Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Murchison Meteor Questions
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 77 of 216 (422628)
09-17-2007 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by JavaMan
09-17-2007 4:31 AM


Re: Empirical and empiricism
JavaMan:
The reason why I think that the contrast between 'empiricism' and 'rationalism' is interesting in your case is that you have a tendency to argue like a 'Rationalist'. Firstly, you spend whole topics arguing about the intricacies of word etymology, as though the meaning of a word were something separate from the way people use it.
After reading the replies of Percy, Kuresu, and yourself, I confess some embarassment as to complete knowledge of the history of science, and perhaps the proper uusage of the word empirical. I will do some more homework on those (and perhpas even a little spelling). But I do not think any of you also have a complete undertanding of the issue. We are all learning as we go, and starting from different places.
I can answer your comment above. Beyond any confusion over the proper meaning of empericism, I have always invoked rationalism as tool needed for any objective epistemology. And I assume that includes science for a very good reason. Empericism cannot claim that the emperical world is the only valid basis for knowledge other than on a rational basis. Therefore, whatever the defintion of science is, at whatever time, it cannot rely upon the one, without the other. And I think to one extent or another, this is what has occured.
Now, how all of that all plays out in terms of definitions, perhaps I am confused, but that is the only thing I am willing to admit. It does not mean that I have no idea what I'm talking about. And I wouldn't accuse any of you of the same. You're all intelligent men. And I have caught all of you in failures of your own durring point for point debate.
It's a dance boys... and the audience is watching. A few toes stepped on here and there by all doesn't reveal who is the more gracious and well intentioned partner. Stomping on toes however is a good parameter for which the audience can gleen motive.
So let's dispense with throwing out the baby with the bath water. I see no indication that anyone here is giving up their respective ghost!
To be scientific, we must combine both evidence and theory. Rationalism has no balance except in the evidence directly available to our senses. And our senses have no balance except in the ability to rationally deduce fact from fiction. Both are needed, and there have been times in history where the pendulum has swung too far in both directions.
That's how I put it in my own words. And that is what most people believe science should be.
Is that what science is currently or not? If it's not, then it's not science, but philosophical bias.
The point I have been trying to make, is that there is no evidence for pre-biotic life. Call it pre-biotic structures, or molecules if you want, we're looking for life other than modern life. And one of the best parameters is the conversion of energy (from whatever source) to ATP. There simply is no way around that one...
And one of the things you need for ATP (as well as many other biological structures is adenine.
The question is, 'where do we find it in nature and how is it produced?'
The indisputable evidence empirical evidence is that it is synthesized by organisms with the help of 12 catalyzing enzymes that are themselves vastly more complicated than the ATP itself.
The methods for synthesizing adenine outside of biology are irrelevant to biology and quite deadly for it. So you therefore resort to therorized reducing atmospheres that also cannot be observed emperically. It is all rational (logical / metaphysics). it is therefore not scientific.
What it is, is scientific theory...
Perhaps someday, you will have at least some emperical evidence to validate at least one leg of the rational theory.
Adenine was said to have been conclusively found outside of biology in the Murchison meteor by another member of this forum.
That is disputable evidence (ie. unempirical), and this is even admitted parenthetically by the scientists engaged in the extraction (or possible synthesis) of adenine.
All of the 'scientific lingo' in the world, doesn't hide the rational from the empirical or vice versa; provided an objective judge is analyzing the data. that is what I am attempting to be. And I have done so better than in the past. I appriciate all of the compliments as such, here and in other threads.
My apologies if I misspelled empirical anywhere in this post. I already had to go back and correct one instance. I seem to have a permanent dyslexia in my typing for that particular word. Please do find it in your humble hearts to forgive me...
Now can we get on with our discussions on Murchison? Certainly there are more questions that remain unanswered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by JavaMan, posted 09-17-2007 4:31 AM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by kuresu, posted 09-17-2007 9:45 PM Rob has replied
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 09-17-2007 11:33 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 78 of 216 (422631)
09-17-2007 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
09-17-2007 10:06 AM


Re: Good science

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 09-17-2007 10:06 AM Percy has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 79 of 216 (422637)
09-17-2007 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
09-17-2007 11:31 AM


Razd:
When you can either (1) tell me the difference between the two rocks falling or (b) tell me how the molecular self-replication does not follow the rules of chemistry, you will have an argument.
I already did...
I said that just because something is within the laws of physics, does not mean that it happened in the past. I used the illustration of Einstein and Oppenheimer inventing the Bomb. Just because it worked, doesn't mean there is anything like it in nature past.
And I also pointed out that your rock is an insufficient analogy. A rock may follow the laws of physics, but it actually exists in nature.
The nuclear bomb and the self replicating molecules you eluded to, do not exist in nature, and were created in the laboratory by incredibly clever and intelligent engineers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2007 11:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by kuresu, posted 09-17-2007 9:41 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2007 9:59 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 84 of 216 (422662)
09-17-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by kuresu
09-17-2007 9:45 PM


Re: Empirical and empiricism
Kuresu:
A "rationalist", as already explained by javaman, is someone who uses logic and reasoning alone to generate knowledge.
Yes, that is how I see it as well...
?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by kuresu, posted 09-17-2007 9:45 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by kuresu, posted 09-17-2007 10:33 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 87 of 216 (422689)
09-17-2007 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by kuresu
09-17-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Empirical and empiricism
Kuresu:
Your use of "rational" is different from the philosophy of rationalism. Here's why. Your "rational" means "by logic, by reason". Rationalism, on the other hand, includes one more thing--only by logic and reason are the basis of knowledge. So if you do actually mean that science rests its empirical claim on rationalism, you have stated a contradiction. You are stating, in effect:
Empiricism (knowledge through experience alone) rests its claim on rationalism (knowledge based on reason, logic alone).
Not at all...
All I am saying is that empiricism must be argued for... rationally. It's combinational by definition. Yet some claim that it speaks for itself. It does not...
For example, when I said that the evidence screams of design, you disagreed! So obviously our interpretations are not the same based on the same emperical evidence.
The only contradiction would be to say that the empirical speaks for itself. And the reason is that we have to speak for it... rationally.
That's what science is. We must declare it, and show why it is the way we see it based on the evidence.
Otherwise we could all just make things up...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by kuresu, posted 09-17-2007 10:33 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 09-18-2007 12:05 AM Rob has replied
 Message 91 by kuresu, posted 09-18-2007 12:14 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 93 by JavaMan, posted 09-18-2007 5:29 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 89 of 216 (422695)
09-18-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by RAZD
09-17-2007 9:59 PM


Razd:
If you don't understand how thoroughly and completely this one example demolishes your argument, then you aren't following the logic, but are entwined in your emotional appeals and the denial of reality.
Wow...Razd! One wrong defense against your analogy and my whole argument is demolished?
Suppose I were to have used that thinking against your innacurate assertion that higher temperatures should have led to more adenine production.
Perhaps I should just write you off and assasinate your whole argument?
No...
You boys need to put away the shovels. I am a long way from the grave... But the fact you want to bury me so badly is encouraging.
If I sit back and relax... think more and react less... I might be able to really get under your skin eh?
Think I had better take a break and let your blood cool down for a while...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2007 9:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by kuresu, posted 09-18-2007 12:26 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2007 7:13 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 90 of 216 (422696)
09-18-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
09-18-2007 12:05 AM


Re: Rationality and the Philosophy of Rationalism are Two Different Things
Percy:
Everyone is telling you this.
I wasn't aware that there was anyone participating except materialists (minus Ken).
I wouldn't expect you to agree!
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 09-18-2007 12:05 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 09-18-2007 7:37 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 97 of 216 (422946)
09-18-2007 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by JavaMan
09-18-2007 5:29 AM


Re: Empiricism and Rationalism
Javaman:
Science is explicitly an empirical activity, depending on observation and experiment to make inductive generalisations about phenomena. Reasoning has its place in making deductions from observations, but those deductions must be put to the test before they can be treated as science.
Hopefully, that will clear up the misunderstanding. Now you can get back to undermining methodological naturalism.
Well, I am still somewhat unclear as to this equivocation business Kuresu is talking about. Saying that science (empiricism) is also just philosophy is not an equivocation. As I said they are inseperable. This is not a new observation btw...
Einstein remarked that when he was a young man the philosophy of science was considered a luxury, and most scientists paid no attention to it. He assumed that the situation was much the same with respect to the history of science. The two subjects must be similar, he said, because both deal with scientific thought...
... Einstein said that at the beginning of the century only a few scientists had been philosophically minded, but today physicists are almost all philosophers, although "they are apt to be bad philosophers."
( Error 404 Document /db/apps/newtondev/texts/viewtext.php not found )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by JavaMan, posted 09-18-2007 5:29 AM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-18-2007 10:01 PM Rob has replied
 Message 102 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2007 3:26 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 99 of 216 (422963)
09-18-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Archer Opteryx
09-18-2007 10:01 PM


Re: Empiricism and Rationalism
Archer:
Another equivocation. If science and philosophy were indeed 'inseparable' it would still not follow that one 'is the same thing' as the other. It is simple-minded to think the two words would therefore be synonyms.
Well you're right, it doesn't follow, and that is not what I intended to say. My apologies for mixing terms and especially, the terribly offensive misspellings. I am grateful that such educated fellows as yourselves even take the time to talk to a dunderhead like me. Your patience and understanding is beyond comprehension. I am truely blessed...
You mentioned the differences between software and a hard drive. I would like to show what they have in common. It takes software and a hard drive to make a computer. And they must cohere or they don't work. In the same way, it takes the empirical and the philosophical to bring knowledge to life. And they must cohere...
When the philsophical and the emperical do not match, we have a problem. And the strength of science to me, is in the assumption that it is the philosophy that is in error, not the emperical. And not always the 'whole philosophy' mind you, but often only a part or parts of it (that's an important point to note).
I did not say that they are synonymous. I meant that they are the same thing in terms of the 'whole system'. And that they are inseperable. If they are seperated, it is because of a failure in the philosophy.
Btw, your argument is a philosophical one no?
That is the confusion... I was never equivocating rationalism with empiricism (and I meant 'rational' as another term for philosophy, that was not wise...). They are merely inseperable, because we cannot speak of the empirical without doing so philosophically.
And that is why any definition of science is undeniably a philosophical position. There is no such thing as science apart from philosophy. And you cannot disagree without invoking a philosophical argument. As you said, the empirical tells us nothing on it's own. It must engage our intellect, and we must assume (philosophically) that logic is valid and reflects reality.
Archer:
You fail to distinguish between the methods of science and the methods of philosophy.
Both are meant to be logical, since both deal with knowledge. The illogical cannot be known by definition, since it is incomprehensible. And I think that is why Einstein found the comprehensibility of the universe to be incomprehensible. It is because it forces us to ask 'why'? Because how can we know anything without all knowledge? What is the difference between the illogical and the incomprehensibilty that logic allows? The scope of logic is potentially endless, yet we must meet our end!
So do we reject what is comprehensible because we cannot fully comprehend? That wouldn't make sense either unless we knew all and that ultimately, all things were meaningless.
Both history and philosophy are arguments (or interpretations) for an epistemology. And the situation is no different with science. That's why Einstein said they deal with the same subject. And that's why he believed there was such a thing as a bad philosopher. He's quite right, as he often was...
The methodology of science was invented because of a philosophical notion of what empirical means, and what knowledge is; general truths about the world we live in. And that is accepted as a truth! But is that itself an empirical notion? no...
They're inseperable...
Archer:
'Philosophy of science' is an exploration of the question of why empiricism works as well as it does. It is not 'the same thing' as empiricism itself (a nonsensical thing to say). The question of why empiricism works so well is necessarily a philosophical question because empirical methods alone don't tell you. One can do plenty of science, as Einstein himself observed, and never ask why the method works. But Einstein was not one to leave any question unasked.
Well that's just obvious... it works because it reflects reality to one degree or another. If it didn't then what would be the point?
And that is why it is so important for people to prove certain things be it myself, or Razd. Because it has tremendous effects upon the 'meaning' of life itself. And we all have an interest in life's meaning being a particular thing or the other, predominantly for personal moral reasons.
But we have to do it philosophically...
We don't want reality to hold us accountable. But we end up holding others accountable if they get in our way of escaping it. Either way there's no free lunch! Somebody has to pay. At the moment, I feel it is me...
I don't have a problem confessing ignorance on some things. or confessing that I really read too much into the definitions of empiricism and empirical. But I do understand what it is I am trying to say. And I think I have said it.
Now, can we get back to Murchison? You guys have succesfully drawn away from my criticism of molbiogirls source. We aught to get back on topic.
I particularly would like to engage Razd on his analogy.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-18-2007 10:01 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 100 of 216 (422966)
09-19-2007 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
09-16-2007 2:19 PM


Re: Good science
I wanted to to quickly rewind back to where I went wrong...
Percy:
You are correct that abiogenesis, the development of life from non-life, assumes natural processes, but that is true of all science.
The empirical world cannot assume such a thing. And that's why people have concluded all sorts of different things from the empirical evidence. Francis Crick believes in panspermia, and he's a Nobel Laureate!
Only a philosophy can assume like that, or define science in such a way as to exclude anything... Philosophies are exclusive; the truth is exclusive, but you keep telling me that science is not truth and not a philosophy.
There is nothing wrong with invoking natural causation, but we don't have the necessary evidence to conclude that material causation is the only valid explanation for every phenomenon. Nature cannot be shown to be strictly material. It is a philosophical imposition based on a materialistic philosophy, and not upon empirical evidence.
There is no empirical evidence for material abiogenesis because it assumes an evolutionary origin that has supposedly since passed away. Current biological evidence does not show any simplicty that evokes thoughts of de novo material assembly. And the fossil record shows only creatures dependant upon modern chemical energy conversions. But you are right that it is possible. And evolution is the only material response. Yet only creatures capable of self replication can evolve. They pass their genetic information to the next generation. So evolution is dependant upon de novo appearence of life.
It's like Razd's analogy...
I actually have to give credit to my brother Ken for sorting this out for me. H seems to have lost interest in you boys. But he's kind to me...
The Oklo point is a very good one for their side on the surface, and to a casual observer perhaps, but I don't think it defeats your point at all, and here is why: The nuclear bomb is a wonderful example of science being completely carried out and put to use in the real world. The bomb was hypothesized, theorized, experimented with, built, tested, and it succeded. Afterwards, the science involved in making a working bomb predicted acurately that real world natural fission was possible, which was then observed. Correction, real world fission was not observed, the by-products of fission were found. Case closed.
You see where I'm going, right? The science involved in producing and assembling all the required building blocks of life is, to say the least, incomplete. We have absolutely zero successes that I am aware of. We are being told that science knows what the building blocks for the original life on earth are, and that they were together in such-and-such environment, and that we had these purines and these nucleotides, and these molecules, and so forth. If they are right, where is the original life form that they have made? After they make the original life form again, and it not only survives, but begins evolving again, then perhaps we will need to seriously reconsider our understanding.
I personally don't believe our universe precludes intelligence from designing self replicating life. I am very suprised you don't find any evidence for the ability of intellignence to do such things.
But if you do succeed, it will not evolve. Just as Razd's source shows a designed replicating system that does not evolve.
But that won't be a problem for you guys huh? Because it just means the fomula is not quite right, not to mention that it would take several thousand years minimum to gauge any irrefutable evolution.
For those unfortunate enough to be alive in the mean time, we only need to have faith. The savior will come.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 09-16-2007 2:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2007 3:44 AM Rob has replied
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 9:34 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 101 of 216 (422971)
09-19-2007 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by EighteenDelta
09-18-2007 11:08 AM


EighteenD:
Should we place bets on virus or bacteriological pathology, or is it just olfactory overload from aromatic hydrocarbons?
You have a good sense of humor...
I hope it's not a 'Wormwood' sample of what's to come!
Let's just wait and see...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by EighteenDelta, posted 09-18-2007 11:08 AM EighteenDelta has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 108 of 216 (423014)
09-19-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by kuresu
09-19-2007 3:44 AM


Nuclear fission
Rob:
but we don't have the necessary evidence to conclude that material causation is the only valid explanation for every phenomenon
Kukresu:
Oh, and I called it. You do want to bring in god, don't you?
I have before. But not here. (you can't call shotgun when I'm already in the passenger seat).
I mean you already know where I am coming from. But this thread is a critique of you and your 'science', not me...
Here I have a different agenda other than evangelism. To show that it is you who want to bring materialism in, without due cause. And we all know where you are coming from too!
Kuresu:
Nuclear fusion is one of the types of nuclear bombs.
Also, nuclear fission is following the rules of physics. Turns out we've split atoms as far back as 1917. Rutherford did it--with naturally occuring alpha particles from radioactive material. Real world fission, observed. We didn't create the alpha particles. We didn't create the radioactive material. We didn't create the nitrogen. At best, Rutherford aimed the particles, but if you left radioactive material emitting alpha particles around nitrogen, you'll get fission.
Oklo is interesting because it involves the fission of uranium.
As to nuclear fusion, check out stars. That's how they produce light and "burn" their fuel. They smash hydrogen atoms together, and once hydrogen is out, they smash the next step up. Unless I'm mistaken, our sun is capable of producing iron through fusion.
I was never talking about fusion... only fission. But let's make a syllogism as per Kuresu and Razd.
Some nuclear bombs are fission bombs. Nuclear fission is natural and follows the laws of physics. Therefore all fission is a bomb.
All life replicates. Life is natural and follows the laws of physics. Therefore all replications are life.
Now those are sloppy syllogisms, but I think they show that it does not follow.
You see, the bomb didn't prove that bombs are natural. It only proved that fission is. In the same way, replicating molecules do not prove that replicating molecules are natural, only that replication is.
It takes more than a molecule to get natural selection up and running.
Kuresu:
So where is you evidence for the divine? How do you tell the difference? Important questions if you're going to start positing "God did it" as a valid response.
Completely off topic... if you didn't notice, the thread topic is 'Murchison meteor questions'. Although all of these other questions, designed to get the attention off of materialism and onto the design inference have helped me to make some other points as well, it is very distracting to the audience as a whole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2007 3:44 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 9:55 AM Rob has replied
 Message 122 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2007 2:33 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 123 by bluegenes, posted 09-19-2007 2:39 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 111 of 216 (423019)
09-19-2007 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
09-19-2007 9:34 AM


Re: Good science
Percy:
The approach you're taking in this thread is to argue that there are no natural sources of adenine on the early earth, and that therefore it must have come from some other source.
No I'm not!
There is a natural source for adenine. It is synthesized in the living machinery. That is the empirical reality (science).
I am not trying to prove that nature cannot produce it in some other way. Intelligence can sysnthesize it under the laws of physics. so it is possible!
The point is... that you guys haven't shown conclusively (empirically) that it can be produced other than in the living machinery. You only believe that it can.
Maybe your right, but there is no evidence. You do think evidence is important don't you Percy? So that we can't just make things up?
Your next response will be... we haven't found it yet, but there are many possible paths to adenine production in nature (you've said that at least three times already). And it certainly is possible...
But it is also possible that the pink unicorn 'pooped' the universe into existence. I would just like some evidence.
And that makes me wonder... how do you know or assume that something (material explanation) exists, when there is no evidence? Because you assume there is a material explanation for everything.
How is that any different from me assuming the is a supernatural explanation for some things? The difference is clear and bold.
Do you want to continue to argue philosophy as a means of refuting my asking for material evidence f adenine in the meteor?
Your defending against my material questions, by questioning my philosophy. You only have to answer the question...
Got any evidence that the Murchison extractions are legit? Can you defend the results and show them to be conclusive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 9:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 10:14 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 112 of 216 (423020)
09-19-2007 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Percy
09-19-2007 9:55 AM


Re: Nuclear fission
Percy:
Rob, what I've quoted above from you reveals that, just as I've been arguing all along, your real agenda in this thread is arguing against the materialistic nature of science
I am all for material (empirical) evidence Percy.
Got any?
Percy:
Whether you accept the material presented to you or not, your questions about the Murchison meteorite have been answered.
Well then please do tell Percy. They were answered with material assumptions, not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 9:55 AM Percy has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 114 of 216 (423023)
09-19-2007 10:01 AM


Perhaps now would be a good time for those of you defending the Murchison extractions to recap what you have thus far...

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024