Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2017 8:09 PM
433 online now:
Faith, marc9000, Meddle, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes, nwr, Tangle (7 members, 426 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,817 Year: 6,423/21,208 Month: 2,184/2,634 Week: 372/572 Day: 88/71 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only)
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 84 (634587)
09-22-2011 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Minnemooseus
09-12-2011 10:17 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Minnemooseus writes:

There are various ways of coming up with ages for various geologic rock units. Many of these are independent of the presence or absence of any fossils. The fossils are just going along for the ride. They are the same age as the containing rocks (Or at least no younger than the containing rocks - It's conceivable that they might of been eroded from older rocks and then redeposited, but there probably would be evidence to determine if such has happened).

My understanding is that you date the geological rock units by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks. I see this as circular reasoning.

The Cambrian Explosion Era, the lowest strata is rife with complex multi-cell invertebrates such as trilobites, having extremely complex eyes, jointed legs, and other appendages. Having appendages is indicative of a muscle system. They have antenae for detection. . They have organs for breathing, implicating some system of circulation through the cells. They have mouths capable of consuming food and of assimilating nutrients.

The sudden appearance of complex animals and plants is evidence of the Genesis Flood. Evolutionism would require a gradual evolvement of complex living things. LoL. The Precambrian strata does not contain that evidence.

In 1977 a vertebrate fish fossil was discovered in the upper Cambrian strata in Wyoming This was published in Science Magazine, May 5 1978.

The Cambrian Explosion Era fossils were fully formed highly complex animals and plants such as exist today. There are no transitional partly formed animals or plants in the bottom of the Geologic Column. For the most part, the Pre-Cambrian was lifeless.

The evidence is that evolution is not observed in the fossil record. The evidence is that the Genesis Flood is more supportive to the Geologic Column of the fossil record than Evolution.

The slowest moving animals are found at the bottom of the Column where thay should be expected to be, due to the inability to move to higher ground as the flood emerged. Thus, the lack of fast moving creatures which were capable of surviving the rising waters the longest. Birds fossils, for that reason are rare.

Fossilization requires sudden burial. Birds, mankind etc would not likely be, for the most part un-buried or shallow enough to decay rather than fossilize.

Evolutionists cite extinction as evidence of evolution. Extinction is not evidence of evolution.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Clarification changes in wording


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 10:17 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Panda, posted 09-23-2011 8:40 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-27-2011 12:39 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1060 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 47 of 84 (634646)
09-23-2011 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
09-22-2011 10:29 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
*deleted*

Edited by AdminPD, : Contents hidden

Edited by Panda, : Didn't notice. My bad. Sorry!


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2011 10:29 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by AdminPD, posted 09-23-2011 9:13 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 48 of 84 (634650)
09-23-2011 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Panda
09-23-2011 8:40 AM


Great Debate between Minnemooseus and Buzsaw Only
Just a reminder that this is a Great Debate topic.

The appropriate Peanut Gallery is the place for outside opinions.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Panda, posted 09-23-2011 8:40 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 84 (634780)
09-23-2011 10:42 PM


Uniformitarinsm Vs Catastrophism
The assumption of uniformitarianism by conventional science is a hugh factor so far as absolute dating goes with radiometric dating methodology.

The literal Genesis global floodist paradigm does not advocate for uniformitarianism. Since the Genesis account clearly depicts a canopy atmosphere before the flood, cosmic rays from the sun, etc would have affected the isotopes of all of the elements which conventionalists apply for dating the strata.

I will be citing some of the effects which pertain to the sun's rays etc as we delve into the various radiometric dating methods which I have been reading up on.

I'll be watching for your responses to some of which I've mentioned in my last message. Perhaps we can both glean some from the Peanut Gallery to address as it gets up and going.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-27-2011 12:54 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3468
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 50 of 84 (635119)
09-26-2011 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
09-13-2011 12:01 AM


The fossils were living at the time of the original rock deposition
Moose writes:

The only sensible way to date the walls construction would be to determine when the wall was built. The age of the wall material is irrelevant. If one was to tear down a 500 year old brick wall and use the materials to build a new wall, the wall construction would be dated as being new, not 500 years old.

Records or memory would determine when the stone wall was built. Question: Aside from memory/records, if the same conventional methodology applicable to fossil dating were applied to the wall at large containing old rock would the wall, having old rock and perhaps fossils in it (abe: make it) date much older?

No.

Being that the wall is made up of fragments of old rock does not mean that the age of the (construction of) the wall is equally as old. The time of the building of the wall has nothing to do with the age of the material used (other than the age of the building must not be older than the age of the materials used).

Fossils are found in a rock unit because they were living there at the time the sediment was being deposited. The fossils were not somehow quarried out of older rock and then redeposited in the younger rock. Of course, an exception to that rule is conceivable - But there would be evidence that such had happened, as opposed to the evidence that the fossils grew in place. In your wall analogy, there is evidence that the rock and contained fossils were removed and transported from the original older deposition location.

Replies to your later messages will be coming later (maybe even tonight). Please stand by for those replies before replying to this message.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Oops, wrong ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 09-13-2011 12:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3468
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 51 of 84 (635124)
09-27-2011 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
09-22-2011 10:29 PM


This message is pretty much "blah blah blah" in response to "blah blah blah"
My understanding is that you date the geological rock units by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks. I see this as circular reasoning.

I covered this at the tail end of my message 44. I don't know what I can or need to add to that, so here it is again:

Minnemooseus writes:

Side note: The old creationist line (old line, not old creationist, although both could be true ) is "The rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks - This is circular reasoning". The truth is, originally the rocks dated the fossils. The rocks were determined to be of x age, therefore the fossils were also of x age. After much study, it was determined that not only was that true, certain fossils were characteristic of rocks of certain ages. Thus it came to be that the fossils can be used to date the rocks.

This was also commented on in the peanut gallery topic (here). For whatever it's worth, I quote some of it to bring it into this topic:

Panda writes:

Just to explain why it is wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...logy#Relative_and_absolute_dating

quote:
A large advance in geology in the advent of the 20th century was the ability to give precise absolute dates to geologic events through radioactive isotopes and other methods. The advent of radiometric dating changed the understanding of geologic time. Before, geologists could only use fossils to date sections of rock relative to one another. With isotopic dates, absolute dating became possible, and these absolute dates could be applied fossil sequences in which there was datable material, converting the old relative ages into new absolute ages.

Which is a longer way to saying what I said in message 44. The contained link is some good stuff. I'll include a graphic from there, for future reference if for no other reason:

The caption for the above is:

quote:
Cross-cutting relations can be used to determine the relative ages of rock strata and other geological structures. Explanations: A - folded rock strata cut by a thrust fault; B - large intrusion (cutting through A); C - erosional angular unconformity (cutting off A & B) on which rock strata were deposited; D - volcanic dyke (cutting through A, B & C); E - even younger rock strata (overlying C & D); F - normal fault (cutting through A, B, C & E).

For now, just note that the above is just a representation of a small portion of the Earth's geology. The big picture is way more complex. Instead of 6 events showing relative dating relationships, the Earth's geology as a whole has probably millions. All of those events take some amount of time, which adds up to a lot of time.

The Cambrian Explosion Era, the lowest strata is rife with complex multi-cell invertebrates such as trilobites, having extremely complex eyes, jointed legs, and other appendages. Having appendages is indicative of a muscle system. They have antenae for detection. . They have organs for breathing, implicating some system of circulation through the cells. They have mouths capable of consuming food and of assimilating nutrients.

The sudden appearance of complex animals and plants is evidence of the Genesis Flood. Evolutionism would require a gradual evolvement of complex living things. LoL. The Precambrian strata does not contain that evidence.

I'm going to for now pass on getting into the details of the so called "Cambrian Explosion". That would be pretty involved in itself, and I don't see it as being particularly relevant to the essence of this topic. You are welcome to try to convince me why it is.

In 1977 a vertebrate fish fossil was discovered in the upper Cambrian strata in Wyoming This was published in Science Magazine, May 5 1978.

As per my previous comment. I do vaguely recall hearing something about that. As I really doubt you are a reader of "Science", I would be interested in a link to your on-line source.

The Cambrian Explosion Era fossils were fully formed highly complex animals and plants such as exist today. There are no transitional partly formed animals or plants in the bottom of the Geologic Column. For the most part, the Pre-Cambrian was lifeless.

As per my previous comment.

The Cambrian Explosion Era fossils were fully formed highly complex animals and plants such as exist today. There are no transitional partly formed animals or plants in the bottom of the Geologic Column. For the most part, the Pre-Cambrian was lifeless.

So, I take it that you think the Cambrian sediments are a result of "THE FLOOD". Might I ask what sediments mark the end of "THE FLOOD"?

The slowest moving animals are found at the bottom of the Column where thay should be expected to be, due to the inability to move to higher ground as the flood emerged. Thus, the lack of fast moving creatures which were capable of surviving the rising waters the longest. Birds fossils, for that reason are rare.

Fossilization requires sudden burial. Birds, mankind etc would not likely be, for the most part un-buried or shallow enough to decay rather than fossilize.

Evolutionists cite extinction as evidence of evolution. Extinction is not evidence of evolution.

Again, I fail to see the immediate relevance of that to the topic at hand.

You may find my response to be lacking. I'm afraid I find that message to be a hodge-podge of random thoughts.

On to your next message.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change subtitle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2011 10:29 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3468
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 52 of 84 (635125)
09-27-2011 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
09-23-2011 10:42 PM


Processes of reality vs. processes of fantasy
The literal Genesis global floodist paradigm does not advocate for uniformitarianism.

Strict uniformitarianism is an outdated concept. The modern practical definition is something along the lines of "results of processes that we know can happen".

Your "Genesis global floodist paradigm" is a fantasy flood capable of producing the results of any of the vast number of geologic processes.

Enough for now. Your turn again.

The peanut gallery is welcome to critique my messages.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 09-23-2011 10:42 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 84 (635352)
09-28-2011 8:00 PM


Co-ordinating Peanut Gallery With Debate
Hi Moose. I'm getting my thoughts together so as to respond to your points as soon as I can find time.

In the meanwhile, IMO, it would be helpful if the Peanut Gallery participants would co-ordinate their discussion with what is at hand here.

We're not debating the Exodus perse presently. Nevertheless, NoNukes and PaulK are going at me in Message 10 about dishonesty, implying that I was ignoring the fact that the Exodus crossing is too deep presently for such a crossing.

The fact is that if they would go back to the Exodus debate, they would be honest themselves and tell the folks that I explain why the site was deeper thousands of years ago than it is now, advising how the global flood which happened, according to the record, relatively shortly before the Exodus. Thus the tsunami like rush of the returning of the walls of water from North and South, would likely cut a chanel in the looser sandy Eastern section of what the flood washed down from the wadi canyon, etc.

Thus the Exodus evidence becomes somewhat supportive to the Noaic flood and vise versa; the flood somewhat supportive to the Exodus.

Perhaps while I'm not yet ready to respond to your last message, you may want to weigh in on this matter, so as to keep the two threads more or less co-ordinated.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-28-2011 10:50 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 09-29-2011 11:58 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3468
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 54 of 84 (635374)
09-28-2011 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Buzsaw
09-28-2011 8:00 PM


Where did all the water go?
Thus the tsunami like rush of the returning of the walls of water from North and South, would likely cut a chanel in the looser sandy Eastern section of what the flood washed down from the wadi canyon, etc.

Buz, presuming that the whole world was submerged in water (and I'm not beginning to buy into that), you have an Earth that was 100 percent ocean. There is nowhere for the water to run off.

On a related note, where did all that sediment that was deposited by "THE FLOOD" come from? You producing it out of "thin air", just like all that water of "THE FLOOD"?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2011 8:00 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 09-29-2011 12:47 AM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 09-29-2011 9:45 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 84 (635388)
09-29-2011 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Minnemooseus
09-28-2011 10:50 PM


Re: Where did all the water go?
Moose writes:

Buz, presuming that the whole world was submerged in water (and I'm not beginning to buy into that), you have an Earth that was 100 percent ocean. There is nowhere for the water to run off.

On a related note, where did all that sediment that was deposited by "THE FLOOD" come from? You producing it out of "thin air", just like all that water of "THE FLOOD"?

If you will read the first chapters of Genesis you will have to conclude that there was a canopy like atmosphere over the planet so as to even out the global temperature and reduce the harmful direct rays of the sun.

There was no rain or rainbow on earth pre-flood. No rainbow clearly implies no direct rays to produce one. The pre-flood atmosphere, along with other factors produced better and healthier food. This produced larger, healthier humans and animals which enjoyed longer lives. After the flood, if you follow Noah and his near descendents down to Moses, human lives gradually deteriorated down to about one hundred to two hundred years by Moses's time, a thousand or so years down line.

The oceans were relatively shallow, rendering the earth relatively (I say relatively) smoother with lower mountains.

The account states that the flood broke up subterranean waters which were evidently substantial, so as to force much of the subterranean water to the surface. Psalms 104 states, pertaining to the flood, that the mountains rose up and the valleys sank down, alluding to tectonic plate upheaval and volcanic activity. Other OT writers attested to that as well.

The settling of the relatively thin ocean crusts caused tectonic uplifts such as faults etc, creating the mountain ranges. This settling of things likely took some time as land dams gave way, forming canyons, deepening the oceans and lowering the ocean floors. This is the reason sea life fossils are found in high mountain ranges.

These factors easily account for enough water to cover the relatively smooth earth and where it went after it fell. Then too, a substantial amount of it remained in the atmosphere so as to re-form to it's post-flood state.

From a careful, thought out study of the Genesis account, this summarizes all that the Genesis account states and implicates.

ABE: IMO, the above pretty well accounts to how literalist Biblical creationists should interpret what is observed.

Edited by Buzsaw, : ABE notation

Edited by Buzsaw, : Add gold so as to draw attention to ABE


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-28-2011 10:50 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2011 2:52 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3468
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 56 of 84 (635403)
09-29-2011 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
09-29-2011 12:47 AM


Re: Where did all the water go?
You dodged most of my response, including the subtitle question.

Please expound on the pulling of the divine drain plug and the location of the divine sand and gravel stockpile.

Offhand, you might also want to explain the methodology of piling up all that unconsolidated sediment into mountains. Mud doesn't stack very well.

And I can't help wanting to know about the divine Garden of Eden irrigation project, to grow things before the first rain.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 09-29-2011 12:47 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 09-29-2011 11:55 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 84 (635447)
09-29-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Minnemooseus
09-28-2011 10:50 PM


Re: Where did all the water go?
Moose writes:

Buzsaw writes:

Thus the tsunami like rush of the returning of the walls of water from North and South, would likely cut a chanel in the looser sandy Eastern section of what the flood washed down from the wadi canyon, etc.

Buz, presuming that the whole world was submerged in water (and I'm not beginning to buy into that), you have an Earth that was 100 percent ocean. There is nowhere for the water to run off.

On a related note, where did all that sediment that was deposited by "THE FLOOD" come from? You producing it out of "thin air", just like all that water of "THE FLOOD"?

I see that I did not make my point clear. Let me clarify. The tsunami like (I say like) rush of return water was in the Nuweiba crossing site at the outlet of the wadi and canyon which drained into the Gulf, forming the crossing site. The looser, less rocky portion of the delta shaped crossing site would have been the Eastern-most end which is presently the deeper section of the crossing. The relatively sudden drop into the deeper channel is indicative of the tsunami like wash out when the North and South walls of pushed back waters rush back subsequent to being suddenly released upon the Egyptian army with their chariots etc.

The only reason I tied the flood with this is that the flood would have formed the delta shaped crossing some one thousand or so years previous to the Exodus.

I see Admin has his own one message peanut gallery on this tsunami of Buzsaw in Straggler's PNT. In fact I did not call it a tsunami perse. I described the rush as tsunami like.

Hopefully, Admin will read this and set the record straight as to what I have alleged.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-28-2011 10:50 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3932
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 58 of 84 (635466)
09-29-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Buzsaw
09-28-2011 8:00 PM


Re: Co-ordinating Peanut Gallery With Debate
Thus the Exodus evidence becomes somewhat supportive to the Noaic flood and vise versa; the flood somewhat supportive to the Exodus.

Can you see that you are building a house of cards, here?

How can you two unsupported assertions be used to support each other?

King Arthur was real becuase of the Lady in the Lake and she is real because of King Arthur.

You really need to examine your thought procecess here, Buz.

Edited by Admin, : Hide good point made by a non-participant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2011 8:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 84 (635599)
09-29-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Minnemooseus
09-29-2011 2:52 AM


Re: Where did all the water go?
Moose writes:

Please expound on the pulling of the divine drain plug and the location of the divine sand and gravel stockpile.

Are you alluding to the flood here, or what?

Offhand, you might also want to explain the methodology of piling up all that unconsolidated sediment into mountains. Mud doesn't stack very well.

This upheaval from the flood would be the Genesis explanation for the major tectonic plate upheaval and movement, raising the mountains and deepening the oceans. The effect of the flood would not been limited to sediments.

Moose writes:

And I can't help wanting to know about the divine Garden of Eden irrigation project, to grow things before the first rain.

There was a midst which rose from the earth, likely during the night and early morning. The implication is that subterranean water was abundant. There was evidently ample condensation from the steamy midst to keep the surface moist enough for abundant lush vegetation.

The absence of direct sun rays would have evaporated relatively little from the earth's surface compared to cloudless skies. The vegetation was likely abundant and lush enough to allow little sunlight to the earth at the roots of the plants so as to preserve the moisture content. There was no need of irrigation. Adam did not work by the sweat of his brow until after the fall into sin and Jehovah's curse.

In modern greenhouses a misty water spray is often used for watering. The mist of the pre-flood earth was likely much finer than what is applied now.

The H2O content of the atmosphere would have remained relatively constant globally.

The atmosphere would have been higher and greater than the present one as well as less dense. There would have been ample solar heat trapped under the canopy to cause the atmosphere to rise higher than our present one. My understanding is that the higher the atmosphere, the more of a cooling effect it would have on the planet. Climatologists seem to go with that. Perhaps this is why such a canopy would not fry the earth.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2011 2:52 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 84 (636632)
10-08-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Minnemooseus
09-12-2011 10:17 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Minnemooseus writes:

The only sensible way to date the walls construction would be to determine when the wall was built.

So the wall, being analogous to the strata in which the fossil exists, what determines the date of the wall/strata?

The age of the wall material is irrelevant. If one was to tear down a 500 year old brick wall and use the materials to build a new wall, the wall construction would be dated as being new, not 500 years old.

Assuming that the new wall, was built without mortar, as was the old one, of the same assorted materials, analogous to the fossil strata, would the new wall date any newer than the old wall/strata?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 10:17 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2011 10:36 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017