Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:58 AM
37 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, edge, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (9 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,933 Year: 11,969/19,786 Month: 1,750/2,641 Week: 259/708 Day: 34/52 Hour: 15/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1622 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 76 of 173 (516468)
07-25-2009 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
07-25-2009 9:57 AM


Re: Re plants
Could it have been the plants God made in Genesis 2:9 produced the seed that God refered to in Genesis 1:11.

That would solve the problem as the only thing created on earth before those plants was one man.

Yea I know that makes things be out of order. But hey man has been arranging things in the wrong order since the beginning of time.

But to the title of the topic 'A Logical account of creation'.

If things were created by God. I believe they were.

The plants had to be created before they could produce seed.

Therefore the seed in Genesis 1:11 had to come from the plants created in Genesis 2:9.

I am not tackling Gen 1. Gen 2 is a different matter. The only plants missing and created after Adam are plants of the field. The term "of the field" is used in contrast to the term wild as in wild beasts and beasts of the field. This would mean non-wild, or domestic. Even scientists say domestic plants appeared after man appeared. Gen 2 is an accurate depiction of the domestication of plants, even to the very mountain. Gen 1? well, you have a strong case there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2009 9:57 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2384 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 77 of 173 (516476)
07-25-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peg
07-25-2009 2:18 AM


Peg writes:

it only says 'earth'

as far as i'm aware, the land under the sea is still part of the earth unless scientists have decided otherwise

there are many diffferent types of plants that yield seed and a fruit tree isnt confined to apples and oranges.

greentwiga writes:

Could it have been the plants God made in Genesis 2:9 produced the seed that God refered to in Genesis 1:11.

That would solve the problem as the only thing created on earth before those plants was one man.

This brings up the point I referenced over a year ago, trying to read the Bible with 21st century eyes rather than through the eyes of the writers. When reading the scripture using the eyes of the writers one can see that what they were writing about was what they observed. To understand what is being said, one must understand that the writers had no basic knowledge of what the earth was. To them plants would have to precede animals, but the fact that the land plants listed in Gen1:11 are of the type that they would have seen in Mesopotamia, Canaan & Egypt which is the only areas that these compilers knew of that is the animals and plants of the area. For example, they knew nothing of Carboniferous plants, such as club mosses & seed ferns, which did precede all of the modern fauna of the period of Genesis compilation, but existed contemporary with primitive amphibians & reptiles whereas the angiosperms, listed in Gen1:11 came after even the primitive mammals existed.

ref:The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins pg 509 & http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/map2.html

Edited by bluescat48, : missing line

Edited by bluescat48, : clarity

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix second quote box (was no "/" in closer).


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 07-25-2009 2:18 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2911 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 78 of 173 (516478)
07-25-2009 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ICANT
07-25-2009 10:16 AM


Re: Heard a Lot of Things
Who says ICR or Mr Morris is correct in what they believe?

I don't know what they believe. I only know what they say.

Especially when they disagree with what the Bible says.

I 'd say agreeing with the Bible is a surer indicator of err the disagreeing with it.

Everything was created in the first light period,(as recorded in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:24) that ended with the evening found in Genesis 1:2 as darkness had come. In verse 5 God declares that evening and the end of that darkness the following morning as the first day.

I've read your Two Geneses Theory on a few dozen other threads. If the literature has to be warped that much to make it fit the facts I don't understand why you don't do a word morph of Genesis right into Origin of Species and be done with it. I'm sure there's a secret number code in there somewhere if you find the key diagonal.

Gen 1:1 — In the beginning…

OoS — When on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent.

There, I got it started. Ok! So I spelled begining without one of the ens, but I'm sure a good linguistic excuse can be found for that if we pass it through enough languages.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2009 10:16 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 892 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 79 of 173 (516485)
07-25-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peg
07-24-2009 7:39 PM


Plant Kiinds
Hi, Peg.

Peg writes:

but the genesis account does not specify the specific types of plants.

It actually does:

quote:
...seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." ... plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.
-Genesis 1:11-12 (NIV)

Two kinds of plants are specifically mentioned: seed-bearing and fruit-bearing. Not all plants have seeds. For instance, ferns do not produce seeds: they reproduce with spores. Liverworts, horsetail rushes, mosses, quillworts and clubmosses also do not reproduce with seeds.

In the Carboniferous period, these spore plants dominated the forests and swamps: the trees of the time were giant clubmosses and horsetail rushes.

The first seed-bearing plants do not appear until the Devonian (the period directly before the Carboniferous), by which time sea creatures are already very diverse, and some groups of animals have already left the water.

Fruiting plants (which are technically called "flowering plants" by botanists) are specialized type of seed-bearing plant. Conifers, cycads and the ginkgo tree are seed-bearing plants that do not produce fruit (unless you want to count the ginkgo seed as a fruit---it is, however, very distinct from true fruits). Fruit-bearing plants do not appear until the Cretaceous period, which means that dinosaurs and mammals were already very diverse before we find any evidence of fruit. In fact, birds were around before fruit-bearing plants, too.

So, here is your list from Message 65 (message #65), highlighting all the steps that are contradicted by the available fossil evidence about plants alone:

Peg writes:

1 a beginning to the universe
2 a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water
3 light
4 an expanse or atmosphere
5 large areas of dry land
6 land plants of all sorts
7 sun, moon and stars discernible, and seasons begin
8 sea creatures and flying creatures
9 wild and tame beasts, mammals
10 mankind

-----

If we accept the KJV, then we have grass also created on the third day. Grass is a specialized form of flowering plant, and it doesn't appear until the late Cretaceous, near the end of the time of the dinosaurs.

In addition, I'm pretty sure tame animals didn't appear until after mankind domesticated them (but, the Bible says "cattle" or "livestock"---depending on version---and not "tame animals," so this probably isn't a real problem for the biblical account).

Edited by Bluejay, : Fixed reference to include both verses, and added subtitle

Edited by Bluejay, : Changed highlighting to red instead of bold


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 7:39 PM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 07-26-2009 4:17 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3124 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 80 of 173 (516566)
07-26-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
07-25-2009 9:57 AM


Re: Re plants
Hi ICANT,

i think its logical that God made fully formed plants, with seed production being the means for their duplication, rather then him producing seeds first and scattering them about.

Its like a chicken and egg senario... most logically he created a formed chicken that was capable of laying eggs rather then making eggs that hatched little chickens.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2009 9:57 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 07-26-2009 3:11 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 81 of 173 (516634)
07-26-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Peg
07-26-2009 8:33 AM


Re plants
Hi Peg,

Peg writes:

i think its logical that God made fully formed plants, with seed production being the means for their duplication, rather then him producing seeds first and scattering them about.

Its like a chicken and egg senario... most logically he created a formed chicken that was capable of laying eggs rather then making eggs that hatched little chickens.

I would agree that God would create full grown plants and trees as they would just appear out of the ground.

There is one huge problem with the standard understanding of Genesis creation for that to happen.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

The seed was upon the earth so the seed come first.

But in:

Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

There is no seed involved. God caused the ground to bring forth.

The two can not be talking about the same thing.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Peg, posted 07-26-2009 8:33 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by lyx2no, posted 07-26-2009 4:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 82 of 173 (516646)
07-26-2009 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Blue Jay
07-25-2009 1:37 PM


Re: Plant Kiinds
Hi jay,

Bluejay writes:

If we accept the KJV, then we have grass also created on the third day.

That really depends on what you believe Genesis says about creation.

1. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

2. Man was formed from the dust of the earth.

3. A garden was planted.

4. God placed man in the garden.

5. Out of the ground God made fruit bearing trees and plants to grow.

5. The only water mentioned was a river that flowed from Eden to water the garden which then divided into 4 rivers.

6. Out of the ground God formed every beast of the field and fowl of the air.

7. Then God took a rib from the man and made a woman.

8. In Genesis 2:5 Every plant and herb of the land is mentioned but it is not stated when God brought them from the ground.

I think science confirms that at one time there was no oceans or seas on the planet earth.

I think science confirms that at one time the mountains were covered with water as there are all kind of water critters on top of the mountains as well as in them.

If I am in trouble by my thinking I am sure someone will point it out to me.

Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 2:25 does not have fish or any water creatures created only land and air.

Conclusion a dry earth.

Genesis 1:9 tells me there was no dry land.

Conclusion the earth was covered with water.

Conclusion something happened to cause all the dry land to be covered by water. (But there is no explanation given.)

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 07-25-2009 1:37 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2911 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 83 of 173 (516647)
07-26-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ICANT
07-26-2009 3:11 PM


Re: Re plants
herb yielding seed

herb yielding seed

herb yielding seed

It is possible that the phrase can be read with the gold being the modifier and the brown being the noun; however, " the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind" clearly indicates that the latter is the proper reading: Herb is being modified. There is no need for any seed to exist at this point, but they will come.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 07-26-2009 3:11 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 84 of 173 (519991)
08-18-2009 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Parasomnium
07-21-2009 5:08 AM


Re: you are ignorant
Hello everybody Im,back its fun time again.

Parasomnium wrote:

According to the theory of evolution, primitive fish evolves to modern fish by random mutation and natural selection.

Oh, I know that. But today the fantastic creative creative power of natural selection is seriously question. In facin 2001 scientist from Yale, MIT, and Rice issued a document questioning the creative power of natuarl selection. Developmental biologist Scott Gilbert argued that natural selection explained the " survival not the arrival of the fittest"

It has been established in molecular genetics that random mutations do not just consist of point mutations in an otherwise static volume of DNA, but also of duplication, transposition, and deletion of whole chunks of DNA, thereby enlarging or shrinking a volume of DNA to any possible size

So do you mean that mutation was responsible for bringing up those "complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins which fill the cell". That is interesting because mutation is a process that break genes so easily. A process that break genes so easily is very hard to believe as responsible of bringing up the organization,elegance, simplicity,complexeties which we observe in life. In fact research show that out of 1000 mutation only 1 did it hit their proper target. But here you are talking of multiple mutations, so if reconsider the history of life evolution take a very path than Darwin provide. In fact it had been show that if life requires multiple mutation the problem become" exponentially worse"

The point is that random mutation and natural selection, in the long run, are able to change a genome of any length and composition to another genome of a completely different length and composition. This means that there is no invisible barrier beyond which lifeforms cannot evolve.

The Law of recurrent variation show that organism " has real boundaries". The idea behind this is that organism just re- occur no new form is observed. As I already pointed out, natural selection is seriously question,so it no help to your position now.

You acknowledge the existence of primitive fish (as opposed to modern fish, I suppose). So, if you think evolution is false, then what mechanism do you propose transforms primitive fish into modern fish? And why do you think this process of transformation is limited, and how is it so?

Oh, I did not acknowledged that. My point is there is no primative fish as what Darwin desribe them, and I did not believe that there is another form of evolution that governed the transition,but I believe that fish were " specially created" . There is no transformation of organism and that is what the law of recurrent variation states.


Mentioning the "fish family" betrays at least some ignorance with respect to biological classification, which does not bode well for your knowledge of other subjects regarding evolution. It's up to you prove me wrong

Are classifications of organism provide the evidence that they evolved? Linneus was able to classify organism but he did not believe that they evolved, he only classified them. This reasoning is like saying because cars was arranged according to there forms and because some forms are similar,therefore they evolved randomly.
You are wrong for sticking to unwarranted presumption like believing that natural selection could create those organism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Parasomnium, posted 07-21-2009 5:08 AM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2009 3:59 PM traste has responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 85 of 173 (519993)
08-18-2009 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Brian
07-21-2009 5:08 AM


Re: No Oxygen for 2 billion years
The typesetter at that publisher should be sacked

Well, I guess you just dont want to read things that are inconflict with your beliefs,and dont worry you are not alone some proponents of evolution omit evidence that arte inconflict with their beliefs. In other words guilty of omission. And there dishonesty is extraordinary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Brian, posted 07-21-2009 5:08 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Brian, posted 08-19-2009 2:44 PM traste has responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 86 of 173 (519999)
08-18-2009 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by onifre
07-21-2009 3:46 PM


Re: you are ignorant
No you are not!

Actually the fact that some proponents of evolution(i.e. Gould, Eldridge, propose punctuated equlibrium to "explain the lack of transitional link") are saying that there are no transitional forms are good proof that I was able to asked excellent question .

You asked for a fossil that was an intermediate form between fish and amphibians, you asked that question in a reply to a post that gave you the intermediate fossils that you were requesting

Let me give you some scientific reference that are saying there is no transitional forms. A book a view of life written by three evolutionist Salvador LuRIA ,Stephen jay Gould and Sam Singer, states that "fossil records are full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explained" what confounded them is the fact that organism suddenly appeared and "remained virtually unchanged" Also the New evolutionary time table states "that the fossil record reveales surprising things about our biological origins."So, if you keep on sticking to your unwarranted presumption you are now againts to those scientist of your same psychological status.

Now, either you don't actually care to see the fossils or you don't think it represents an intermediate form. If you don't think it does represent an intermediate form, then explain why, and be specific

Actually I care. The simple reason is that some scientist say that there is and some say scientist they dont exist is a good proof that I do really care,the only differnce between us is that Im not as faithful as you.

What is it about that fossil that I linked for you that you feel does not represent an intermediate form between fish and amphibian?

Simple the fact that many things that has been considered as evidence for evolution has been disproven.I.e. lung fish.

Here is the fossil THAT YOU REQUESTED...again: Tiktaali

Here's the quote...again

Yeah,you have the quote and Miller have the picture of macro evolution. The question therfore we should raise is (Are they really happening?).The NAS brochure say that there are many intermediate "forms between fish and amphibians", but they dont find any support from the fossil record.


I'm not going to reply to your ridiculous questions, however, are you saying that humans are not mammals?

On the ground only that they used mammary glands.

Perhaps, but you have failed to show how and where I'm being ignorant

After reading my criticism I hope that you will realized that you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 3:46 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by NosyNed, posted 08-20-2009 7:24 AM traste has responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 87 of 173 (520001)
08-19-2009 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Peg
07-25-2009 2:14 AM


Re: No number 36,997
Peq wrote:
havnt you heard there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers

Exactly.

Edited by traste, : wrong format of db codes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Peg, posted 07-25-2009 2:14 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3154 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 88 of 173 (520136)
08-19-2009 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by traste
08-18-2009 11:10 PM


Re: No Oxygen for 2 billion years
Well, I guess you just dont want to read things that are inconflict with your beliefs,

That quote certainly is against my belief that a published book should at least have good grammar.

And there dishonesty is extraordinary

Is English not your first language?

Edited by Brian, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by traste, posted 08-18-2009 11:10 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by traste, posted 08-19-2009 11:35 PM Brian has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 89 of 173 (520151)
08-19-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by traste
08-18-2009 11:00 PM


Re: you are ignorant
traste writes:

[T]oday the fantastic creative creative power of natural selection is seriously question. In facin 2001 scientist from Yale, MIT, and Rice issued a document questioning the creative power of natuarl selection. Developmental biologist Scott Gilbert argued that natural selection explained the " survival not the arrival of the fittest"

This is the abstract of Gilbert's publication that I found on the site of PubMed.

quote:
Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology.
Gilbert SF, Opitz JM, Raff RA.

Department of Biology, Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania 19081, USA.

A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving the wnt genes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.


It shows that Gilbert's ideas fall well within the Darwinian paradigm. As usual, creationists and ID-ists have latched onto this idea and ripped it right out of its context. It pays to go to the source, traste.

mutation is a process that break genes so easily

Quite so. But it just as easily creates whole copies of genes which are subsequently altered by more mutations.

A process that break genes so easily is very hard to believe as responsible of bringing up the organization,elegance, simplicity,complexeties which we observe in life.

"Hard to believe" doesn't cut it. It's also hard to believe that a man on a stage can saw a girl in half, and have her dart around the stage in one piece a minute later. It's hard to believe until you know how the trick is done, which suggests it might be a good idea to study the magic of Darwinian evolution before you declare it "hard to believe".

The Law of recurrent variation show that organism " has real boundaries". The idea behind this is that organism just re- occur no new form is observed. As I already pointed out, natural selection is seriously question,so it no help to your position now.

This so-called "law of recurrent variation" is pure invention in aid of creationist/ID-ist arguing. It has no scientific standing whatsoever.

traste, quoting me writes:


Mentioning the "fish family" betrays at least some ignorance with respect to biological classification, which does not bode well for your knowledge of other subjects regarding evolution. It's up to you prove me wrong

Are classifications of organism provide the evidence that they evolved? Linneus was able to classify organism but he did not believe that they evolved, he only classified them. This reasoning is like saying because cars was arranged according to there forms and because some forms are similar,therefore they evolved randomly.
You are wrong for sticking to unwarranted presumption like believing that natural selection could create those organism.

You're not paying attention. I was merely saying that you don't know what you're talking about, and it shows. For your information: in Linnean classification fish are a class, in modern taxonomy things are a little more complicated. In any case, fish are not, as you suggested, a family.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by traste, posted 08-18-2009 11:00 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 12:20 AM Parasomnium has responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 90 of 173 (520220)
08-19-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Brian
08-19-2009 2:44 PM


Re: No Oxygen for 2 billion years
Brian wrote:

That quote certainly is against my belief that a published book should at least have good grammar
.

Well, I just memorized it, if the grammar is not good it is due to my carelessness,not incompetence on the part of the author.

Is English not your first language?

Exactly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Brian, posted 08-19-2009 2:44 PM Brian has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019