Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-21-2017 6:50 AM
365 online now:
jar, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 362 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,743 Year: 27,349/21,208 Month: 1,262/1,714 Week: 105/365 Day: 9/52 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" A GREAT DEBATE S1WC and anglagard ONLY
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2170
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 31 of 100 (349583)
09-16-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Someone who cares
09-15-2006 12:59 AM


Re: Transitional Fossils
If we are forced to use your definition of transitional fossil, which is closer to chimera than transitional fossil in normal English, then I would say you are most likely correct, there are no transitional fossils.

In order to criticize evolution as false, you must use the definitions used by life scientists and geoscientists, not your own made-up definitions. If you use your own definitions concerning terms used in evolution, then all you have done is criticize as false your misunderstanding of evolution, not evolution as commonly understood.

For example, if I was to go into a church and say that the parishioners did not believe in god it would be true under some circumstances if I was allowed to define god. If I defined god as the flying spaghetti monster, and the parishioners did not believe in the flying spaghetti monster, then the parishioners are all atheists that do not believe in god.

Would such a tactic have any meaning to the parishioners? Of course not. Does your misunderstanding as to what constitutes a transitional fossil have any meaning to those who believe in evolution?

From How to Argue by the New England Skeptical Society at http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=38

quote:
When evolution deniers say there are no transitional fossils their unstated major premise is that they are employing a different definition of transitional than is generally accepted in the scientific community. They typically define transitional as some impossible monster with half-formed and useless structures. Or, they may define transitional as only those fossils for which there is independent proof of being a true ancestor, rather than simply closely related to a direct ancestor – an impossible standard.

The assertion that there are no transitional fossils is very common and has been refuted. See http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Transitional_fossils_are_lacking

Also see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=626&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=626&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=626&m=1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A4351628

Can we use a somewhat neutral definition such as the first hit in Google such as:

quote:
A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.

Edited by anglagard, : Fix bad link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Someone who cares, posted 09-15-2006 12:59 AM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Someone who cares, posted 09-16-2006 11:16 PM anglagard has responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3341 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 32 of 100 (349705)
09-16-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by anglagard
09-16-2006 11:57 AM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
Can we use a somewhat neutral definition such as the first hit in Google such as:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.


Sorry, won't do. That first and only hit on Google define for "transitional fossil" is from a biased source, Wikepedia. Wikepedia is completely in favor of evolution, so we cannot use this if I, as a Creationist, am to debate fairly. This is not a "neutral" definition, it is made up by evolutionists and for evolutionists to use to defend their theory. Most Creationists would give you a different meaning, more like what I said before.

And my definition is not so unscientific, let us reason:

Question: If a creature that was a reptile, and had reptilian scales, was to gradually evolve into a bird, would it or would it not evolve the scales into feathers? If you say "no", then that means you probably believe in the "hopeful monster" type of theory, where the reptile would change into a bird in a "great leap", thus no scale/feather transition would be needed (but I doubt this is what you believe in). But, if you say "yes", let us continue reasoning:
Question: If a scale evolved into a feather, would it or would it not leave a fossil with this slow transformation obviously visible? If you say no, you are probably saying that in all the many fossil finds of the various reptiles and birds not even ONE single fossil of a scale to feather transition should be found, this is absurd, this just denies fossil formation patterns. If you say yes, then why do we not find such fossils?(Hint:because evolution never did happen) Because this is exactly the kind of fossil which would be truly transitional, not just fossils of creatures with features from several groups: reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, etc. The platypus is one such creature, this doesn't make it a transitional from which birds, mammals and reptiles supposedly evolved though, does it? Same situation with all your other "transitionals" in that list, they are creatures with features from several groups, but this does not instantly prove that evolution happened, it only shows the diversity in God's Creation.

Please, answer the above questions, and think about it deeply. Keep open about it. I truly do wish you will find the truth one day and accept it. May God help you understand more about what the evidence obviously points to.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by anglagard, posted 09-16-2006 11:57 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by anglagard, posted 09-17-2006 5:11 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2170
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 33 of 100 (349816)
09-17-2006 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Someone who cares
09-16-2006 11:16 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC writes:

Sorry, won't do. That first and only hit on Google define for "transitional fossil" is from a biased source, Wikepedia. Wikepedia is completely in favor of evolution, so we cannot use this if I, as a Creationist, am to debate fairly. This is not a "neutral" definition, it is made up by evolutionists and for evolutionists to use to defend their theory. Most Creationists would give you a different meaning, more like what I said before.

And my definition is not so unscientific, let us reason:

Your definition is definitely unscientific as you admit above. Evolution is the prevailing scientific view among over 99% of actual life scientists and geoscientists, those who fields most directly involve they study of the 'by what process did it get here in current form once started' of life.

Additionally, there is no proper use of reason here, as you are guilty of a logical fallacy. This logical fallacy is known as the straw man http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

By refuting a definition of transitional fossil not used by evolution supporters, you have refuted a straw man, not the concept of transitional fossil used in evolution. This is the point I was trying to make with the church and parishoner example in my previous post.

If you are going to claim to use reason, and lay claim to fairness, then you can't use logical fallacies to support your position.

Sorry won't do.

Question: If a creature that was a reptile, and had reptilian scales, was to gradually evolve into a bird, would it or would it not evolve the scales into feathers? If you say "no", then that means you probably believe in the "hopeful monster" type of theory, where the reptile would change into a bird in a "great leap", thus no scale/feather transition would be needed (but I doubt this is what you believe in). But, if you say "yes", let us continue reasoning:

No, I don't think feathers evolved from scales because the scientific evidence does not support this. Apparently feathers evolved from epidermal hollow cylinders as outlined in the following article:

Which came first, the Feather or the Bird?, By: Prum, Richard O., Brush, Alan H., Scientific American Special Edition, 15512991, Mar2004 Special Edition, Vol. 14, Issue 2

From the article:


Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feathers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight.

Recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find fresh evidence for the idea that developmental processes--the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form--can be a window into the evolution of a species' anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or "evo-devo." It has given us a powerful tool for probing the origin of feathers. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today's birds or even Archaeopteryx. They are critical clues to the structure, function and evolution of modern birds' intricate appendages.

Together these advances have produced an extremely detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.

This source, among others, is courtesy MiguelG in post 13 of the the thread www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=1
I'm sure you remember it, having posted there in the past. Please feel free to read the remainder of the article for further details as I can't post it in its entirity due to copyright law and forum guidelines. Since it is Scientific American, it should be commonly available at any reasonably-sized college or public library.

So I guess answering the remaining questions is unnecessary as such answers would be based upon a false premise.

Now that I have answered your question, perhaps you would like to answer mine. Scientific theories have power in modern logical discourse because they predict the future. The concept that transitional fossils should occur was predicted by Darwin, and then, two years later, archaeopteryx was discovered, and ever since, hardly a year goes by where another transitional isn't discovered that meets the definition as used in the Theory of Evolution. This is just like relativity predicting the bending of light around the sun, as observed in a solar eclipse a few years after the theory was first published by Einstein.

This ability to predict events is perhaps the most powerful evidence for any scientific theory, gravity has it, relativity has it, evolution has it.

My question to you would be what have any anti-evolution theories predicted (provided they have made any predictions at all), and where has this prediction been shown to be true by subsequent events or discoveries?

Please, answer the above questions, and think about it deeply. Keep open about it. I truly do wish you will find the truth one day and accept it. May God help you understand more about what the evidence obviously points to.

Thanks, that's very kind of you and I wish you likewise.

Edited by anglagard, : remove useless sentence

Edited by anglagard, : edit to remove possible confusing of concept of abiogenesis from theory of evolution


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Someone who cares, posted 09-16-2006 11:16 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Someone who cares, posted 09-19-2006 10:19 PM anglagard has responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3341 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 34 of 100 (350509)
09-19-2006 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by anglagard
09-17-2006 5:11 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
Your definition is definitely unscientific as you admit above. Evolution is the prevailing scientific view among over 99% of actual life scientists and geoscientists, those who fields most directly involve they study of the 'by what process did it get here in current form once started' of life.

I have a feeling you're using an exagerration with the "99%" to make it seem as if evolution is popular or something and Creation is childish. Some polls showed that about half the Americans believe in Creation. And other surveys showed that most medical doctors reject strict Darwinism. So I have a feeling that your 99% is not so truthful. Unless you could provide a statistic or something...

quote:
Additionally, there is no proper use of reason here, as you are guilty of a logical fallacy. This logical fallacy is known as the straw man http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

By refuting a definition of transitional fossil not used by evolution supporters, you have refuted a straw man, not the concept of transitional fossil used in evolution. This is the point I was trying to make with the church and parishoner example in my previous post.


I do believe you said if we used my definition (the Creationist type), then I would be most likely correct, there are no transitional fossils. Right? Now if you don't like my definition, tell me, how can your definition be of any real use to your theory? (Other than to say there are transitional fossils when there aren't...) I mean, really, let's examine our definitions and how they relate to evolution and transitional fossils, ok? Your definition says that a transitional fossil has characteristics of several species or something like that. First off, I do not think that changes between species is macroevolution, I believe that would be microevolution. To classify as macroevolution, it would have to be a quite obvious change, like from a cat to a dog, not a "some name fly" to a "different name fly." Second, as I have pointed out earlier, a creature having features of another creature group does not neccessarily point to a transitional. Because there are animals, such as the platypus, that have features of several groups, and this is ok. But, if you take my definition, where you would have to see evolving parts, we could very easily say, "that's a transitional fossil of this creature evolving into that creature." See? My definition is more specific and useful to find true transitional fossils. I mean, if you find a fossil of a certain creature with gradual changes to features of another creature, you can't go wrong in saying it's evolution. But, under your definition, we cannot claim that ANY fossil is transitional, because we do NOT see macroevolution, or gradual evolving of the parts of one creature to another. All we see is a creature with features of another group, this is normal, not anything special of evolution. Now, I know why evolutionists use the definition they do, it gives them supposed "transitional" fossils to supposedly support their theory. But really, does your definition truly point to evolution? Can you prove that just because a bird had teeth and claws that it came from a reptile? Like I pointed out in another thread, there are fossilized birds with teeth, and birds living, like the emu, with claws, so any of the achaeopteryx kind of "transitionals" are useless, they could just as well be birds with teeth and claws. Or the whale stories, can you prove that just because a whale has a small pelvis (which is used for reproduction by the way) that it came from a land walking animal?

quote:
No, I don't think feathers evolved from scales because the scientific evidence does not support this. Apparently feathers evolved from epidermal hollow cylinders as outlined in the following article:

Mind showing me a picture of an epidermal hollow cylinder? I can't picture that.

Ok then, can you show me a fossil of an epidermal hollow cylinder evolving into a feather? And would these epidermal hollow cylinders grow on reptiles? If so, can you show a reptile fossil with them?

quote:
The concept that transitional fossils should occur was predicted by Darwin, and then, two years later, archaeopteryx was discovered

Ahem, first off, we can't agree on the definition of a transitional fossil, so I still believe we have no indisputable transitional fossils. Second, I believe archaeopteryx was a hoax. The specimen with the feather next to the reptile like fossil was produced by Haberlein (spell?) after having a chat with Max Bushby, where Max Bushby told him how great a find would be for evolution if it was a reptile fossil with a feather next to it, to supposedly "show" that reptiles evolved into birds. And so this hoax was produced a little while later, where the feather was imprinted on one slab, a reptile fossil was on another, and they were cemented together. Ah yes, all the conspiracy of evolution, but thanks to Sir Max Bushby's manuscript, in The Darwin's Conspiracy, we can read all about it. The dark, gloomy rooms, with Darwin's bulldog, Max Bushby, a couple others, deciding how to promote evolution, plotting, etc. Really, you should read that book, nice eye opener, but of course, you probably won't find it in a public library, try Christian libraries in Christian schools or maybe a Christian bookstore, or the internet to buy.

quote:
My question to you would be what have any anti-evolution theories predicted (provided they have made any predictions at all), and where has this prediction been shown to be true by subsequent events or discoveries?

Creationists have made predictions about things as we already find them, so it's not really in the future kind of thing, but the Bible has some future telling prophecies. As for some of ours already known: We predict that a bird will always produce a bird, and not any other creature; we predict that any variations that do take place in organsims will be within their kind; we predict that nature will show God's handiwork, everything being precise and in order; we predict that the fossil finds will show complete organisms, with no evolving parts; we predict macroevolution will never be observed, and more.

quote:
Thanks, that's very kind of you and I wish you likewise.

Thanks, but God has already opened to me what He did in the beginning, through His Word, the Bible, Genesis in particular. Have you read it? I would encourage you to read what God wants you to know, it's important, really important. If you haven't read it, please do, open yourself up to God's Word, trust He will show you the answers.

May God bless you and shine His light to show you the Truth, the truth that will always win, the truth that has no conspiracies or deceit or lies.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by anglagard, posted 09-17-2006 5:11 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 09-20-2006 2:14 AM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 09-20-2006 2:53 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2170
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 35 of 100 (350562)
09-20-2006 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Someone who cares
09-19-2006 10:19 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC writes:

have a feeling you're using an exagerration with the "99%" to make it seem as if evolution is popular or something and Creation is childish. Some polls showed that about half the Americans believe in Creation. And other surveys showed that most medical doctors reject strict Darwinism. So I have a feeling that your 99% is not so truthful. Unless you could provide a statistic or something...

From ReligiousTolerance.org:

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%

This is from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

The polls cited in this article also show that in the US, the more education and earnings one has, the less likely they are to believe in YEC.

I was being generous by just using the 99% figure.

When you are sick, do you go to a plumber to diagnose your illness?

I do believe you said if we used my definition (the Creationist type), then I would be most likely correct, there are no transitional fossils. Right? Now if you don't like my definition, tell me, how can your definition be of any real use to your theory?

Because it is the one used by the theory. If you are going to disprove a theory, you have to disprove what that theory says, not what you think that theory says. What you think the theory says, or are trying to impose upon the theory, are false by definition, therefore it is a strawman.

Mind showing me a picture of an epidermal hollow cylinder? I can't picture that.

Ok then, can you show me a fossil of an epidermal hollow cylinder evolving into a feather? And would these epidermal hollow cylinders grow on reptiles? If so, can you show a reptile fossil with them?

Sorry, not all scientific articles come with pictures, they are written for adults. Will look (like that would make any difference).

Second, I believe archaeopteryx was a hoax.

Which one, there are at least seven? You have already made the assertion of fraud here www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=129#129 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=129#129">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=129#129
and it has been roundly trounced by subsequent replies. Your assertion of fraud is as fraudulant as the assertion of some absurd conspiracy among the evil scientists.

Thanks, but God has already opened to me what He did in the beginning, through His Word, the Bible, Genesis in particular. Have you read it? I would encourage you to read what God wants you to know, it's important, really important. If you haven't read it, please do, open yourself up to God's Word, trust He will show you the answers.

Of course I have read the Bible, have you read Spinoza's On the Interpretation of Scripture?

May God bless you and shine His light to show you the Truth, the truth that will always win, the truth that has no conspiracies or deceit or lies.

Are you implying that the vast majority of scientists teamed up with the theistic evolutionists in some vast conspiracy to question a ridiculously over simplistic reading of the Bible that denigrates God and God's creation?

They were never that organized.

Edited by anglagard, : take direct to message


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Someone who cares, posted 09-19-2006 10:19 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Someone who cares, posted 09-21-2006 12:25 AM anglagard has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2170
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 36 of 100 (350565)
09-20-2006 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Someone who cares
09-19-2006 10:19 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC writes:

Second, I believe archaeopteryx was a hoax. The specimen with the feather next to the reptile like fossil was produced by Haberlein (spell?) after having a chat with Max Bushby, where Max Bushby told him how great a find would be for evolution if it was a reptile fossil with a feather next to it, to supposedly "show" that reptiles evolved into birds. And so this hoax was produced a little while later, where the feather was imprinted on one slab, a reptile fossil was on another, and they were cemented together. Ah yes, all the conspiracy of evolution, but thanks to Sir Max Bushby's manuscript, in The Darwin's Conspiracy, we can read all about it. The dark, gloomy rooms, with Darwin's bulldog, Max Bushby, a couple others, deciding how to promote evolution, plotting, etc. Really, you should read that book, nice eye opener, but of course, you probably won't find it in a public library, try Christian libraries in Christian schools or maybe a Christian bookstore, or the internet to buy.

Unbelievable. Didn't you read Arachnophilia's reply at www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=174#174 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=174#174">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=174#174

How can you think anyone here is so stupid as to buy this conspiracy crap?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "#174" to the end of the link. This gets you directly to that message, rather than just to the top of the page containing message 174.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Someone who cares, posted 09-19-2006 10:19 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Someone who cares, posted 09-21-2006 12:35 AM anglagard has responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3341 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 37 of 100 (350881)
09-21-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by anglagard
09-20-2006 2:14 AM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
From ReligiousTolerance.org:

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%

This is from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

The polls cited in this article also show that in the US, the more education and earnings one has, the less likely they are to believe in YEC.

I was being generous by just using the 99% figure.

When you are sick, do you go to a plumber to diagnose your illness?


Thank you for supporting your claim, but it's not exactly 0.14%(I know the quote said "around"), it is 0.1458333333333(repeating 3's) percent, if you do the calculation. And, this number rounded off would be 0.15% if we remember the laws of rounding when the following digit is 5 or greater. This shows that they were trying to make the number as little as possible to make Creationists look bad, again, this is what often happens. But you have to remember, Creationists have a hard time getting their degrees unless if they keep their belief undercover, because of persecution in many Universities and proffessors lowering grades. Thus, going farther into life science studies, is even harder still, due to persecution and bias.

When I'm sick I usually leave it to God, I pray about it, leave it to His Almighty hands. I rarely take medicine, and I can't stand pills, and I believe that I can do without them just as well with God's healing power through faith in prayer.

quote:
Because it is the one used by the theory. If you are going to disprove a theory, you have to disprove what that theory says, not what you think that theory says. What you think the theory says, or are trying to impose upon the theory, are false by definition, therefore it is a strawman.

How come you just ignored my post about examining your definition and mine and how they relate to transitionals and evolution? Why didn't you reply?( I can kind of guess already...) It would make an excellent debate, unlike what the rest of this is... Can we get back on track and further dissect my essay since we can't come to an agreement about the transitional fossils definitions? Because my classes already started, and we have only barely begun examining my essay. With my classes and homework, I may have to limit time here, and then this debate will go really slow, it may even hault.

quote:
Sorry, not all scientific articles come with pictures, they are written for adults. Will look (like that would make any difference).

EXACTLY! My point! You cannot even provide a picture of such a thing, how much better can you provide a fossil of it, and how much better can you prove it even exists, and how much better can you prove that it evolved into a feather, and how much better can you show a transitional fossil of such a transition???????? Don't you at least have a diagram of how it "could" happen and look, like the rest of the evolution type diagrams and charts? (Pun intended)

quote:
Which one, there are at least seven? You have already made the assertion of fraud here www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=129#129 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=129#129">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=129#129
and it has been roundly trounced by subsequent replies. Your assertion of fraud is as fraudulant as the assertion of some absurd conspiracy among the evil scientists.

The two specimens that are the only ones distinguishable enough to make out anything, the ones with the feathers/feather. The rest are hardly any good, because the details were not imprinted well enough.(Interestingly enough- frauds have excellent detail, supposedly real ones don't, hmmm...)

quote:
Of course I have read the Bible, have you read Spinoza's On the Interpretation of Scripture?

No, I take the Bible as it is, I believe most of it is to be taken literally, the only parts not to be are the ones that use metaphors and such language like, "You are the salt of the world...You are the light of the world." (Mat.5:13-14) No, we are not literally salt grains or beams of light, but in a different sense we preserve this world(as salt preserves meat) and shed light with the help of God. Tell me though, how can you trust what fallible man or woman write in concern of interpreting God's Word? I mean, take the Bible directly, you can trust it's God Inspired. But fallible man's interpretations may turn out wrong, because humans cannot be perfect and know everything, only God can. That's my suggestion. It's your choice, but I'd rather stick to trusting God's Word as it is, God Inspired.

quote:
Are you implying that the vast majority of scientists teamed up with the theistic evolutionists in some vast conspiracy to question a ridiculously over simplistic reading of the Bible that denigrates God and God's creation?

They were never that organized.


No, I'm speaking of the "proof" conspiracies. Remember the great Piltdown fraud? Why would a theory need frauds to support it if it were truly true? God's Word will have no conspiracies, you can trust It.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 09-20-2006 2:14 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by anglagard, posted 09-22-2006 11:32 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3341 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 38 of 100 (350883)
09-21-2006 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by anglagard
09-20-2006 2:53 AM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
Unbelievable. Didn't you read Arachnophilia's reply at www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=174#174 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=174#174">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=174#174

How can you think anyone here is so stupid as to buy this conspiracy crap?


No, I left to have this great debate with you. And I don't want to go back unless to challenge to have Great Debates about those subjects. Because if I come, I will be overwhelmed again. If they like, I could have Great Debates with them separately on the various issues like: Evolution- Where's the proof? or Is it possible? or Ape men- any truth? Etc... Tell me if they would like this, but I don't intend on going back to the crowd of evolutionists attacking me and posting their replies before I even finish replying to their previous posts.

And it's a debateable subject, the hoaxes of archaeopteryx. If someone would like, we could have a Great Debate on that. But of course, it might be weeks inbetween replies if I get too busy... Let me know if someone's interested, because I don't check up on those other topics much anymore, Great Debates is where I want to be, one on one, not crowd against one.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 09-20-2006 2:53 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by anglagard, posted 09-23-2006 4:09 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2170
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 39 of 100 (351507)
09-22-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Someone who cares
09-21-2006 12:25 AM


Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC asks:

Can we get back on track and further dissect my essay since we can't come to an agreement about the transitional fossils definitions? Because my classes already started, and we have only barely begun examining my essay. With my classes and homework, I may have to limit time here, and then this debate will go really slow, it may even hault.

Continuing from where we left off:

I hope you don’t take this too personal, as my debate style may appear a bit brusque.

Your essay is full of statements that are either knowingly false, which is a violation of a Biblical Commandment or just plain sloppy. There are others that show a lack of basic understanding as to what the Theory of Evolution actually represents, which is an act of willful ignorance on the part of one who seeks to pronounce such a theory as false. Here are some examples.

From the Evolution Essay paragraph 3:

For example, all animals and plants remain relatively unchanged throughout the whole fossil record.

False witness or slop, if I were you, I would consider modifying this sentence. Obviously, there are no non-avian dinosaurs since the Cretaceous and no flowering plants in the fossil record prior to the Cretaceous. Therefore animals and plants have changed in the fossil record, sometimes drastically.

We do not see animals with partially evolved brains, eyes, legs, arms, or other organs or tissues.

Of course not, such organs and parts would be fully evolved, fully complete, fully functioning transitionals at a given point in time. There is no such thing as "partially evolved" only modifications of preexisting parts over time aka transitions. I can’t debate a straw man theory concerning “partially evolved” organs that neither I, nor anyone else I know, actually supports.

Evolutionists claim that fish evolved into amphibians, but no transitional forms are available, there is not one fossil of a creature with part fins or part feet.

Tiktaalik shows such a form. See: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/fishibian.html

We find no transitional form fossils of invertebrates turning into vertebrates, as evolution requires in the beginning transformations. Fish supposedly evolved into amphibians. But amphibians have their pelvis attached to their backbone, whereas fish do not. Fish do have a small pelvis, but without it being attached to their backbone, legs would not function, if fish really did evolve into amphibians. Non-flying animals were supposed to evolve into flying animals. But we do not see this transformation in animals or in the fossil finds. Same with dinosaurs, we don’t see transitional forms in any of the dinosaur finds. All taxonomic orders, classes, phyla appear suddenly in the fossil record, there are no evolutionary connections between creatures.

See post # 28 in this thread.

Like in the Cambrian layer, the one on the very bottom of the geologic layers, there have been finds of complete trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, etc., that have no links to ancestors. And this is the bottom of the geologic strata, it doesn’t get more primitive that this layer according to evolutionists…

False witness or slop, there are rocks below the Cambrian in the geologic column. If the Cambrian is at the very bottom of the geologic layers, then what is the Precambrian? Also there are Precambrian fossils of ancestors. See: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/6947

All mammals are found fully developed in the fossil finds as well. Marine mammals, also, are found fully developed. For example, evolutionists believe that the dolphins’ ancestors were pigs, cattle, or buffalo.

False witness or slop, show us where anyone remotely knowledgeable about science ever stated that dolphins evolved from pigs, cattle and/or buffalo, retract, or allow your essay to continue to bear false witness. Here is an example of what evolution supporters really believe: http://library.thinkquest.org/17963/evolution.html

Clearly, you do not understand the concept of two species having a common ancestor. How can you hope to criticize evolution as false if you can’t seem to even fathom an easily understood central concept of evolution. Maybe it is just sloppiness.

Coelacanth fossils have remained the same for the supposed million years, …interesting. Why is this so?

Slop. The fossils have remained the same as minerals making up the fossils are not changing. However the species represented by the fossils are changing. Coelacanth fossils are not the same species as the ones recently caught. See http://www.csit.fsu.edu/~inoue/Coelacanth.html

Evolutionists claim that fish evolved into amphibians, but no transitional forms are available, there is not one fossil of a creature with part fins or part feet.

See above concerning Tiktaalik and related fossils.

Why is this so? So who chooses which creatures evolve and which ones don’t?

No who, by process of natural selection. Do you know the difference between a person and a process? Your statement makes it unclear. I call slop.

Aside from big animals, we have small insects as well. Their fossils and preserved bodies are also found to be complete. Plants too, are found complete, without transitional forms.

Why is there such an obsession with fossils being preserved complete? Would an incomplete fossil be better? Is this part of the chimera straw man?

Primates? Yes, they too are complete without a tie to humans. Many evolutionists claim that we have found the remains of hominids which fill in this gap, but that is not so.

That’s next.

Edited by anglagard, : misplaced quote box


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.
Sir Francis Bacon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Someone who cares, posted 09-21-2006 12:25 AM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Someone who cares, posted 09-23-2006 10:57 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Someone who cares, posted 09-23-2006 11:03 PM anglagard has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2170
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 40 of 100 (351530)
09-23-2006 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Someone who cares
09-21-2006 12:35 AM


Re: Transitional Fossils
You may want to reconsider using arguments for your position that AIG itself considers an embarassment.

From Archer Opterix: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=195#195 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=195#195">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=195#195

From u know who:
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=10#10 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=10#10">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=10#10


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Someone who cares, posted 09-21-2006 12:35 AM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Someone who cares, posted 09-23-2006 11:13 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3341 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 41 of 100 (351700)
09-23-2006 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by anglagard
09-22-2006 11:32 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
I hope you don’t take this too personal, as my debate style may appear a bit brusque.

Your essay is full of statements that are either knowingly false, which is a violation of a Biblical Commandment or just plain sloppy. There are others that show a lack of basic understanding as to what the Theory of Evolution actually represents, which is an act of willful ignorance on the part of one who seeks to pronounce such a theory as false. Here are some examples.


I don't mind you thinking this way, but I do hope after this debate you will change your opinion a bit. If I were to examine an essay you would write (don't know if you have one), I would probably say something similar about it.

quote:
"For example, all animals and plants remain relatively unchanged throughout the whole fossil record."

False witness or slop, if I were you, I would consider modifying this sentence. Obviously, there are no non-avian dinosaurs since the Cretaceous and no flowering plants in the fossil record prior to the Cretaceous. Therefore animals and plants have changed in the fossil record, sometimes drastically.


Let's name this point 2 for easier reference, and let's name the rest according to their order, ok? It will reduce the need for quoting.

Now, you must have misunderstood what I was saying there. What I said was that in the fossil finds, the animals and plants remain relatively unchanged, as in, dogs remained dogs, trees remained trees, birds remained birds. This is what I meant. If you look at the finds, you will find the animals and plants that are there remain relatively unchanges throught the "years" as you say.(I don't believe the layers represent millions of years.) In other words, when you find a certain plant or animal in one layer, and then in another layer (this is supposed to represent different ages according to evolutionists, but I do not hold this view), you will find that they remained relatively unchanged.

quote:
"We do not see animals with partially evolved brains, eyes, legs, arms, or other organs or tissues."

Of course not, such organs and parts would be fully evolved, fully complete, fully functioning transitionals at a given point in time. There is no such thing as "partially evolved" only modifications of preexisting parts over time aka transitions. I can’t debate a straw man theory concerning “partially evolved” organs that neither I, nor anyone else I know, actually supports.


Point 3: Ok, tell me, if a fin were to evolve into a leg over time, then it would probably look like a "partially evolved" leg, right? Just think of it as looking at something and saying what it is. If you were to see a creature that had no lungs and slowly started evolving some kind of premature lungs, wouldn't it look like a "partially evolved" lung?

You say "transitions" would be fully functional. Ok then, if we had a fin evolving into a leg, about halfway there - we say from examining it, would the creature be swimming, crawling, walking, or running? If you had a creature evolve lungs when it didn't have them before (since first organism probably didn't have lungs), would it be breathing, or just using air holes in it's shell or something to the sort? If a mouth was to evolve into a beak, when would the creature stop chewing and start pecking and breaking seeds with the mouth/beak? If a creature was to develop an eye where it didn't have one before, when would it start seeing?

quote:
"Evolutionists claim that fish evolved into amphibians, but no transitional forms are available, there is not one fossil of a creature with part fins or part feet."

Tiktaalik shows such a form. See: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/fishibian.html


Point 4: I have debated Tiktaalik before, but I guess I can do it again. Ok, look at the actual finds, not the fancy pictures of how it "could look." (I see this site doesn't even have such a real picture, try searching the web) Tell me, does that "fin/limb" look like it has structures of both? Is it a fin, AND a limb with joints and many bones? Does this creature look like it could walk? No. It just looks like a special fin, that could maybe push the fish around on the water floor. It's not like it shows a transition to legs, with powerful muscles. Just a special fin. Besides, what does this creature have to "connect" it to land creatures? Even Jennifer Clack of Cambridge University said it is not known if this find is a direct link to land creatures. And the whole back end is missing! I think if they did find the back end, they would be embarassed and would put this find down, or hide/destroy the back end and never show it...

quote:
"Like in the Cambrian layer, the one on the very bottom of the geologic layers, there have been finds of complete trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, etc., that have no links to ancestors. And this is the bottom of the geologic strata, it doesn’t get more primitive that this layer according to evolutionists…"

False witness or slop, there are rocks below the Cambrian in the geologic column. If the Cambrian is at the very bottom of the geologic layers, then what is the Precambrian? Also there are Precambrian fossils of ancestors. See: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/6947


Point 5: Thank you, as I have said before, this may happen. To show that I am in search of the truth of these matters, I will admit I was mislead by my source on this piece of information, and have updated my site to make it proper.

quote:
All mammals are found fully developed in the fossil finds as well. Marine mammals, also, are found fully developed. For example, evolutionists believe that the dolphins’ ancestors were pigs, cattle, or buffalo.

False witness or slop, show us where anyone remotely knowledgeable about science ever stated that dolphins evolved from pigs, cattle and/or buffalo, retract, or allow your essay to continue to bear false witness. Here is an example of what evolution supporters really believe: http://library.thinkquest.org/17963/evolution.html

Clearly, you do not understand the concept of two species having a common ancestor. How can you hope to criticize evolution as false if you can’t seem to even fathom an easily understood central concept of evolution. Maybe it is just sloppiness.


Point 6: I have heard from an evolutionist saying he believes they are somehow connected because they are something like even-toed ungulates.

But tell me, if they had a common ancestor as you say, what would that be? It wouldn't happen to be one of the false ones, would it?

And maybe the word "relatives" would work better here. Would that be something you believe? I can adjust my essay if that's the case, maybe "ancestors" should be "relatives".

quote:
"Coelacanth fossils have remained the same for the supposed million years, …interesting. Why is this so?"

Slop. The fossils have remained the same as minerals making up the fossils are not changing. However the species represented by the fossils are changing. Coelacanth fossils are not the same species as the ones recently caught. See http://www.csit.fsu.edu/~inoue/Coelacanth.html


Point 7: I checked out that site, just to let you know, and I couldn't find a picture of a fossil from which those "two species" "came." Could you find me one?

And either way, the Coelacanth remained the Coelacanth, right? What I mean when I say "remained unchanged" is that they remained the same kind, and "species" is not what I would consider a change in kinds, that would be more noticeable.

Another point, this wasn't what I meant originally, but it's an interesting point about the wording of that phrase. I said the FOSSILS have remained unchanged, you tried to refute this by saying the fossils and NOW LIVING SPECIES have changed, like a change from fossilized to now living species. But this does not refute my claim since I only said the FOSSILIZED ones haven't changed.

quote:
"Why is this so? So who chooses which creatures evolve and which ones don’t?"

No who, by process of natural selection. Do you know the difference between a person and a process? Your statement makes it unclear. I call slop.


Point 8: Natural selection does not have a mind to choose anything. It's only a process that God uses to eliminate the weaker creatures so that offspring will remain healthy and strong. But natural selection does NOT choose which creature will evolve, and how it will evolve, and what it will do, etc... We could do a whole debate on the processes of evolution not being fit to do the job, that is natural selection, mutations, and isolation.

If it's unclear, I will change it to "who/what." ........Done!

quote:
"Aside from big animals, we have small insects as well. Their fossils and preserved bodies are also found to be complete. Plants too, are found complete, without transitional forms."

Why is there such an obsession with fossils being preserved complete? Would an incomplete fossil be better? Is this part of the chimera straw man?


Point 9: You understand well what I mean. I mean that all the creatures are complete, meaning, they are like God created them in the beginning, when He called it "good." We don't find transitional fossils of some deformed inbetween creatures. We find them complete, whole, good, as Creationists say they would be. No evolving lungs from non-lungs, legs from fins, feathers from "epidermal hollow tissues", eyes from non-eyes, brains from non-brains, etc... If we were to see an eye evolving from a non-eye, it probably wouldn't be used by the creature to see yet, thus we would call it incomplete from our observation. But we don't even find this... We find complete eyes, used by the creatures to see.

quote:
"Primates? Yes, they too are complete without a tie to humans. Many evolutionists claim that we have found the remains of hominids which fill in this gap, but that is not so."

That’s next.


Great, we're finally moving somewhere... But I have classes now, so I don't know when my next replies will be... Be patient.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by anglagard, posted 09-22-2006 11:32 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3341 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 42 of 100 (351703)
09-23-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by anglagard
09-22-2006 11:32 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
We find no transitional form fossils of invertebrates turning into vertebrates, as evolution requires in the beginning transformations. Fish supposedly evolved into amphibians. But amphibians have their pelvis attached to their backbone, whereas fish do not. Fish do have a small pelvis, but without it being attached to their backbone, legs would not function, if fish really did evolve into amphibians. Non-flying animals were supposed to evolve into flying animals. But we do not see this transformation in animals or in the fossil finds. Same with dinosaurs, we don’t see transitional forms in any of the dinosaur finds. All taxonomic orders, classes, phyla appear suddenly in the fossil record, there are no evolutionary connections between creatures.

See post # 28 in this thread.


Point "Can't get anywhere": Since we couldn't agree upon a definition of "transitional fossils", this point can't be argued properly at the moment.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by anglagard, posted 09-22-2006 11:32 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by anglagard, posted 09-26-2006 1:27 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3341 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 43 of 100 (351706)
09-23-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by anglagard
09-23-2006 4:09 AM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
You may want to reconsider using arguments for your position that AIG itself considers an embarassment.
From Archer Opterix: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=195#195 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=195#195">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=195#195

Like I have said, there are 3 possibilities to this, archaeopteryx could be a real bird, a real reptile, or a fraud, but NOT a transitional. I hold to the fraud part, but I have said it COULD be a real bird or a real reptile. But AIG is not the only source of info out there, I have read 'Darwin's Conspiracy' and have reason to say archaeopteryx is MOST LIKELY a fraud, yet I do not totally ignore that it could be a bird or reptile.

quote:
From u know who:
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=10#10 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=10#10">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=10#10

Yes, I now know that I was mislead by my source, 'The Evolution Cruncher', and I now admit I used a wrong (most likely old) piece of information there about the moon dust thing. But this issue does not appear in my essay, only on these forums. You can make this post public on that topic if you would like so others know.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by anglagard, posted 09-23-2006 4:09 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2170
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 44 of 100 (352405)
09-26-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Someone who cares
09-23-2006 11:03 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC writes:

Point "Can't get anywhere": Since we couldn't agree upon a definition of "transitional fossils", this point can't be argued properly at the moment.

It appears others on this forum disagree. See www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=1#1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=1#1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=1#1

You may want to check it, your alias is even coming up more often than mine.

If you are unwilling to discuss the definition of transitional fossil in regard to your essay, well OK, just don't expect any of the opposition to take your essay seriously based on that very point.

For the record, I completely agree with RAZD's detailed OP in the linked thread.

Edited by anglagard, : Fix link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Someone who cares, posted 09-23-2006 11:03 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 09-26-2006 10:52 PM anglagard has responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3341 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 45 of 100 (352508)
09-26-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by anglagard
09-26-2006 1:27 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
It appears others on this forum disagree. See www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=1#1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=1#1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=1#1

I know RAZD likes to attack me in particular, but I don't really reply in other topics anymore but this one, so don't expect me to defend myself on that linked topic.

quote:
You may want to check it, your alias is even coming up more often than mine.

:) I think I know why... Because the evolutionists here are feeling attacked, so they try to look good by putting me down and saying all sorts of things about me. But I don't worry, I've got the truth on my side, and the truth will always win. I know that Creation is the truth, and I don't worry. I just want you to see this for yourself.

quote:
If you are unwilling to discuss the definition of transitional fossil in regard to your essay, well OK, just don't expect any of the opposition to take your essay seriously based on that very point.

I was willing to discuss this matter earlier, but you just ignored my post, take a look if you want to reply and continue debating about the definition of transitional fossils and how they relate to the evolution theory, and which one would be more meaninful and useful. I just figured if you ignored it, that you didn't have anything to say about it, so we continued debating other matter.

quote:
For the record, I completely agree with RAZD's detailed OP in the linked thread.

For the record, I disagree with much of what RAZD said there, especially the part where he says something like there are 4 facts, the earth being old, things evolving, etc. If RAZD would like, I could debate him one on one so that he would TRY proving these four points to be facts, because obviously they're not.

Oh, and, are you going to get to replying to all those points above? It took me a long time to reply, and I'm hoping for a reply back...

May God bless you Anglagard!


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by anglagard, posted 09-26-2006 1:27 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2006 1:30 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017