 |
| |
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
VictorB212:
If you are the same "Victor" who was here before, then you WERE a Young-Earth, literal-Genesis creationist. And the topic of this thread was the comparison between the scientific model and the Genesis model. It's good to see that you are moving in the right direction.
"Intelligent Design" makes no positive claim that can be tested. For that reason, it is also technically "unscientific", because a claim that cannot be theoretically falsified lies outside science: there is no way to prove that a God is NOT responsible (though possible to show that the God has a pretty eccentric way of doing things).
Michael Behe is not a creationist: he is more accurately described as a theistic evolutionist who believes in divine intervention in the process. He accepts that the processes of evolution generally work, but as a theist, he has a vested interest in leaving a role for God.
I "know" that evolution is fact because it IS fact: Behe knows this, and so do you. Creationists and ID'ers call it "micro-evolution", but they accept that it is real.
ID'ers seek to demonstrate that evolution by random mutation and natural selection alone is insufficient to account for the range of life-forms that exist on Earth. Behe thought he had an answer with "irreducible complexity": complex structures that cannot function without all components in place. What he failed to account for is that if a structure fails NOW if a component is removed, this does not prove that the structure always had this problem. A structure can start simple, become progressively more complex, then the creature can gradually become dependent on the complex structure, so that it cannot survive if a formerly non-essential part of the structure is modified or removed. An obvious example is the human heart: distortion or removal of the heart will kill a modern human, but our distant ancestors did not need hearts at all (we can see this by studying simpler organisms that survive quite happily without them).
To demonstrate that a particular feature "could not have evolved", the ID'er must prove that there is no route by which the feature could have developed in small, incremental steps. To refute the ID'er, all that is required is to suggest such a route: it is not necessary to "prove" that this is definitely how it happened, only to point out that it COULD have happened that way.
This has been done for each of Behe's examples, such as the bacterial flagellum. So far, it has been done for every other example presented by ID'ers.
Some of the less cautious and more "creationist" ID advocates have also embarrassed themselves by making clearly false claims such as "beneficial mutations do not happen" or "mutations cannot increase information". They are wrong. Beneficial mutations can and do increase information. There is no "magic barrier" which somehow stops this, and it has been observed to occur.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VictorB212
|
|
Near Boston, MA, USA
May 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
Zhu, I will have to get back to you on the intelligent design movement within the scientific community.
My objection to Evolution is that the way I see part of the evidence, it cannot work. As you can hopefully see, I am quite willing to expand my horizons and view more evidence.
You totally misinterpreted what I said about not caring how long it took God to make the earth. You see, that does not really matter to me, and it should not matter in this debate. I'm not in the position of supporting a theory; I'm in the position of debunking one. Since you did not seem to get the point: I really do not see the need to be a young or old-earth creationist. Whether one or the other occurs does not affect my life very much. Whether Evolution occurs does. Hell, I would like to believe that what I do doesn't matter in the long run, but that's not where the evidence and faith point me. If I were not concerned about scientific specifics, I would not have posted here.
I can see your fallback position: Even if Evolution can't work, it's still a very useful model. Granted, but a model for what? I think it's an excellent model for microevolution. For creation of new organs, I think it's totally insufficient. Newtonian mechanics works fine for the slow stuff. But for matter approaching the speed of light, it totally breaks down.
The bottom line is that Evolution says there is NO NEED for a GOD. Most prominent supporters will agree 100% with that. Sir Julian Huxley reputed retorted: "It is because the concept of a Creator-God interferes with our sexual mores. Thus, we have rationalized God out of existence. To us, He has become nothing more than the faint and disappearing smile of the cosmic Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland" (Hanegraaff, 22).
Quick question: What percentage of the fossil record consists of transitionals, and what percentage consists of long-classified, distinct species? If you're thinking of claiming that they're all transitionals, then you would be technically correct from your viewpoint, but would not be helping the discussion at all.
---
Jack, maybe I was a YEC (right now I can see that it really is irrelevant even to me), but that should be irrelevant as stated above. The topic was how the earth would be different, and I stated that. Then I went on to explain the information aspect. Maybe I was drifting a little off-topic, but not very much.
Intelligent design can easily be proved wrong by demonstrating conclusively that the data that exists in even the most primitive organisms can come about via random processes.
I know that Behe is not a creationist -- your point seems to be that he is not to be trusted because of his "vested interest in leaving a role for God"? If so, then you must not understand the process whereby a judge discards all previous opinions when listening to a case, etc., etc., or just don't believe that can happen.
I apologize for not making myself clear: The only problem I have with evolution (microevolution) is that it has been hyperextended and used to "prove" macroevolution. I do not believe Evolution, or macroevolution (with no divine intervention) can or does occur. I thought you knew this was my stance; have I not made it clear? Do you also "know" that Evolution (macro) IS fact? You know how confusing the two are.
Has anything done with "the step before" any of Behe's examples? I thought his claim was that quite a few of today's structures could not have a "step before," since all pieces were interconnected. If I understand you correctly, you say that as time passes, different parts become more and more interconnected, to the point where they evolve into being irreducibly complex? I think it would still need a "step before," correct?
I should think you are acquainted with the idea that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Therefore I don't see how an ID'er could prove there is no path by which an organism could evolve. What the Evolutionist does have to prove is that it is possible.
You are claiming that it is only necessary to "point out" or "suggest" ways that organisms could evolve. I don't see how you can get around the experimental part where you demonstrate in a repeatable fashion how your suggestions would work. You will claim that your link above does that: you saw my response. Changing "he" to "she" (adding a letter) changes it a little, but it is still pretty much the same sentence. Changinge a sentence, for example, to the past tense, does not seem feasible. Stories of how something could theoretically evolve might sound neat, but they do need to be substantiated.
You say that each of Behe's examples have been debunked -- even the one about blood clotting, which he said had never been directly approached?
Mutations alter informations by changing a few characteristics, moving a few chunks around, and deleting a few characteristics (what am I missing here?). Do I increase information if I have 2 copies of the encyclopedia? Yes, your example does sort of create new information, but not New Information. It didn't do anything approaching a new organ, or even membrane. What's the most.... "innovative" mutation you know that has happened?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Um, please provide a link or something showing those supposed satellite images of Mt. Ararat. |
The link I posted can get you to the photos. Its a big rock that looks much like all the other rocks on the mountain only a bit larger. Most of them have angular shapes likely due to the type of sedimentary rock they broke away from.
For a boat it looks amazingly like a rock. You should see some of the older 'photos' of other rock formations that have been called the Ark. Where its really obvious that the black and photo had been heavily modified with a pencil enven without seeing the many unmodified color photos of the same formation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VictorB212
Jack, how do you explain people like Michael Behe, who doubt Evolution from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint? He is Catholic, but not a very active one, and stated explicitly that he believed Evolution could only happen if some sort of designer had implanted all the genetic information available today in the first living organism. |
I explain him in two ways. One he IS NOT a young Earth Creationist so he is actualy proving Fundamentalist beliefs wrong. He does NOT deny evolution. He only claims that Abiogenesis is impossible. He is wrong. He made a lot of very dubious assumptions many of which have been shown wrong.
If he claimed ALL the information must have been in the first life he is bleeding moron. I don't think he said something so ignorant from what I have seen of his claims. The information gained in the genome through evolution comes from the environment. It does not magicaly arise by random chance. Even Behe must be aware of this unless he too is actively ignorant.
quote:
According to what you said, it is impossible to argue for a point that you do not agree with in debate class. I am a creationist: what that really means is that I believe God somehow created the earth, through a non-random process. (Unless you claim abiogenesis was non-random...) |
Abiogenesis need not be wholey random. Indeed chemistry must act according to natural laws. Given enough time and enough reactions in a large enough body of water low probability events become inevitable. The only question is what the odds are and Behe made his up for the purpose of making them look impossible. They were not based on evidence, they were based on his desire to disprove.
quote:
To tell the truth, I don't care whether God created the earth in 1 nanosecond or 1 billion years. What I do care about is that the Earth was not created from some random (poetic license used) process that can explain life on earth WITHOUT the need for some sort of creator. One of Evolution's main claims is that there is no need for a god, as you assuredly know. I disagree with that. |
Evolution makes no claims about god one way or the other. However it does show that life as presently exists can evolve from simpler forms to reach the point we are now at. That does mean a god is not required but it does not say the one can't exist, in fact it says nothing about god on its own, except of course it does show Genesis wrong but that is unintional and comes from the evidence not from a desire to disprove. If the only reason you don't want accept the reality of evolution is because it would make it possible that your belief is wrong than your belief isn't worth much. Beliefs that depend on denial are worthless.
quote:
I am arguing from the Intelligent Design standpoint. There is no need for me to provide my own theory, all I need to do is to conclusively demonstrate that Evolution is lacking in a major area, without which it cannot survive. |
Which has never been done. Behe failed to do what he claimed he did. He made up stuff that he can't justify.
quote:
I am in no way arguing for a major flood, or a 6000 year lifespan for the earth. You are trying to force me into a religious defense -- something I will not do. I am going to argue scientifically. |
Science is against you. I suspect that you do believe in the Flood and want to avoid that can of worms. If you argue scientificaly you will be one of the few. Even then you will almost certainly be using bad science. Like Behe for instance and his made up numbers.
quote:
Don't tell me that all scientists believe in Evolution -- I know there are movements in the scientific community against it that are not religion-based, but science-based. |
There is no such movement. There is however a movement in Creationism to lie about it. Lying is nothing new amongst Creationists. They do it constantly. Even after admiting error they will repeat the same lie to fresh audiences till they are caught so often they finally give on the most blatent of the lies. It took many years for them stop lying about dinosaur tracks mixed with human tracks even after the man that faked the tracks admitted it. In fact that same lie is still all over the net.
quote:
You "know" that evolution is a fact -- I "know" that evolution cannot occur. |
No you only have been misinformed. You don't know it. You only think it. There is NO evidence to support you so can not actually know it for a fact. However there is LOTS of evidence showing that evolution does occur and none showing it doesn't. That means we CAN KNOW that evolution is real. It is utterly false to pretend that your position is equal to the scientific one.
quote:
We both "know" the other is wrong. We BOTH think the other is misinformed. |
We can and have proved our postition. You have only postured.
quote:
Please stop your ad-hominem insults -- they get nowhere. Also, you state that I am starting from a false premisis. I.e., that intelligent design is required. How often have you debated with someone who takes this stance, instead of a creationist stance? |
I don't know about Jack but I certainly have done so many times over several years and I know that Jack has done so lately right here.
quote:
Do you really deny that there is a movement in the scientific community against evolution, which does not just consist of two scientists in Alaska? |
Well if you want to make up both sides of the arguement like that then no I don't deny it. However that was a false statement you just made. No one except you mentioned two scientists in Alaska. Its a few dozen to a few hundred real scientists and some lawyers and theologists and mostly a lot of people that have never even looked at Scientific American. The scienists are nearly all working outside their fields.
The ICR has exactly ONE geologist. He is not the imbecile responsible for hydroplate theory. That one is an engineer that has never run the numbers on his hypothesis which means he is VERY BAD engineer. The geologist has engaged in deliberately distortionist research that he HAD to know was a distortion or he wouldn't have hidden the parts of the data he hid.
Gish has been caught repeating falsehoods many times. The dinosaur tracks was only one of them. He lied about Lucy's knee. He did so for a very long time after his error was pointed out to him which makes it a lie not a mere mistake.
Behe made up the odds for his book. He had to make them up for the simple reason that no one knows what the odds were. He deliberatly chose numbers that would support his claim and he evaded anything might show he was overstating things by many orders of magnitude.
quote:
I haven't mentioned any "Gospel truths." I'm starting from a scientific base. My religious beliefs have no role in this debate; a judge would declare them irrelevant. |
What scientific basis? All you did was mention Behe and he did not have any science to support him. He had to make up the numbers.
quote:
Regarding your new information web page: If you want to regard that as new information, then fine; I will have to change what I said to New Information or something like that. This seems to be exactly the case between microeveolution and macroevolution. The bacterium did not grow a new feature, or anything remotely like that. All that happened was an enzyme changed. This really cannot explain how the enzyme was originally formed. You will have to provide me with a few more links (and I will look for examples as well, so don't hit me with the "you expect me to find everything for you" attitude). |
The ability to consume nylon most certainly IS a new feature. It is disenguous at best to say it isn't.
quote:
I suggest you be careful in your "Evolution is a FACT" attitude. It is as bad as the ardent creationists who believe that natural selection does not work. You will claim that you have science on your side, but that does not change this: you are actually being close-minded when you say that. Remember, the mind is like a parachute; it works best when open. |
You should try opening yours then. The fact is that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The nylon consuming bacteria alone is adequate evidence that evolution occurs.
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution except time. Since there is billions of years of time that covers the time apsect very well indeed.
quote:
To those arguing for a flood, or how the Bible has been proven accurate in many ways: Stop. Don't try to mix religion with science. Evolutionists love twisting the Bible and making absurd claims. All you can do is make them question the premises Evolution lays on. AFAIK, that is best done with the Intelligent Design movement. Religion vs. Science will NEVER work. |
There is no need to twist the Bible to show it false. I never twist it. I do point out the twists that have been made by the Apologists though. They twist a lot.
I think that paragraph shows pretty clearly that you DO believe in the Flood. So its clear that science is not something you tolerate since it clearly shows the Flood never happened.
Do please correct me on this if I am wrong. That is do you or don't you think the Flood happened as described in the Bible? I just want to know if you are merely evading dealing with what you really believe or if you really do accept actual scientific evidence.
I have noticed that the Creationists lately have taken the stealth route. They refuse to justify their position and they refuse to admit its a religious belief they are pushing. In fact there are web sites telling Creationists not to deal with their beliefs but to attack evolution and never ever defend their own postion.
I note that you have not even been willing to say what you actually think. You look like someone that has taken the new tactics to heart. Those tactics of course are clearly dishonest. I do hope you are not one of those.
quote:
I must go again; I will search for more New Information examples and probably put together a more unified response. |
How about one with some support for YOUR position? And how about you actually give your position?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
God solved that by sending one man to earth to be punished for it. He went to earth himself. |
This I never understood very well, why does an omnipotent being need to torture himself to get things done, there must've been a simplier way? And what took him so long to get around to doing it 
quote:
There is, there are books filled with evidence (for the flood) |
Most of which has be discredited so thoroughly that a lot of creationists are backing away from Flood Geology and moving more towards Intelligent Design.
quote:
You have faith that the evolution theory is right.
You have faith that the scientific answers are right. |
Its amazong how the definitions of "faith" and "belief" get distorted in these debates (not just you, I've seen a lot of atheists do similar things). Read some Hume, he lays things out fairly well, the only things that make sense to really "believe" in are if/then statements like "if the basic axioms of math are correct then 2 + 2 = 4" but we can't be really sure about ANYTHING that's based AT ALL in experience since our senses could be deluding us, we can only make educated guesses based on the evidence. THus I don't have "faith" in evolution, science, etc. etc. and I'd be fairly irrational if I did.
quote:
Of course mamals are very alike, we're all made by the same designer ! Why should God create a complete new design for dogs if he did already make cats ? |
This brings me back to my origonal question, sure you can bring up stuff that you can explain within creationism, but can you come up with any physical evidence AT ALL which can be explained by creationism but not evolution? If not all you've got is the arguement that evolution is impossible, which makes your case pretty limited.
quote:
Tell me how something can come out of nothing. |
You really should have read up about vacuum flucuations (where things do in fact come from nothing) after our last debate...
quote:
The odds are high, you know. The odds are higher than the number of oppurtunities. |
They're probably assuming that life formed by things randomly bumping together into simple bacteria when the first life was probably a lot simplier (go look at my first few posts) which makes their predictions bunk, in any case the odds are pretty much irrelevant thanks to the Weak Anthropic Principle (things are like they are since if they weren't that way we wouldn't be here talking about them).
quote:
It took 100 years before Darwins theory became an accepted fact among scientists. There was so little hard evidence for it, but it accumulated with time. That is why it takes active ignorance to think that evolution is not a fact. |
Actually it took a LOT less time than that for evolution to become pretty much unanimous in the scientific community (with exceptions like Agassiz).
quote:
if he wants us to believe that he exists through an act of faith |
Why would God possibly want to play that kind of mind game with his creation?
quote:
Do you believe you have free-will? |
Nope.
environment + genetics = behavior
no evidence of anything else in the equation...
quote:
the way I see part of the evidence, it cannot work |
I'm probably the last person who should be saying this, considering how scientifically ignorant I am, but you should probably read at least a bit more on evolutionary theory, in your posts (or was it CyberShy) I stopped the extremally comon misconception that each gene does one thing, when in fact one gene often does a myriad of things and one gene often triggers hundreds of others.
Also if evolution was really so easily disproven I really doubt that the pro-evolution consensus among scientists would be as strong as it is (this is, of course, not an arguement that evolution is true since new evidnece/theories could pop up at any time, merely that the creationists arguements and "evidence" are pretty unconvincing since they've had a LONG time to make their case and convinced so few scientists, especially Old Earth Creationism).
quote:
I can see your fallback position |
Its not a fallback position so much as the arguement that just debunking won't cut it since no matter what else evolution is, its the best model available. All creationist theories have pretty much zero predictive power since they all boil down to "God did it and I don't know why specifically" so they're completely useless for things like finding oil, developing medecine etc. etc.
quote:
The bottom line is that Evolution says there is NO NEED for a GOD. |
Right, and that's why you don't like it, not because of bits of evidence against it is "improbability."
quote:
What percentage of the fossil record consists of transitionals, and what percentage consists of long-classified, distinct species? |
Asking for a transitional species is a lot like asking for half a piece of chalk, no matter how many times you break it in half the creationists will say "no that's not half a piece of chalk that's just a piece of chalk." ALL species (except "dead ends") are transitional.
quote:
Intelligent design can easily be proved wrong by demonstrating conclusively that the data that exists in even the most primitive organisms can come about via random processes. |
Other way round, ID has to come up with a sorting mechanism that can tell the difference between something natural and something designed. Behe tried irreducible complexity, which didn't pan out, and there's no real replacement that I'm aware of.
quote:
Has anything done with "the step before" any of Behe's examples? |
Yup, here's some info on the blood clotting, since you asked about it specifically:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html
and here's a Creationist debunking Behe:
http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
I'd offer Ethelred a beer for services to truth, but i fear he thinks beer drinking is illogical |
I just can't stand the taste. I am addicted to Coka Cola.
Last time I tried beer was Anchor Steam which is from San Fransico. The first or at least oldest beer made in California. No refrigeration or ice back when it was created so it was fermented at a high temperature for an American beer. Its kind of bitter, not that I am an expert.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Mutations alter informations by changing a few characteristics, moving a few chunks around, and deleting a few characteristics (what am I missing here?). |
What you're missing are the genome-enlarging mutations. Various mutatuions can enlarge the total genome by duplicting chunks of it (for instance, polyploidy duplicates entire chromosomes). When a chunk has been duplicated, further point mutations in the duplicated section can produce a new trait without knocking out something essential (because a backup copy exists). So the duplication increases "information" represented by the total number of "bits" in the genome (but not the number of different characteristics encoded), then accumulated differences between the initially identical sections increases "information" represented by the number of different characteristics encoded.
For instance, the nylon-eating mutation knocked out the ability to eat normal food because that section wasn't duplicated. It's possible that this mutation has occurred before, but it would have been lethal without nylon available to feed on. As there is now a stable supply of nylon available, the ability to eat other foods doesn't matter. It's possible that the relevant section might get duplicated, and a subsequent mutation might cause that section to revert to producing an enzyyme for eating regular food. If this happens now, it would be a moderately harmful mutation (because having redundant enzymes floating about is an inefficient use of resources). However, if it happens when the supply of nylon is limited and there's a big advantage to eating regular food, the result would be a bug that can eat both. Of course, there's no guarantee that it WILL happen even if it would be advantageous, as it requires two mutations and the first provides no immediate advantage. The first would be a "neutral" mutation (neither good nor bad: the most common sort of mutation). The second would either be slightly bad or very good, depending on the circumstances.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Or maybe He was last seen doing His Creation in the Lake Victoria in Africa. New species of fishes appeared out of nowhere! No evolution there, but creation. |
Did you read your links or are you cynical? They say there is less difference in the genes of 2 fish species there than in 2 human beings! This means these fish are more alike one another than you and your neighbour. Evolution can explain this "plethora" of species. The speed factor may be even faster than previously thought, that is all. That would rather tend to prove "macro" evolution by the way: Put a single species in an empty environment with lots of food available and it will thrive, reproduce and diversify exponentially.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VictorB212
|
|
Near Boston, MA, USA
May 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Ethelred
If he claimed ALL the information must have been in the first life he is bleeding moron. I don't think he said something so ignorant from what I have seen of his claims. |
I am sorry for being misleading—I meant the majority of information. Nevertheless, you pay no attention to Behe, so this is largely irrelevant.
When I speak of random, I mean according to the laws of nature. Another way of wording it would be unguided – i.e. no designer was involved, no intelligent lifeform.
You claim Behe’s odds where wholly manufactured and made up – do the figures Evolutionists come up have any better foundation? Or do Evolutionists just avoid the issue (we are here, so we must have evolved/all the other pieces fit together, so this one probably does too)?
quote:
Evolution makes no claims about god one way or the other. However it does show that life as presently exists can evolve from simpler forms to reach the point we are now at. That does mean a god is not required but it does not say the one can't exist, in fact it says nothing about god on its own, except of course it does show Genesis wrong but that is unintional and comes from the evidence not from a desire to disprove. If the only reason you don't want accept the reality of evolution is because it would make it possible that your belief is wrong than your belief isn't worth much. Beliefs that depend on denial are worthless. |
First of all you seem to be arguing against a point that I did not make. I said that Evolution claims that no intelligent designer is needed. You use weighted statements like “the reality of evolution” – remember that I accept microevolution, but not macro. Reread the quote I made of Sir Julian Huxley – for him, evolution provided him a way to deny that a “creator-god” existed, and thus he could do anything he wanted and not be ultimately held accountable. Thus, I could call your beliefs ones that depend on denial. My point is that such comments are useless in such a discussion as this.
You claim creationists lie. Well, the truth is that you Evolutionists lie too. Remember Piltdown Man? That lie survived for a few decades, if I remember correctly.
You appear to be utterly arrogant in that I am the misinformed one and you are 100% correct. I don’t think any of us here aren’t misinformed to some extent. Let me make sure: are you clear on my distinction between micro and macro evolution?
You took my statement about two scientists in Alaska way too seriously. It was merely an illustration – you seem to claim that there is 0% dissent about macroevolution and abiogenesis, persecuting those who doubt. That seems awfully like the Spanish Inquisition to me.
With respect to the bacteria which can metabolize nylon when a certain enzyme is mutated – once again you play with definitions. I meant “feature” as in a new membrane, arm, leg, or something like that. The fact that an enzyme can go from metabolizing one material to another proves NOTHING about how that enzyme could have originated – it only presents the possibility that when one DNA pair shift a whole sequence over, that could provide new, unparalleled capabilities. Can you understand my point here? If not, we will need to degenerate into definitions first.
quote:
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution except time. Since there is billions of years of time that covers the time apsect very well indeed. |
Microevolution has been observed. Macroevolution has never been observed. You will tear the aforementioned statement apart, saying that either the only limitation is time, or your bacteria example proves it. Wait a few more posts before you do that; I think my points will become more refined and clear.
quote:
I think that paragraph shows pretty clearly that you DO believe in the Flood. So its clear that science is not something you tolerate since it clearly shows the Flood never happened. |
You severely underestimate me. I mean this to prove a point, not brag or be arrogant: several people have told me that I am one of the top if not the top student in my high school (out of ~250 students, a wealthy suburb). I think you are interpreting things incorrectly if you say science proved that the flood never happened. I have a feeling (I have not investigated the flood evidence much at all to be honest) that scientists have to make some fundamental assumptions about what the flood was in order to prove it wrong – assumptions that are not necessarily valid. Right now I don’t see investigating the flood as a good use of my time – I’d rather learn about why Evolutionists think mutations can provide the building block for evolution of new organs, etc.
You want my position. I believe that when interpreted in a certain way, scientific evidence can point to the need for an intelligent designer. Until I can demonstrate this, you will attack anything I say with the “Evolution is a FACT” attitude. My position of the flood and God creating the earth is faith. There is very little evidence for my faith; that is why it is faith. When a scientist attacks a theory, does he always have to provide an alternate theory? I openly admit that my belief in the Bible and of the God it describes is all built on faith – I thought I had never denied that in this thread. What I am pushing is intelligent design, something that is not a religion.
Class is over -- more to come.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VictorB212
|
|
Near Boston, MA, USA
May 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
Zhu Yuanzhang, you blatantly ignored my request for the transitional statistics. Here is a refined version of the question: Darwin himself stated that there was a problematic lack of transitional fossils. For some guy I forget the name of (he was actually a Chrisitan) had classified most of the species into well defined groups (the same classification system used today), and there were very few that could bridge the gaps between these well defined groups. As far as I know, people like Gould who thought up "punctuated equilibrium" did so because of this astounding lack of transitional fossils. I am unaware of the complete (or even 25%) filling of these gaps. I apologize for the history lesson, but it seems that you will not understand the question if not fully explained. As usual, please point out where I'm wrong and I will try to clarify.
quote:
Other way round, ID has to come up with a sorting mechanism that can tell the difference between something natural and something designed. Behe tried irreducible complexity, which didn't pan out, and there's no real replacement that I'm aware of. |
I was unaware that this is how science works. Behe's point was not of a sorting mechanism (was that what he did?) -- his point was that successive mutations of any sort could not produce certain organs/processes. Evolutionists have made a claim that successive mutations can form organs (please allow this poetic license) -- I am not convinced. You are the only person I know who claims that ID'ers have to come up with such a "sorting mechanism."
Quote by Jack: quote:
When a chunk has been duplicated, further point mutations in the duplicated section can produce a new trait without knocking out something essential… |
My point is that this cannot do much more than alter an enzyme, so please provide me with more examples .
Gotta go again (wrote this during lunch).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
|
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Remember Piltdown Man? That lie survived for a few decades, if I remember correctly. |
Until debunked by "evolutionists"  . There's dozens of equally phony creationists claims (dinosaur and human footprint next to each other etc.) any creationists don't engage in anywhere near as much scrutiny of evidence that appears to support their position as "evolutionists" do, hell with a very few exceptions such scrutiny is non-existant.
quote:
You appear to be utterly arrogant in that I am the misinformed one and you are 100% correct. |
No, just that evolution is the only theory on the table that comes anywhere close to explaining reality (unless you want to go solopistic or something).
quote:
persecuting those who doubt. That seems awfully like the Spanish Inquisition to me. |
In science everything gets "persecuted" via peer review, and there is 99% consensus on the major issues.
quote:
I meant “feature” as in a new membrane, arm, leg, or something like that |
The way evolution generally works is coopting existing "features" for new uses, not having them pop out of thin air. And there are mutant strains of fruit flies with extra lets etc. etc.
quote:
Macroevolution has never been observed. |
Things like the mamalian ear show a clear progessions from jaw bones to earbones through a thousand small steps. Of course it can't be 100% that these changes happened via evolution, but all these changes are pretty "micro" (meaningless distinction really) and since its been established that "micro" happens...
quote:
What I am pushing is intelligent design, something that is not a religion. |
How so?
quote:
For some guy I forget the name of (he was actually a Chrisitan) had classified most of the species into well defined groups |
Well when you classify animal you classify them into groups and are then surprised that all the animals that you classified are in groups? I know what you're getting at but unless you provide a clearer definition of "transitional" 90% of the fossil record is "transitional" (ie it descented from something and something else descended from it).
quote:
You are the only person I know who claims that ID'ers have to come up with such a "sorting mechanism." |
There's another IDer (whose name escapes me) who does more Comp Sci sorts of stuff who's working on this very issue, this is nothing terribly origonal on my part but ID doesn't get very far unless there's a good simple way of telling wether something is designed or now, otherwise its a rather silly exercise in obscure biology where the ID finds something and says "ooooh I bet you can't figure out how this evolved," then it gets figured out, and the IDer moves on to the next biological oddity, quite futile really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
There is no contradiction there because He runs the show. To put it another way, the objection to causality violation is that it causes observations wich are inconsistent with one another - by having a cosmic referee to censor tese contriadictions there is no problem. Causality violation is allowed if it causes no observable consequences. |
I wasn't talking about God's free will, but our own.
If I were to hold a bowling ball over your head and drop it, the bowling ball didn't choose to hit you in the head, and neither did the principles of gravity. I made that choice if I understand how gravity will affect the ball. An omniscient being would obviously have a perfect understanding of the consequences of any of his actions, even if he is omnipotent and instigates those consequences.
With an omniscient creator, the outcome was known, and thus predestined. I don't see any room for human free will, except as an illusion.
quote:
Funnily enough, free-will is not consistent within the current framework of science. Unless one completely restructures the way in which science is done, one has to throw away the concept of free-will. I made a thread on this a while ago (intended from a scientific rather than religious perspective). |
I agree that free will doesn't exist from a scientific standpoint. That was what I meant by:
quote:
There's still a problem with free will and causality though. Even if you allow for randomness that doesn't allow for choice. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VictorB212
I am sorry for being misleading—I meant the majority of information. Nevertheless, you pay no attention to Behe, so this is largely irrelevant. |
I paid enough attention to him to find out that he wrong.
quote:
When I speak of random, I mean according to the laws of nature. Another way of wording it would be unguided – i.e. no designer was involved, no intelligent lifeform. |
I am merely trying to avoid false claims that its purely random. That is a standard and false claim by Creationist. If you use it like they do I will point out that it is wrong.
quote:
You claim Behe’s odds where wholly manufactured and made up – do the figures Evolutionists come up have any better foundation? Or do Evolutionists just avoid the issue (we are here, so we must have evolved/all the other pieces fit together, so this one probably does too)? |
There is no evidence to base the odds on except of course for some of the lab data. What little lab data there is does not support Behe's chosen numbers. Biologists have neither avoided the issue nor come up with an answer. Its being researched. To pretend you have an answer when you clearly don't is really bad science. Behe did exactly that.
quote:
First of all you seem to be arguing against a point that I did not make. I said that Evolution claims that no intelligent designer is needed. |
It makes no statement about a god at all. It does however show that one is not needed for the many changes that have occured in life over millions of years.
quote:
You use weighted statements like “the reality of evolution” – remember that I accept microevolution, but not macro. |
If you accept microevolution than you accepting the reality of evolution. On top of which the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time.
quote:
Reread the quote I made of Sir Julian Huxley – for him, evolution provided him a way to deny that a “creator-god” existed, and thus he could do anything he wanted and not be ultimately held accountable. Thus, I could call your beliefs ones that depend on denial. My point is that such comments are useless in such a discussion as this. |
Huxley was speaking for himself. It did give him a way to say the a god was not needed for life to evolve. It says nothing about the Universe.
You could lie that I depend on denial. You couldn't say it honestly.
quote:
You claim creationists lie. Well, the truth is that you Evolutionists lie too. Remember Piltdown Man? That lie survived for a few decades, if I remember correctly. |
How do you know that an 'Evolutionist' created Piltdown Man? One candidate for the hoax is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The other is Dawson himself. Whoever it was it was only one man. Only one instance and it was Anthropologists that cleared up the problem. The two men, and many other Anthropologists, had noticed that Eoanthropus Dawsoni made no sense in the light of other evidence. Thus it was science that found the problem. Few if any Creationista have ever exposed the MANY fraudulent and just plain ignorant Creationist claims.
quote:
You appear to be utterly arrogant in that I am the misinformed one and you are 100% correct. I don’t think any of us here aren’t misinformed to some extent. Let me make sure: are you clear on my distinction between micro and macro evolution? |
Funny how I get called arrogant for telling the truth by believers. They can't deny with evidence so I get called things.
First you are not telling the truth in you efforts to paint me as claiming to be 100% percent correct. I don't think anyone but a Creationist has ever made that claim for themselves.
I am clear on you mistaken distinction between micro and macro. You have nothing to support your claim that there is such a difference in the real world.
quote:
You took my statement about two scientists in Alaska way too seriously. It was merely an illustration – you seem to claim that there is 0% dissent about macroevolution and abiogenesis, persecuting those who doubt. That seems awfully like the Spanish Inquisition to me. |
If you deliberatly mistate reality I will call you on it. It was more than just a tiny exageration on your part. However not as much as you pretend as very few scientist can hide from reality like the Creationist do. I never ever claimed Zero dissent. People are really good at denying reality. That is why Creationists exist.
quote:
With respect to the bacteria which can metabolize nylon when a certain enzyme is mutated – once again you play with definitions. |
Rather it is you that are playing with definitions. That was definitly a new feature.
quote:
I meant “feature” as in a new membrane, arm, leg, or something like that. |
Flying squirels fit that concept quite well. So now you have an example of a macro feature in transition. Another is the panda's thumb. Both are real features. So is having extra fingers or toes for that matter.
We allready covered eyes quite well. That too fits your creeping featurism.
quote:
The fact that an enzyme can go from metabolizing one material to another proves NOTHING about how that enzyme could have originated – it only presents the possibility that when one DNA pair shift a whole sequence over, that could provide new, unparalleled capabilities. |
Sure it shows how it can happen. There really is nothing in way of difficulty in understanding how it can happen and someone else here allready showed you with that specific example of how it could happen. The gene sequence could have been coppied twice and one version shifted and the other remaining as the original did. That sort of thing is known to happen. We have seven different forms of hemoglobin not counting the kind that leads to sickle cell anemia. Most of them are used prior to birth. One is the form we use after birth.
Hemoglobin is made up four subunits. Two different pairs. One pair looks exactly like its a mutated form of the other pair. A case of evolution through duplication and then specialization of the duplicate.
Its likely that poisonous bites came about the same way. A gene for a digestive enzyme is duplicated and one copy does the original job freeing up the other to mutate into something else like a killing enzyme.
quote:
Can you understand my point here? If not, we will need to degenerate into definitions first. |
I understood your point long ago. Before you expressed it. Its based on lack of understanding of how the genes work. You simply don't seem to have a clue about duplication and specialization. It was pointed out to you before yet you still act as if it wasn't.
quote:
Microevolution has been observed. Macroevolution has never been observed. |
We have only been looking for a short time. However macroevolution can easily be seen in the fossil record. Of course we do also have things like flying squirels as well.
quote:
You will tear the aforementioned statement apart, saying that either the only limitation is time, or your bacteria example proves it. |
I did both. I also gave more examples. You have done nothing to show that even your version of macroevolution is impossible. You allready had your eye ploy shot down.
quote:
Wait a few more posts before you do that; I think my points will become more refined and clear. |
I doubt it. Still there is no reason that I shouldn't adress what you say now.
quote:
You severely underestimate me. I mean this to prove a point, not brag or be arrogant: several people have told me that I am one of the top if not the top student in my high school (out of ~250 students, a wealthy suburb). |
That is good evidence that I haven't underestimated you. You don't know any genetics or anything else that is mostly learned in college. For instance do you even read Scientific American? I am not questioning your inteligence. I am questioning your knowledge and you clear lack of it on many things that are relevant to this discussion.
quote:
I think you are interpreting things incorrectly if you say science proved that the flood never happened. I have a feeling (I have not investigated the flood evidence much at all to be honest) that scientists have to make some fundamental assumptions about what the flood was in order to prove it wrong – assumptions that are not necessarily valid. Right now I don’t see investigating the flood as a good use of my time – I’d rather learn about why Evolutionists think mutations can provide the building block for evolution of new organs, etc. |
You may think what you want. However I will continue to point out the errors. I don't have to make a lot of assumptions about the Flood. Its described adequatly in the Bible. A world wide flood covering the highest mountain and intended to kill all that breathed and all mankind. Thats a pretty darn big flood. And the Bible has ample information to fix it in time to a high enough degree of accuracy. That time is 4400 years ago give or take about 100 years assuming they have the right date for Temple and Solomon. At least I think that is what the baseline is. The baseling date could be too late by 300 years if one theory about the standard Egyptian timeline is correct. So the most you can move it back is 400 years. Thats still with written history. No one in Egypt or Sumeria noticed that everyone had been killed. I think they would notice a thing like that.
On top of which. There is no geophysical evidence to support a worldwide flood. The genetic evidence is more clear that humans were not down to four related men and four unrelated women. Few if any species have any indication in their genes that they were down to just two individual 4400 years ago. Nearly ALL species of life should show that. A few could show seven pairs of ancestors 4400 years ago. Those would all be the 'clean' animals.
The evidence for the flood consists of some really poorly researched claims of flood stories that are nowhere near as consistent as the Creationists claim. Some claims about geology that actually disproves the flood despite the Creationist claim that its evidence for it. Thats it really. Nothing that can stand up to thought for long.
quote:
You want my position. I believe that when interpreted in a certain way, scientific evidence can point to the need for an intelligent designer. |
Only if you don't want to think about how things could happen without one. Like Behe did.
quote:
Until I can demonstrate this, you will attack anything I say with the “Evolution is a FACT” attitude. |
Well since you do accept microevolution than you are accepting that evolution is a fact.
quote:
My position of the flood and God creating the earth is faith. There is very little evidence for my faith; that is why it is faith. |
I am not impressed by faith. Especially a faith that requires a world that is not the one we live in.
quote:
When a scientist attacks a theory, does he always have to provide an alternate theory? |
No and am pretty sure you agree with that. Which is why its disenguous of you to insist that we must have evidence of macroevolution, evidence that you will admit is incontrovertible, to say that an inteligent designer need not exist. All we have to do is to show that your particular ID does not exist. The fact that the Flood didn't happen show that Jehovah does not exist. At least not the Jehovah of Genesis.
quote:
I openly admit that my belief in the Bible and of the God it describes is all built on faith – I thought I had never denied that in this thread. What I am pushing is intelligent design, something that is not a religion.
Class is over -- more to come. |
Inteligent design is religion. Its a belief about a god. In your case you have a very specific god in mind at that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VictorB212
|
|
Near Boston, MA, USA
May 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
Zhu Yuanzhang:
When I said “persecute”, I meant persecuting the person, not the idea.
quote:
And there are mutant strains of fruit flies with extra lets etc. etc. |
Excuse me for any ignorance, but the fact that fruit flies can mutate and be born with extra legs proves very little besides that an existing organ that already exists can be duplicated – it does not explain how legs could have come about in the first place.
quote:
Things like the mamalian ear show a clear progessions from jaw bones to earbones through a thousand small steps. Of course it can't be 100% that these changes happened via evolution, but all these changes are pretty "micro" (meaningless distinction really) and since its been established that "micro" happens... |
Be careful of this argument. What you are saying is that since the progression observed (in fossils? I am not sure how disputed that is) comes close to proving the fact that they evolved that way. I would like to examine the process by which this new feature can come about via random (I believe it is pretty random in this case) mutations.
Intelligent design starts from the premise that random mutations (selected by natural selection) cannot explain the genetic information observed today. It argues from within science, no matter how much you don’t like that Evolution is being attacked from a scientific standpoint.
I meant “transitional” as a fossil that provides a link between two distinct groups. You continually play with the definition of that word. Could you address punctuated equilibrium, by Stephen Jay Gould, who thought it up because he did not see support for gradual evolution in the fossil record? Are the quotations (you have probably heard them; I can find them if need be) by paleontologists that the fossil record is severely lacking obsolete, or were they false from the beginning? Are you saying that if you were to show Darwin the fossil record as it is today, he would be totally satisfied? Maybe defining transitional as a fossil linking distinct groups of organisms would be useful. Do any of you know of any good resources where I could see how the fossil record in Darwin’s time “grew” into that of today? Or do you dispute Darwin’s claim that at his time, the fossil record clearly did not support Evolution? (Please note that I am just curious as to how the fossil record has suddenly become so supporting of Evolution.)
On free will vs. predestination: it is a very interesting paradox. Sort of like particle-wave duality. One way to word it is that God knew what “free will choices” you were going to make. I find it curious how you challenge me when I say that I can either post here or not, it is truly up to me. Your example of the bowling ball is silly – bowling balls aren’t sentient and therefore do not make choices. We can’t make any choice we want – we can’t defy gravity (at least until someone discovers the graviton particle). You probably know that this specific topic is debated and has been debated for centuries by Christians. Thus, do not expect to get anywhere.
Gotta go – more to come as usual.
Do any of you still claim that I am close minded? If so, please explain how. (Remember that I won’t just accept many of your claims, but I am asking for you to “show me the way.”)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VictorB212
Excuse me for any ignorance, but the fact that fruit flies can mutate and be born with extra legs proves very little besides that an existing organ that already exists can be duplicated – it does not explain how legs could have come about in the first place. |
OK your excused. It shows how things can be adapted for other things. Its likely that legs started as a way to swim before arthropoda came onto the land. A leg can be merely something that stuck out of a segmented worm to start with. As the segments undulate the projection does as well driving the creature along the bottom.
For us legs clearly came from fins. Now of course you will ask where the fins came from. You figure can out how it could have happened as an exercise in understanding how things can evolve rather than your continuing efforts to deny that it happens.
quote:
Be careful of this argument. What you are saying is that since the progression observed (in fossils? I am not sure how disputed that is) comes close to proving the fact that they evolved that way. I would like to examine the process by which this new feature can come about via random (I believe it is pretty random in this case) mutations. |
Whats to be carefull about? It does prove it. Only your need to deny evolution has you claiming it doesn't.
Go buy the Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. He does exactly that with eyes.
quote:
Intelligent design starts from the premise that random mutations (selected by natural selection) cannot explain the genetic information observed today. It argues from within science, no matter how much you don’t like that Evolution is being attacked from a scientific standpoint. |
It does NOT do that within science. The evidence fully supports the idea of evolution. I have nothing against evolution being attacked from a scientific viewpoint. I am still waiting for the first occurance of that.
quote:
I meant “transitional” as a fossil that provides a link between two distinct groups. You continually play with the definition of that word. |
Each time you are given and example you go fall back to a even more extreme version of transitional. That is playing with the definition. There is never going to be what you asked for THIS time. Thats because its a delibate chosen false definition. If the groups are distinct then there is no transition at that level. Transitions happen at when the animals are not highly specialized.
The flying squirel however IS a transition between a flying animal and a non-flying animal. It is EXACTLY what you were demanding. Now of course you have changed your demand. Carefully ambiguous as before of course. EXACTLY what constitutes a distinct type? Exactly what would you finally admit was a transition? Your evolving and mutating definition is the epitomy of playing with a definition.
If you say the ever popular cat being born from dog I will give you such a hit.
quote:
Could you address punctuated equilibrium, by Stephen Jay Gould, who thought it up because he did not see support for gradual evolution in the fossil record? |
He didn't see ENOUGH of those fossils to show the gradual evolution was the major way animals evolve.
quote:
Are the quotations (you have probably heard them; I can find them if need be) by paleontologists that the fossil record is severely lacking obsolete, or were they false from the beginning? Are you saying that if you were to show Darwin the fossil record as it is today, he would be totally satisfied? |
As long as I also showed him the modern version of his theory I would expect him to be pretty satisfied that he came close.
quote:
Maybe defining transitional as a fossil linking distinct groups of organisms would be useful. |
Yes it would be good it you did that. That way you would stop changing your definition all the time.
quote:
Do any of you know of any good resources where I could see how the fossil record in Darwin’s time “grew” into that of today? |
Just open any book on paleontology. Nearly every fossil in it will be post Darwin.
quote:
Or do you dispute Darwin’s claim that at his time, the fossil record clearly did not support Evolution? (Please note that I am just curious as to how the fossil record has suddenly become so supporting of Evolution.) |
I dispute your version of it anyway. The fossils and living animals did support it. They weren't as good as what we have today of course but at the time, just as today, there was nothing in the fossil record that showed him wrong and everything there was did fit the theory.
quote:
On free will vs. predestination: it is a very interesting paradox. Sort of like particle-wave duality. One way to word it is that God knew what “free will choices” you were going to make. I find it curious how you challenge me when I say that I can either post here or not, it is truly up to me. |
Well at least it appears to be up to you. If god knew you would do it given a specific start to the universe than he made the decision when he set the starting conditions.
Different starting conditions would result in you makeing a different decision.
quote:
Do any of you still claim that I am close minded? If so, please explain how. (Remember that I won’t just accept many of your claims, but I am asking for you to “show me the way.”) |
Yeah. You keep changing your definition of transitional so you can pretend the given examples aren't transitional. Thats a sign of a closed mind. Your evasions on the Flood also look suspiciously like you have closed your mind on the issue at the moment. Someday you may open it again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
In the case of an omniscient intelligent designer, we are limited by his knowlege of what will happen. What he knows will happen has to happen because he is omniscient and cannot be wrong. We can't choose whether to post here or not, it was predestined when he chose in what manner to create us. He could have chosen to create us so that we wouldn't post here right? Or even that we wouldn't have existed. So it was his choice if indeed we are products of an omniscient intelligent designer. |
I think you are really just misuderstanding the concept of time and causality. God's knowledge of our actions in no way predestines them. If we have free will then the decisions are ours to make by definition.
Since you like examples, let me give you one. Say I watch everything you do, and note down every decision you make for your entire life. And then, after you are dead, I build a time machine and travel back to your birth and observe you once again. Assuming that my presence goes undetected (and doesn't cause chaotic effects through the collapse of wave functions) you will make exactly the same decisions as 'before'. Just because I know what you will do, does not make them my decisions - you still have free-will.
If you do not believe that we have you are on a sticky wicket, because even most atheists would disagree with you. I do however agree that one can come up with a consistent model if you are willing to abbandon free-will, but then you really have to ask yourself: why bother?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
As far as I know, people like Gould who thought up "punctuated equilibrium" did so because of this astounding lack of transitional fossils. |
Not quite. PE is an explanation for the periods of stasis in the fossil record: long periods in which not a lot happens, followed by periods of relatively rapid change. The relative lack of "transitional fossils" from these periods is entirely consistent with the rarity of good conditions for fossilization in general.
The notion of "gradualism" came from Charles Lyell, not Charles Darwin. Darwin anticipated PE when he described how a single event, such as the arrival of a new predator from another region, can cause a rapid cascade of changes throughout an ecosystem.
quote:
When a chunk has been duplicated, further point mutations in the duplicated section can produce a new trait without knocking out something essential...
My point is that this cannot do much more than alter an enzyme, so please provide me with more examples |
Your entire "design" is encoded within your genes. If there is no theoretical limit to the magnitude of the changes that mutations can make to a genome, then there is no reason in principle that a microbe cannot evolve into a human. And the mechanisms we know of can enlarge a genome without limit and alter its contents without limit. Evolution has all the mutation "tools" required for the job.
quote:
Things like the mamalian ear show a clear progessions from jaw bones to earbones through a thousand small steps. Of course it can't be 100% that these changes happened via evolution, but all these changes are pretty "micro" (meaningless distinction really) and since its been established that "micro" happens...
Be careful of this argument. What you are saying is that since the progression observed (in fossils? I am not sure how disputed that is) comes close to proving the fact that they evolved that way. I would like to examine the process by which this new feature can come about via random (I believe it is pretty random in this case) mutations. |
In the case of the mammalian ear, its development in the embryo can be compared with the development of reptilian "hearing jaws" and the structures which support the gills in fish. DNA analysis has also shown that these structures are regulated by the same genes. This, combined with fossil evidence, allows scientists to construct a scenario in which the unused gill cavities in land-dwelling amphibians evolved into ears.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-05-2002 01:49
If you are an agnostic, then I must be a mormon! 
|