Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 10:05 AM
359 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, halibut, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (8 members, 351 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,689 Year: 27,295/21,208 Month: 1,208/1,714 Week: 51/365 Day: 7/44 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   A Creationist Sues the Grand Canyon for Religious Discrimination
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 16 of 99 (809353)
05-17-2017 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by JonF
05-17-2017 9:22 PM


Re: Flood disproved
Please repeat the information. I don't remember what Leonardo thought,.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 05-17-2017 9:22 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 05-18-2017 9:38 AM Faith has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10041
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 17 of 99 (809367)
05-18-2017 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
05-17-2017 8:38 PM


Topic Synopsis ala Phat
This is an interesting topic chiefly because of the wide variations of beliefs and world views between believers and unbelievers. Which brings up another argument: What has to be believed in order to qualify as a "believer"? I consider myself to be a believer in a Creator of all seen and unseen and I also believe that this Creator sent Jesus to communicate with us. I believe that Jesus is eternal life and that He lives today. That being said, I have no problem if the Grand Canyon was "created" by flood, erosion, nor how many years it took---be it ten or ten million.

Now as for all of you....

Dredge writes:

Satan, the father of lies, will use and abuse science in an attempt to "disprove" any part of God's Word. He manages to deceive a lot of folks, but not all of them .. and certainly not the Elect.

It is my understanding and belief that satan was and is allowed to exist by the Creator of all seen and unseen. It is also my understanding that satan is not able to deceive someone who has accepted the eternal life of our Lord Jesus. Does that make me one of these so called "Elect" or am I still in trouble for not believing in a global flood?

DavidJay writes:

Let the dead bury the dead and believe whatever they want and force whatever they want on students and toursists minds and whatever...Their choice, their responsibility.

You surely dont want the students of our future to be forced to only study certain books and historical arguments while being "protected" from other data, do you?

Taq writes:

Even before the theory of evolution, geologists had already figured out that the geologic record was not consistent with a recent global flood.

I find it quite hilarious when creationists think the Noachian flood was rejected because of the theory of evolution. It only demonstrates a complete ignorance of the history of geology.

Thats an interesting bit of information! I respect your perspective. I personally am a cosmological ceationist in that I think God exists and is the source for everything, but not necessarily the Creator of all things directly. Natural processes seem logical. After all, take our individual thoughts. Does God "create" the thoughts of everyone? Perhaps only the Elect? Or...more likely...God allows us to think and reason and learn. The final answer is not simply some code in the Bible that only the elect can decipher. That being said, I am not in favor of eliminating the Bible as a source of learning. The question is what the book is supposed to teach us. Think about it. (Hint: Jesus Christ)

Tanypteryx writes:

The flood gets lots of discussion and we know it never actually happened.

Evidence is useful when concrete things (such as dirt and rocks and water) are being discussed. It is not useful when discussing abstract things (such as God, eternal life, and human destiny) although perhaps conversations between believers and non believers can be useful regarding human destiny!

Tangle writes:

Now I understand all those one line bumper sticker shrug-offs, you think science is done by satan....
What a weird world you live in.

Actually, Tangle...I would be more likely to ascribe the belief that religion is done by satan. Science is all about thinking.

Davidjay writes:

modern geology did not start with wikileaks it started with the creation of atoms, dirt, matter, right from the Creation process of the Lord.....
Dirt and geology did nto start with a BIG BANG that exploded dirt together and laid layers upon layers.

Geology is a science until it gets into evolution backing, and the everything took a billion year s theory and dementia.

Hence geology and archeology and evolution are in bed together confirming one anothers theories, so as to try and force their religion on students and adults. How sad, but real searchers search and study and learn science and facts and truths.

Design and Intelligence wins, lack of design and lack of intelligence always loses.... always as in ALWAYS.

You have several assertions here that need addressing.
1) Are Design and Intelligence given to only certain people? (These Elect that are always being discussed)
2) Are the secular educated being deceived? If so by whom? And who is to say that the modern church is not also being deceived?

3) What is the most important single idea that ALL humans should believe? One sentence,please.

jar writes:

The Bible proves the Biblical Flood never happened.


Unless Loki is actually in charge!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 05-17-2017 8:38 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:09 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 05-18-2017 11:51 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 18 of 99 (809371)
05-18-2017 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
05-17-2017 8:16 PM


Re: Flood disproved
And what, pray tell, was Leonardo's reasoning for rejecting the Flood?

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)

quote:
Leonardo knew well the rocks and fossils (mostly Cenozoic mollusks) found in his native north Italy. No doubt he had ample opportunity to observe them during his service as an engineer and artist at the court of Lodovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, from 1482 to 1499: Vasari wrote that "Leonardo was frequently occupied in the preparation of plans to remove mountains or to pierce them with tunnels from plain to plain." He made many observations on mountains and rivers, and he grasped the principle that rocks can be formed by deposition of sediments by water, while at the same time the rivers erode rocks and carry their sediments to the sea, in a continuous grand cycle. He wrote: "The stratified stones of the mountains are all layers of clay, deposited one above the other by the various floods of the rivers. . . In every concavity at the summit of the mountains we shall always find the divisions of strata in the rocks." Leonardo appear to have grasped the law of superposition, which would later be articulated fully by the Danish scientist Nicolaus Steno in 1669: in any sequence of sedimentary rocks, the oldest rocks are those at the base. He also appears to have noticed that distinct layers of rocks and fossils could be traced over long distances, and that these layers were formed at different times: ". . . the shells in Lombardy are at four levels, and thus it is everywhere, having been made at various times." Nearly three hundred years later, the rediscovery and elaboration of these principles would make possible modern stratigraphy and geological mapping.

In Leonardo's day there were several hypotheses of how it was that shells and other living creatures were found in rocks on the tops of mountans. Some believed the shells to have been carried there by the Biblical Flood; others thought that these shells had grown in the rocks. Leonardo had no patience with either hypothesis, and refuted both using his careful observations. Concerning the second hypothesis, he wrote that "such an opinion cannot exist in a brain of much reason; because here are the years of their growth, numbered on their shells, and there are large and small ones to be seen which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion -- and here they could not move." There was every sign that these shells had once been living organisms. What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood.


Modern geologists have made similar observations over the whole world. Once again it is the spacial-temporal matrix that provides the detailed evidence for the natural history of the earth.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 05-17-2017 8:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 10:24 AM RAZD has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 99 (809383)
05-18-2017 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
05-17-2017 10:42 PM


Re: Flood disproved
Basically he realized that the fossils on mountaintops lived and grew where they were found (wherever that might have been at the time) and were far too complete to be deposited by moving water.

quote:
Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 05-17-2017 10:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 10:07 AM JonF has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 20 of 99 (809391)
05-18-2017 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by JonF
05-18-2017 9:38 AM


Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Thanks for the information, but I was just reading what RAZD posted from the Leonardo site and you seem to be in disagreement with that where you say:

Basically he realized that the fossils on mountaintops lived and grew where they were found (wherever that might have been at the time) and were far too complete to be deposited by moving water.

Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.

At first glance this seems to contradict what RAZD just posted about Leonardo's refuting the idea that the fossils in mountains had grown there:

...others thought that these shells had grown in the rocks. Leonardo had no patience with either hypothesis, and refuted both using his careful observations. Concerning the second hypothesis, he wrote that "such an opinion cannot exist in a brain of much reason; because here are the years of their growth, numbered on their shells, and there are large and small ones to be seen which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion -- and here they could not move."

But he isn't saying they grew in the rocks, merely " lived and grew where they were found (wherever that might have been at the time" since he goes on to suppose that the land had been covered by seas at some point: " it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas. "

But that's a statement I would take as a near miss to grasping that they were deposited by the Flood, so near and yet so far.

If local floods could have deposited them and not broken them to bits, why couldn't the worldwide Flood? Why is there such certainty about what the Flood would have done as long as it contradicts what the Bible says? It's not all that hard to set your mind to reconciling the facts with the Bible, it's a mental set, the explanations that debunk the Bible aren't particularly realistic, they're just the usual off-the-cuff suppositions. If the shells are not broken we then assume the Flood wasn't as violent as is often thought.

But the general idea that they lived and grew wherever the mountains originally were is certainly in turn with the idea of the Flood, especially since he also says strata are found in the high parts of the mountains, which to my mind are a sure evidence of the Flood. So the Flood laid down all the sediments along with the shells and other fossils, and after the Flood the mountains were raised: that's the tectonic activity that occurred with the splitting of the continents. See? It all works out just fine.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 05-18-2017 9:38 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2017 10:13 AM Faith has responded
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 10:48 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 40 by JonF, posted 05-18-2017 12:07 PM Faith has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6025
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 21 of 99 (809394)
05-18-2017 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
05-18-2017 10:07 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
So the Flood laid down all the sediments along with the shells and other fossils, and after the Flood the mountains were raised: that's the tectonic activity that occurred with the splitting of the continents. See? It all works out just fine.

But the dating doesn't work.

That's way too much mountain building etc. to pack into 4350 years. Or actually more like under 2000 years, as by about 500 BC the Greeks were making a lot of observations and records and the tectonic activity that would be associated with such rapid mountain building (and plate movement) would surely have been noticed.

(The Egyptians were making records much earlier, and they made no reference to a worldwide flood.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 10:07 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 10:26 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 22 of 99 (809399)
05-18-2017 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
05-18-2017 7:22 AM


Leonardo's unbiblical guesses
Interesting, thanks.

He was very interested in the strata, but called them "all layers of clay," rather than different sediments, noting that "at the summit of the mountains we shall always find the divisions of strata in the rocks," but attributed them to flooding of rivers.

Obviously it wouldn't be easy to interpret such phenomena in any age, but it seems to me that believing the Bible ought to give a person the definite idea that the strata are evidence for the Flood. Lots of odd ideas are possible for all these phenomena; standard current Geology's ideas are probably the strangest though, the idea of separate eras of time in which the fossils lived.

..He also appears to have noticed that distinct layers of rocks and fossils could be traced over long distances, and that these layers were formed at different times: ". . . the shells in Lombardy are at four levels, and thus it is everywhere, having been made at various times."

The idea that layers represent time periods is in his thinking already, it seems. Maybe it wasn't all that easy to see layers as simultaneously produced, which is what various recent experiments have shown. But mostly I fault Leonardo for not trying to reconcile the facts with the Bible. On the other hand the Catholic church was discouraging people from reading the Bible in those days.

....The idea that fossils "grew there" he rightly denounces. But then JonF quotes something else from that article that suggests he accepted that they "lived and grew there" if that refers to an original location in the sea.

What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded.

Too bad, Leonardo didn't put much trust in the Bible, but then as I said above, Catholics in those days didn't. Those who do trust the Bible expect to find an explanation for where the water went, they don't just give up and call God a liar, which is what Leonardo's position amounts to from the point of view of a Bible believer. The current theory about where the water went has something to do with the dropping of the sea floor I think.

He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time."

He lacked the perspective that explains the steps and layers as formed by water in one event.

He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it.

But this is easily answered. There were no fossils on mountaintops when the Flood began, they were deposited in the layers during the Flood which where then raised into mountains afterward.

He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood.

He seems to have an awfully small flood in mind, as so many do, not envisioning that a worldwide Flood would have so totally covered the land that its tides and waves would have carried all kinds of flotsam and jetsam many hundreds of miles over the land.

All this demonstrates that explaining the prehistoric past is a difficult thing. But biblical creationists have the Bible to give us a lead that others don't have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2017 7:22 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2017 1:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 23 of 99 (809400)
05-18-2017 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Coyote
05-18-2017 10:13 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Yes, your dating doesn't work. And since there weren't yet enough people around to be disturbed by the jostling of mountain building as the tectonic plates moved apart, that's the best theory that fits with the biblical account.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2017 10:13 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:11 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 24 of 99 (809403)
05-18-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
05-18-2017 10:07 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Another point: If Leonardo realized that the shells in the high mountains had to have originated in the sea, which led him to postulate that the land had been covered by the sea at one point, he should have noticed that to get shells into the high mountains by that means implies that the water had to be as deep as the worldwide Flood anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 10:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 25 of 99 (809407)
05-18-2017 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
05-17-2017 7:09 PM


Re: Flood disproved
Faith writes:

You say the Flood was disproved over 200 years ago. I think you owe it to us to show us how it was disproved.

Going back to Adam Sedgwick, Talkorigins has a nice description on one of their pages:

"The answer is simple: empirical evidence. Because the 'diluvial' strata which had been cited as evidence for a global flood were composed of gravel and other unconsolidated sediments, they were harder to investigate than the older, consolidated sedimentary rock. However, after a great deal of study, some geologists had been able to map portions of the 'diluvium' and demonstrate conclusively that they were the result of different events, clearly separated in time. Once this was firmly established, it became clear to Sedgwick and others that if the deposits were clearly the result of a series of distinct events, they could not have been the result of a single global flood. Therefore, as a conscientious scientist, Sedgwick rejected his previous hypothesis."
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 05-17-2017 7:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 11:23 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 26 of 99 (809409)
05-18-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Davidjay
05-17-2017 7:32 PM


Re: Flood disproved
Davidjay writes:

Geology is a science until it gets into evolution backing, and the everything took a billion year s theory and dementia.

A recent global flood and a young Earth were disproven well before Darwin ever wrote about evolution, or before he had even contemplated evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Davidjay, posted 05-17-2017 7:32 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 27 of 99 (809410)
05-18-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
05-18-2017 4:57 AM


Re: Topic Synopsis ala Phat
Phat writes:

Thats an interesting bit of information! I respect your perspective. I personally am a cosmological ceationist in that I think God exists and is the source for everything, but not necessarily the Creator of all things directly. Natural processes seem logical. After all, take our individual thoughts. Does God "create" the thoughts of everyone? Perhaps only the Elect? Or...more likely...God allows us to think and reason and learn. The final answer is not simply some code in the Bible that only the elect can decipher. That being said, I am not in favor of eliminating the Bible as a source of learning. The question is what the book is supposed to teach us. Think about it. (Hint: Jesus Christ)

I also respect your point of view, even if I don't agree with it.

The problem I see is that you approach the problem backwards. You don't start out accepting something is true without any evidence, and then try to find reasons not to think it is true. Instead, you look at all claims skeptically and only accept them on the weight of evidence.

Therefore, it isn't about eliminating the Bible from consideration. Instead, it is about producing evidence that it is true before accepting it. That is where theism falls short.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 05-18-2017 4:57 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 28 of 99 (809411)
05-18-2017 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
05-18-2017 10:26 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Faith writes:

Yes, your dating doesn't work. And since there weren't yet enough people around to be disturbed by the jostling of mountain building as the tectonic plates moved apart, that's the best theory that fits with the biblical account.

You don't fit theories to stories in books. You fit theories to empirical evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 10:26 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 11:27 AM Taq has responded
 Message 93 by Dredge, posted 05-19-2017 8:43 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 29 of 99 (809413)
05-18-2017 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taq
05-18-2017 11:03 AM


Re: Flood disproved
"The answer is simple: empirical evidence. Because the 'diluvial' strata which had been cited as evidence for a global flood were composed of gravel and other unconsolidated sediments, they were harder to investigate than the older, consolidated sedimentary rock.

This doesn't make sense to me. I don't know what it is referring to. What at that time was considered to be "diluvial" strata? How is the sedimentary rock determined to be "older?"

However, after a great deal of study, some geologists had been able to map portions of the 'diluvium' and demonstrate conclusively that they were the result of different events, clearly separated in time.

Since I have no idea what is meant by the "diluvium" nor what "mapping" portions of it describes, I can't get any; idea of what is meant by "demonstrate[ing] conclusively that they were the result of different events, clearly separated in time." How could that be determined in any case?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:03 AM Taq has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 30 of 99 (809416)
05-18-2017 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taq
05-18-2017 11:11 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
You don't fit theories to stories in books. You fit theories to empirical evidence.

If the book is known to be the word of the Creator God who made it all, what it says is the primary evidence, THE empirical evidence we must put above all other evidence. This does not mean rejecting something in the world that is clearly a fact, but a lot of what is pitted against the Bible is noting but interpretations and not facts at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:11 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:30 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 32 by jar, posted 05-18-2017 11:35 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 05-18-2017 11:40 AM Faith has responded

    
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017