Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8942 total)
32 online now:
jar, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), xongsmith (6 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,812 Year: 18,848/19,786 Month: 1,268/1,705 Week: 74/446 Day: 74/64 Hour: 6/20


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
derwood
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 106 of 141 (15533)
08-16-2002 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by John Paul
08-15-2002 12:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
As all of your 'follow-up' "questions" relied upon your assumption that abiogenesis is, in fact, part of (the foundation of?) evolution, it all goes back to that.

John Paul:
That is NOT correct. It is not my fault if you infer what is not implied. As I had previously stated the ONLY reason I brought up abiogenesis was to find out if there isn't any evidence to support a purely natural process to the origins of life why are the alternatives not even considered?

Also as I posted at least some evolutionists stated that abiogenesis IS part of the ToE. (Kerkut)


I can only infer from what is written. As I already wrote, none of the books on the topic that I have cite Kerkut. I have to wonder - which creationist web site had that quote-mined gem?
Alternatives? What alternatives? Magic? Space-men? Superbeings?

quote:

If you don't know the difference between an embryo and an adult then I feel very sorry for your students.

if you can't see how embryology has a DIRECT impact on the adult form, AND can provide a great deal of information about evolution, then I suspect taht you are a typical creationist. Unlike undereducated creationists, or those with educations in totally irrelevant fields like computer science, students that major in biology typically can make the necessary connections between ontogeny, phylogeny, and anatomy.

quote:
F. Hind limbs.
1. In baleen whales all traces of hind limbs have disappeared except for two reduced, rod-shaped pelvic bones that are buried deep in body muscle.

John Paul:
Again, that would only be assuming they were once limbs. Do you have any evidence to support that?


Some of it is on that page. It is called the fossil record. And, of course, what you just tried to muddle your way through (or out of) - embryology.

It is a shame that you have as usual abandoned any substantive issues and are trying to pull the same crap you usually do and did recently at BB - run off on irrelevant tangents, prattle on about 'assumptions', and such, rather than actually support your contentions.

I have to assume that you have capitulated on the phylogeny issue, at least I hope you have. You were really out of the ballpark - you weren't even in the parking lot - in your "overwhelm them with minutiae" attempt to deal with it above.
This is really getting old. Unless you have something of substance to offer, I don't see much point in going on.

Your personal distaste for the names of bones, the workings of the scientific method, etc., can never be dealt with in a way that would satisfy you. And in an important way, who the f*** cares what some creationist engineer 'personally' accepts or not on the issue of biological evolution?

The BB censotrs cut some of my best lines to you (of course!) - such as my request that you contact all anatomists and zoologists and inform them that you, Joe Gallien, creationist engineer, demand that the bones in modern whales that are homologous to pelvi and hind limbs be called something else because you personally don't like the implications...

bye bye joey


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by John Paul, posted 08-15-2002 12:03 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 107 of 141 (15765)
08-20-2002 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by John Paul
08-12-2002 3:13 PM


Sorry to butt-in, but ....

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?
2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness?

1) Is tricky. Yes mutations are heritable. Neutral, harmful and beneficial, mutations can be passed on. However in sexual reproduction they don’t always get passed on. I’m not as tall as my grandfather was, but I am taller than my parents (were). My father was color-blind, I am not, nor are my sisters and brothers, but I have a nephew that can’t see green (not the Special Agent). However his brother’s vision is OK.


It's not tricky. Mutations are heritable, you agreed.

Girls are rarely colour blind, since the gene that causes it is on
the X chromosome, and is recessive. The same location doesn't exist
in Y, so boys only need one colour-blind X to be colour blind.
(Probably a simplification I think that was how it was taught to
me in 'O' level biology)

Your sisters have a fifty-fifty chance of carrying colour blindness
so they have inhereted the trait/mutation.

Whether something IS passed on has no bearing on whether it is
heritable. They are two separate issues.

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

In humans this is evident- not every organism that is born gets a chance to mate and not every mating couple can conceive. No mating or conception no chance of passing on of the DNA....

Like I say, not relevent to whether something is heritable,
only to whether it is actually inherited ... so irrelevent to
the question asked.

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

That said, if adaptive mutations were the norm (Dr. Lee Spetner), they would become more readably fixed because they would occur population wide due to the organisms’ DNA reacting directly to environmental pressure(s). However adaptive mutations, unless applied to cleverly written evolutionary algorithm acting with an incrementally sequenced genetic algorithm, couldn’t account for the grand sweep of the theory of evolution.

What we would have to determine is what was it about the alleged shared mutations that allowed them to be fixed in the populations? IOW why were they selected for (kept in the population) over this alleged span of time (5+ millions years)?


Agreed ... the question is not how the mutations come about, but
how they are fixed in a population. Natural selection seems to
spring to mind here.

You have hit upon an interesting idea... evolution is mutation (by some mechanism) + selection (by some mechanism).

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

2) I don’t think that every person with sickle-cell anemia is related to the first person that got the mutation that caused that disease and was able to pass it on. (Sickle-cell anemia is caused by a point mutation in a specific locus- a substitution of a T for an A in the codon for the sixth amino acid of the beta chain in the human hemoglobin protein. That mutation changes a glutamic acid to a valine.) Is everyone with Downs syndrome related? The same goes for all genetic diseases. Do you think that every person with the same genetic disease is related to each other? That DNA gets passed on to the offspring doesn’t mean chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
As I previously stated “As for apparent similar mutations, again given that we have a restricted selection of possibilities for change to occur, it could be more of a coincidence than it is coinciding.” I would like to change that to most likely be more of a coincidence…

Down's syndrome (as I understand it) is a kind of first-generation
mutation. That is, the mutation occurs at the particular gammete
rather than being passed on. Wonder if downs syndrome individuals
produce Down's offspring? Don't know.

Isn't sickle cell anaemia restricted to certain ethnicities?
Doesn't that suggest common ancestry in recent times for the
trait?

I think the suggestion is that if the conditions exist which tend
to promote mutation, that large numbers of the population will
have affected gametes ... in that case any modern trait may be
traced back to a group/population rather than an individual (I guess).

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

Mutations occurring and getting passed on is just part of the problem. And a mutation getting fixed in a population is another.

Which is why 1) isn't tricky at all.

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

What the theory of evolution requires is for mutations to accumulate in such a way as to eventually give rise to new structures and organs (assuming of course the alleged starting population(s) didn’t have arms, legs, a spine or a brain). Is there even a way to test if that premise is feasible?

I think techniques and results coming out of genetic engineering
work may provide a means of testing such hypotheses. Look at that
crustacean leg inhibition for a start.

OK I know that's 'loss of a trait' if you look at it one way, but
isn't it the gain of a trait if it happened the other?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 3:13 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 141 (16056)
08-25-2002 3:39 PM


OK I know that's 'loss of a trait' if you look at it one way, but
isn't it the gain of a trait if it happened the other?

1. It's a "loss" of a trait if something disappears.
2. It's "no new information" if something repeats.. as repeating something is just the same thing again.
3. It's "directed mutation" if it changes slightly. The information was already in the genome, or if it wasn't, the genome was created just so that such a mutation could occur when needed.

So creationists have all the bases covered. Even each step of evolution occur right before their eyes, they can insist that nothing at all is happening.


Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 12:21 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 141 (16062)
08-26-2002 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Rationalist
08-25-2002 3:39 PM


^Of course it's 'the gain of a trait if you look at it the other way'!! But that is the ludicrousness that can be evolutionary thinking. 'Who cares which way we go: from no heart to heart or the other way - it's the same! Utter folly. I know that is not how a carefully thinking evoltuionist works but the thought patterns can err on that side.

The simple mistake made is that in going from a heart to no heart you need one DNA-base mutaiton in a master gene. To get a heart from no heart it's just a tad harder: you need dozens to hundreds of new genes and enzymatic and developmental pathways. Many of these genes bear no resemblance to pre-existing genes in the genome.

So, yes whenever there's a fact of evolution it can be readily interpreted as loss or mutation of existing genes. Whenever it's evoltuionary fairtales it can't be proven.

So what's the take home message? You guys may have jumped the gun after watching the diversification of created kinds!

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Rationalist, posted 08-25-2002 3:39 PM Rationalist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by derwood, posted 08-26-2002 10:11 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 110 of 141 (16071)
08-26-2002 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Tranquility Base
08-26-2002 12:21 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Whenever it's evoltuionary fairtales it can't be proven.

So what's the take home message? You guys may have jumped the gun after watching the diversification of created kinds!

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-25-2002][/B][/QUOTE]

Fairytales... Jumping the gun...

Well, TB, maybe you can explain to us all - with scientific evidence in support, of course - how it is that killing pigeons cures leprosy?

Or, more on topic, what the 'created kinds' were. How many there were. How it was that we got what we have today from them since 'the flood' .

Start a new thread if you want - I mean, you must have all sorts of verifiable documentation supportive of this belief... this fairytale, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 12:21 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 141 (16118)
08-27-2002 12:31 PM


Based on Creationists acceptance of the "Cambrian Explosion" as evidenced by thier constant mentioning of it...

1) Prokayrote
2) Eukayrote
3) Cyanobacteria
4) Cindarian
5) Gastropod
6) Arthropod
7) Worm
8) Chordate
9) Bivalve
10) Bryzoa
11) Brachiopods

Everything else diversified from these original "kinds".


Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-28-2002 7:16 AM Rationalist has not yet responded
 Message 116 by Bart007, posted 09-15-2002 3:14 PM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 141 (16164)
08-28-2002 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Rationalist
08-27-2002 12:31 PM


You forget plants, algae & fungi. Oh, and also all sorts of things that didn't fit anywhere, like the five-eyed something Opabinia or the living blobs of Ediacara...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Rationalist, posted 08-27-2002 12:31 PM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 141 (16365)
09-01-2002 5:47 AM


So what say you Tranquility, are these listed species the "Original Kinds"?

They are the only things we find in the cambrian layers, and even up into the Sil/Ord Devonian and Carboniferous layers.

They must be the original "kinds" as we don't find any others in all the strata. In other words, the original primitive gastropods, trilobites, etc. were the original creatures created on creation week. The "Tree of Life" was actually probably some sort of a simple valved polyp, as fronded ferns and other primitive treelke plants don't appear until the devonian, and angiosperms until the Jurassic.

My guess would be that God created some of the kinds (like jellyfish, pikia, bryzoa, crinoids) during creation week, then waited for the flood to create the rest.

Then as the flood was raging, he created the rest of the kinds in mid air, and dropped them in the water on the first, second, third, day etc. so they would drown and settle to the bottom in just the proper order.

He also made sure that each of the new species he created during the flood were just different enough from those the day before that they could be put together in some sort of treelike relationship later on to fool the scientists (godless heathens that they are).

Anyhow.. that's my own personal theory of kinds and how they managed somehow to get in the layers they are in now in the order they are in. It almost makes sense.


  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 141 (16366)
09-01-2002 5:52 AM


I also have another theory. This theory I'll call my FUD theory. My other theory goes something like this:

We just don't know enough about water and how it moves, and about fossils, or things like bones and fossilization to say for sure.

For instance, there could be things like currents and waves of some sort that make things look like they are in a particular order, but were really created.

For instance, sometimes things sink and other things don't. If we only knew enough about how that worked maybe we could understand more about the flood.

So until we understand how different things can wash around in a flood the likes of which we have never seen, it is too soon to say what could or coudn't have happened.

I'm sure in the future as we learn more about how the dynamics of water in global floods we will eventually learn precisely how all the fossils were laid down in what seems like a perfect evoutionary sequence, but actually isn't.

[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 09-01-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by derwood, posted 09-06-2002 11:23 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 115 of 141 (16770)
09-06-2002 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Rationalist
09-01-2002 5:52 AM


I love the sound of crickets chirping....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Rationalist, posted 09-01-2002 5:52 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

    
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 141 (17458)
09-15-2002 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Rationalist
08-27-2002 12:31 PM


Rationalist writes:

"Based on Creationists acceptance of the "Cambrian Explosion" as evidenced by thier constant mentioning of it...
1) Prokayrote
2) Eukayrote
3) Cyanobacteria
4) Cindarian
5) Gastropod
6) Arthropod
7) Worm
8) Chordate
9) Bivalve
10) Bryzoa
11) Brachiopods"

Isn't evolution suppose to flow the other way. You do not start out with phyla that evolve all creatures according to their phylum, that sounds a bit creationist. Evolution demands it start out with a single self-replicating somehing or other, that speciates over and over into many new species, which evolve into new genesus, which evolve into new groupings known as families, etc., etc., all the way up to new phyla.

By the Cambrian period, these thirty something phyla existed with all the necessary evolution that must have preceded them totally missing from the fossil record. And there exist no rational reason for this evolutionary history to be missing, if evolution be true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Rationalist, posted 08-27-2002 12:31 PM Rationalist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by gene90, posted 09-15-2002 3:45 PM Bart007 has not yet responded
 Message 118 by Quetzal, posted 09-16-2002 6:42 AM Bart007 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 117 of 141 (17462)
09-15-2002 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Bart007
09-15-2002 3:14 PM


[QUOTE][B]And there exist no rational reason for this evolutionary history to be missing, if evolution be true.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Actually there are rational reasons. You can't get many fossils without hard parts for one. For another the Cambrian has had lots of time to be modified by metamorphism.

The first part of your post wasn't clear, perhaps you could elaborate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Bart007, posted 09-15-2002 3:14 PM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 118 of 141 (17516)
09-16-2002 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Bart007
09-15-2002 3:14 PM


Hi Bart:

quote:
Isn't evolution suppose to flow the other way. You do not start out with phyla that evolve all creatures according to their phylum, that sounds a bit creationist. Evolution demands it start out with a single self-replicating somehing or other, that speciates over and over into many new species, which evolve into new genesus, which evolve into new groupings known as families, etc., etc., all the way up to new phyla.

Not really. This is a relatively common misunderstanding of linnean classification and "phyla" in particular. A critter is assigned to a phylum based on a shared body plan. All phyla were described within the last couple hundred years - using modern organisms. One of the key fallacies here is that means that all extinct organisms - whether they really share a body plan or not - are shoehorned into one of the 33 identified phyla alive today! Needless to say, this means that some of the really weird pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils are listed in one of the modern phyla - whether they share a common body plan or not - leading to serious misconceptions that all phyla magically appeared 580 million years ago. In point of fact, only about 13 actually show up in the fossil record during the Vendian and around the Paleozoic-Cambrian boundary (the so-called "explosion"). Here's a listing:

Era Phyla

Recent 13
Eocene 2
Cretaceous 2
Jurassic 1
Triassic 3
Carboniferous 5
Devonian 4
Silurian 1
Ordovician 1
Cambrian 9
Vendian 4

As you can see, only 13 phyla show up during/prior to the Cambrian. 20 phyla appear later. There IS, therefore, evidence of inter-phyla evolution. Why? Because "phylum" is simply a convenient term, not an intrinsic entity defining a discontinuity or barrier. Even then, stuffing organisms into existing phyla leads to problems: look up Asbestopluma or the Cladorhizidae - classified under phylum Porifera, but sharing none (or almost none) of the Porifera bodyplans. The whole thing is very arbitrary - and substantially more complex than a cursory examination of the issue would lead one to believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Bart007, posted 09-15-2002 3:14 PM Bart007 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Bart007, posted 09-17-2002 2:38 AM Quetzal has responded

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 141 (17568)
09-17-2002 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Quetzal
09-16-2002 6:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Hi Bart:

quote:
Isn't evolution suppose to flow the other way. You do not start out with phyla that evolve all creatures according to their phylum, that sounds a bit creationist. Evolution demands it start out with a single self-replicating somehing or other, that speciates over and over into many new species, which evolve into new genesus, which evolve into new groupings known as families, etc., etc., all the way up to new phyla.

Not really. This is a relatively common misunderstanding of linnean classification and "phyla" in particular. A critter is assigned to a phylum based on a shared body plan. All phyla were described within the last couple hundred years - using modern organisms. One of the key fallacies here is that means that all extinct organisms - whether they really share a body plan or not - are shoehorned into one of the 33 identified phyla alive today! Needless to say, this means that some of the really weird pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils are listed in one of the modern phyla - whether they share a common body plan or not - leading to serious misconceptions that all phyla magically appeared 580 million years ago. In point of fact, only about 13 actually show up in the fossil record during the Vendian and around the Paleozoic-Cambrian boundary (the so-called "explosion"). Here's a listing:

Era Phyla

Recent 13
Eocene 2
Cretaceous 2
Jurassic 1
Triassic 3
Carboniferous 5
Devonian 4
Silurian 1
Ordovician 1
Cambrian 9
Vendian 4

As you can see, only 13 phyla show up during/prior to the Cambrian. 20 phyla appear later. There IS, therefore, evidence of inter-phyla evolution. Why? Because "phylum" is simply a convenient term, not an intrinsic entity defining a discontinuity or barrier. Even then, stuffing organisms into existing phyla leads to problems: look up Asbestopluma or the Cladorhizidae - classified under phylum Porifera, but sharing none (or almost none) of the Porifera bodyplans. The whole thing is very arbitrary - and substantially more complex than a cursory examination of the issue would lead one to believe.


You are correct that Linnean classification provided the 33 or so Phyla based upon observation of the different basic bauplanes (i.e. body planes) of extant animals.

Unfortunately, you abandon science to pursue the special pleading type arguments of a dogmatic evolutionists who are also rabid anti-creationists.

I see you seek to persuade me with the great works of Glenn R. Morton, a dogmatic evolutionist and anti-creationists. Where does he get his information on Phyla? He says it is from Berkeley University.

Glen writes: "Berkeley has posted an interesting display of when the various phyla appear. It can be found at

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html"

But when we go to that web page, we discover it is not an official document from Berkeley, rather, it is a web page of a student attending Berkeley, Ben Waggoner. Even so, Glenn misrepresents Ben's web page, for Ben writes of his own chart:

"The chart above shows the oldest undoubted fossil occurences of each of the living major groups of animals. Note how many of the animal groups have fossil records that date back to the Cambrian period, over 500 million years ago. Those groups which do not date back to the Cambrian, with the single exception of the Bryozoa, do not possess mineralized skeletons. It is likely that all major animal groups, even those which have not left us fossils, originated in the Cambrian. This sudden appearance of many major groups of animals is often referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion"."

BTW, Glenn readily admits that the experts, the scientists who have obtained, examined, discussed and published in their peer reviewed journals, the scientific data of on Cambrian Phyla, that 32 of 33 Linnean classifications of Phyla of extant metazoans are found in the Cambrian explosion. He amazingly chooses to ignore them and even his primary source, Ben Waggoner, who ultimately agrees with the Paleontologists.

There have been estimates of up to 84 Phyla that appear in the Vendian/Cambrian period. Many have become extinct. Since the Cambrian era, not one new bauplane (i.e. Phyla) has arose.

It is not I who misunderstands. In fact, I understand all too well. YSome evolutionists prefer the special pleadings of a dogmatic evolutionists like Glenn Morton, who happened to be engaged in a crusade against creationists, over accepting the actual scientific findings.

Here is an article posted by PBS on their evolution web site. They are squarely in the evolutionist camp with their strong bias in favor of Evolutionism. They speak of the Cambrian Explosion:

"530 mya: The Cambrian explosion

"The basic body plans of the major animal phyla are established over a relatively short period of roughly 10 million years. All the major animal phyla that exist today -- about three dozen -- evolve from these Cambrian faunas.

"The Cambrian explosion (530-520 mya)

"While scientists now know that animal life existed prior to the Cambrian explosion, the diversity of life that evolves during its 10 million years remains significant. While the soft-bodied Ediacaran animals had no protective coverings, many Cambrian animals evolved skeletons, such as shells or other brittle coatings. Among the more familiar groups to appear include sponges, brachiopods (lamp shells), spiny-skinned echinoderms, early gastropods (snails), cone-shelled cephalopods, and primitive arthropods called trilobites. Several other creatures that are unrelated to any currently living form also appear, but they die off after a short time.

"A combination of environmental factors probably contributes to this evolutionary burst. Oxygen, which is plentiful in both the atmosphere and in the oceans, allows physically larger animals to evolve. Warm, free-flowing ocean currents probably carry these animals to new marine niches, where they adapt to new settings and evolve different characteristics.

"Environmental factors alone, however, cannot explain why major animal phyla have not evolved in the 500 million years or so since the Cambrian explosion. Studies comparing fossilized embryos and a wide range of contemporary specimens suggest that homeobox genes -- genes that control whether certain cells specialize to form muscles, nerves, or glands, for example -- are remarkably similar in all species. The mutations that give rise to these control genes may be advantageous only in the earliest, simplest animals."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/paleoz.html

Postscript.

It is ludicrous that PBS writes loaded sentences to browbeat unwary readers into accepting the materialistic evolutionary worldview. Here is such a typical browbeating statement by PBS: "The mutations that give rise to these control genes...". Neither PBS nor Science know anything about any mutations giving rise to control genes. PBS can only justify such a statement because they "KNOW" evolution is a "FACT". This is teaching (of science) at its' worse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Quetzal, posted 09-16-2002 6:42 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by wj, posted 09-18-2002 3:39 AM Bart007 has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Quetzal, posted 09-18-2002 7:53 AM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 120 of 141 (17623)
09-17-2002 4:38 PM


Wow - Bart sounds like a rabid anti-evolutionist creationist with a supernaturalistic philosophy.

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Bart007, posted 09-17-2002 9:32 PM derwood has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019