle over the attribution of internal states on the part of Henry M. Morris or whoever happens to occupy the hot seat in the future, I'll just point out that the statement given is untrue and leave it up to the reader to decide, "But is it deception?".

On page 2, paragraph 3, Morris says,

   "'Horizontal variations' (e.g., the different varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, [...]"

Of course, 'horizontal' change as defined by biologists is speciation. Different breeds of dogs do not represent separate species. If we flip Morris' assertion through a 90 rotation, we still come up with an untruth, since vertical variation is also evolution so long as the diagnostic criterion of allele frequency change in the population is met.


(Source)

And another from 1996:

 
Quote

Get it straight: horizontal change is change in diversity (speciation or extinction), vertical change is adaptive change in a lineage.  Consult any competent biology textbook.

For either case, we have observational evidence.  David can
disagree all he wants, and the observations will still stand.


(Source)

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2007,03:10

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,03:57   

Well, since I was somehow still awake at 5 am, if I started acting strangely, blame that instead.

Personally I can't wait for some kind of reply to all this, in the meantime, I'm going to continue with my trudge through the Walt Brown book. Although if people want me to shut up about all (hell, I can't even be bothered for that. Most) of the things I find, a quiet word in the ear via PM would be appriciated.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,04:01   

"Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial."

Wow, and guess what? Even more DON'T! We're sure learning something here, but don't ask ME what it is.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,04:48   

Ok, I'm not sure what to make of this.

Any help?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
  748 replies since June 10 2007,02:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]