Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 6:14 AM
38 online now:
Percy (Admin), Tangle (2 members, 36 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4647
48
4950
...
59NextFF
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
edge
Member
Posts: 4464
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 706 of 877 (835154)
06-18-2018 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 702 by Faith
06-18-2018 4:57 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
The "evidence" you were giving just never made any sense though I kept trying to see it as you seemed to see it.

Seems kind of strange that on one else had a hard time with it.

I finally realized it's all an attempt to make something out of nothing.

Oh, good! Another casual dismissal.

You can't explain the history of the formation of the strata after they are that extremely deformed, ...

Heh, heh, ... to a real structural geologist this was child's play. You really have no idea.

... and my first take on it was right: The strata on the surface follow a pattern that clearly demonstrates deformation as a unit, and so do the strata underground. The areas you try to make into evidence for deformation before deposition are really just distortions brought about after the deformation.

Finally, an argument by unsupported assertion. I knew you could do it.

And besides, this would be the only example on the planet of what you are claiming for it. That alone falsifies it.

Um, you may want to reword that. That's like saying a black swan falsifies black swans.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 4:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 707 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 9:14 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 707 of 877 (835156)
06-18-2018 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 706 by edge
06-18-2018 8:45 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Seems kind of strange that on one else had a hard time with it.

Not strange at all since you all are quite eager to make as much something out of as much nothing as you can, you don't care if you have to find it in a deformed mess or hallucinate it or whatever you have to do. Since you all are capable of believing that a time period can become a slab of rock and you believe in hundreds of millions of totally unnecessary years for something that should take a few thousand at most, and you believe a reptile ear can evolve into a mammalian ear, and you believe there was a sedimentary layer in a super tight contact that shows not a shred of erosion, I'm sure it wouildn't be hard to come up with unconformities long after the rock had been deformed even though there are other possible explanations for it. And you believe some salt in a layer is proof positive of a warm climate some ridiculous number of millioins of years ago and so on and so forth.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by edge, posted 06-18-2018 8:45 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 709 by edge, posted 06-18-2018 9:35 PM Faith has responded
 Message 715 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2018 12:32 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 727 by dwise1, posted 06-19-2018 2:42 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 708 of 877 (835157)
06-18-2018 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 684 by Pollux
06-17-2018 9:20 PM


Re: What Flood geologists say
This is an interesting article in which the author uses only arguments proposed by different supporters of a Flood to show it could not have occurred at any time in the Earth's history. There is no general agreement among them of what constitutes pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood.
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/44/36

If you want to join this thread please pick a topic and argue it and quote from the article.

ABE: Also could somebody put that article into a form I could copy into a Word document. For some reason it's a struggle and I finally gave up. Thank you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 684 by Pollux, posted 06-17-2018 9:20 PM Pollux has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by Pollux, posted 06-18-2018 10:18 PM Faith has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4464
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 709 of 877 (835158)
06-18-2018 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by Faith
06-18-2018 9:14 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Not strange at all since you all are quite eager to make as much something out of as much nothing as you can, you don't care if you have to find it in a deformed mess or hallucinate it or whatever you have to do. Since you all are capable of believing that a time period can become a slab of rock and you believe in hundreds of millions of totally unnecessary years for something that should take a few thousand at most, and you believe a reptile ear can evolve into a mammalian ear, and you believe there was a sedimentary layer in a super tight contact that shows not a shred of erosion, I'm sure it wouildn't be hard to come up with unconformities long after the rock had been deformed even though there are other possible explanations for it. And you believe some salt in a layer is proof positive of a warm climate some ridiculous number of millioins of years ago and so on and so forth.

So, your explanation is that everyone but you is crazy.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 9:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 9:59 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 710 of 877 (835160)
06-18-2018 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 709 by edge
06-18-2018 9:35 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
No, not everyone, just Historical Geologists.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by edge, posted 06-18-2018 9:35 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 711 of 877 (835164)
06-18-2018 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by Faith
06-18-2018 9:34 PM


Re: What Flood geologists say
This is a motley Flood thread so I thought it appropriate to mention it, and that some here would be interested.

For me, going to the link and clicking on the download button in the bottom left corner gives access to the article.

Briefly, various "Flood geologists" have different views for the geologic level that represents where the Flood starts and stops, and reasons for why their view is right. But every level or levels that one argues for will be argued against by one or more others with their reasons.

So just using the reasons of "Flood geologists" it can be shown that there is no part of the geologic record that can represent the Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 9:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 10:20 PM Pollux has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 712 of 877 (835165)
06-18-2018 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by Pollux
06-18-2018 10:18 PM


Re: What Flood geologists say
thanks. Yes I know there are all those disagreements so maybe it wouldn't be worth it to read the whole article.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Pollux, posted 06-18-2018 10:18 PM Pollux has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by edge, posted 06-18-2018 10:45 PM Faith has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4464
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 713 of 877 (835170)
06-18-2018 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 712 by Faith
06-18-2018 10:20 PM


Re: What Flood geologists say
thanks. Yes I know there are all those disagreements so maybe it wouldn't be worth it to read the whole article.

Kinda like most of the posts you disagree with, eh?

By the way, I read the article and it was worth the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 10:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 9:59 AM edge has not yet responded
 Message 717 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 12:46 PM edge has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 714 of 877 (835172)
06-19-2018 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 704 by Faith
06-18-2018 5:35 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:

The line that curves up was distorted after deformation probably by encountering the metamorphic rocks underground.

The problem with that is it makes no sense. How could it “encounter” anything which had been there all the time ? Why are you trying to make an apparently meaningless distinction between “distortion” and “deformation” ?

quote:

The underground strata were deformed as a unit of parallel layers and then further distorted afterward.

quote:

The underground strata were deformed as a unit of parallel layers and then further distorted afterward.

To any sensible person it is obvious that there was plenty of deformation going on long before all the layers were deposited. You just refuse to see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 5:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 715 of 877 (835173)
06-19-2018 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 707 by Faith
06-18-2018 9:14 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:

Not strange at all since you all are quite eager to make as much something out of as much nothing as you can, you don't care if you have to find it in a deformed mess or hallucinate it or whatever you have to do

By which you mean we allow ourselves to see the obvious because we don’t care about pretending that your nutty ideas are true.

quote:

Since you all are capable of believing that a time period can become a slab of rock and you believe in hundreds of millions of totally unnecessary years for something that should take a few thousand at most, and you believe a reptile ear can evolve into a mammalian ear, and you believe there was a sedimentary layer in a super tight contact that shows not a shred of erosion

None of us believes that a time period can become a rock in any way that is at all silly. That’s just one of your lies.

Your ideas about evolutionary timescales are ridiculous and founded in false assumptions. It’s true we don’t have any problem in rejecting them but that’s because of their obvious faults and because we have the evidence on our side.

There are plenty of transitional fossils covering intermediate states between reptilian and mammalian ears so there is no reason why any sensible person should have a problem with it.

quote:

and you believe there was a sedimentary layer in a super tight contact that shows not a shred of erosion,

Which should be the case if there was continuous deposition. Erosion can only occur when deposition stops.

quote:

I'm sure it wouildn't be hard to come up with unconformities long after the rock had been deformed even though there are other possible explanations for it.

You seem to have great difficulty coming up with anything that makes sense even though you are quite prepared to invent elaborate ad hoc scenarios without a shred of evidence for them.

quote:

And you believe some salt in a layer is proof positive of a warm climate some ridiculous number of millioins of years ago and so on and so forth.

The fact that you choose to minimise and misrepresent the evidence only shows that you are dishonest.

In short you think we are crazy because we don’t care about worshipping your lies even though you slander us.

And we think you are crazy because you expect us to worship your lies. You even think that people who have never heard of you should worship your lies! I assure you that most working geologists have never even heard of you, let alone feel any fear of being slandered by you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 9:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 716 of 877 (835178)
06-19-2018 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 713 by edge
06-18-2018 10:45 PM


Re: What Flood geologists say
By the way, I read the article and it was worth the time.

Thanks to Pollux's advice I was able to print it out so I'll be reading it too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by edge, posted 06-18-2018 10:45 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 717 of 877 (835188)
06-19-2018 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by edge
06-18-2018 10:45 PM


Evidence of the Flood writ large
I keep getting these new desktop images thanks to Windows 10, I suppose most people do, and a lot of them are scenes of rocky beaches and that sort of thing. Today's is a lighthouse on a giant rock somewhere. These images often have a desolate feeling to me although I think they are supposed to evoke the beauty of nature. Your avatar has you, I assume that's you, overlooking a vast desert like place, yes? Same kind of feeling about the environment. These and many similar images of planet Earth have come to speak loudly of the Flood to me. Waste spaces, uninhabitable places, what's left after a huge catastrophe destroyed the world. Badlands are an example, but also the interesting ones like the hoodoos, the buttes of Monument Valley, the Grand Staircase, the Grand Canyon. All of it speaks to me of something that was formerly perfect now ruined. All the geological phenomena you study seem to have that characteristic of some form of wreckage. There is often still beauty in these things, but I've come to think that we're looking at the devastated remains of what must originally have been a spectacular beauty and order now utterly lost.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by edge, posted 06-18-2018 10:45 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2018 1:23 PM Faith has responded
 Message 720 by Tangle, posted 06-19-2018 1:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 718 of 877 (835190)
06-19-2018 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by Faith
06-17-2018 7:58 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
This is a longer post than you usually write. 5 of your last 15 posts were one line, another was 2 lines, and except for this long post the rest seemed to range from 5 to 10 lines. Even before reading them I'm not going out on any limb if I predict that at best you just repeat your basic positions that have already been shown wrong, and at worst you just ignore what people say to repeat your old talking points. But since Edge and PaulK replied so briefly I'll attempt a longer response that touches on each of your points.

We all know there is copious evidence of unconformities, and it is plainly described in many places on the Internet.
Probably the best summaries are at the USGS site, a good starting point is Stratigraphy of Grand Canyon National Park, and from there you can find descriptions of all the strata, including of the unconformities. Just click on any of the layers in the diagram to get to the corresponding page for that layer. The unconformities are described well enough to provide a good idea of what kind of erosive features are present.

The African Rift is a result of a continent splitting event that is taking place now - it is not something that "occurred" - it is still happening now. You can't make up your own reality. Claims that are made up and completely unsupported by evidence need no more rebuttal than to note that they are made up.

A couple of your paragraphs are so wrong they have to be addressed almost sentence by sentence. Your mistake density can become impressive, and such is the case here. The real world is conveniently available 24/7 for fact checking, you should make use of it more often. Making up stories is fun and easy, but it's no substitute for fact-based reconstruction of past events. Suffice to say that the current understandings of things like the formation of the Appalachians and the breakup of Pangaea are based upon evidence. You do mention evidence, like faults and angular unconformities and volcanic basalts, but they are mere decoration for your story telling that you never connect to your claims.

Because I plan to address angular unconformities in a future post, I won't respond to your comments on them in this post.

Faith writes:

And also, PLEASE explain the unconformities to us.

Certainly. They are contacts between layers that according to standard Old Earth Geology were originally occupied by a layer/time period, which can often be found in other stratigraphic columns in the vicinity. There isn't one iota of physical evidence of any former presence of such a layer where the "unconformity" supposedly exists, it is entirely an assumption based on the Geological Time Scale. In physical reality they never existed, no layer was ever deposited there.

This makes no sense. If the strata is rock (and if we're talking about the strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon then almost all the strata are sedimentary rock) then there must have been overlying layers providing sufficient pressure to turn the loose sediments to rock. And if the top contact of that strata has evidence of erosion then it must have been exposed at the surface, which could only be possible if the overlying strata were first eroded away.

The splitting of the continents was a worldwide event, that's what I'm talking about.

Please document this. Is the East African Rift part of that break-up?

No idea, but if it's a similar event and it occurred at the same time as part of the same tectonic movement I suppose it was.

You should have looked up "East African Rift" before replying. The East African Rift is not something that "occurred," as you described it, but something that is occurring as we speak, and has been occurring for quite some time. The rifting began some 20 Ma, and eventually it will become a mid-oceanic ridge from which new sea floor will spread to create a new ocean basin. The African plate will split into two new plates that have already been named, the Somali and Nubian plates.

A lot of tectonic bashing and crashing going on.

There's no such thing as "tectonic bashing and crashing". Tectonic movements occur very slowly at the rate of inches/year at most. These slow motions can become apparent when tectonic forces build up stress along existing fault lines or create new fault lines, causing sudden slips that result in earthquakes, such as along the San Andreas fault in California or the North Anatolian Fault in Turkey. Volcanos can be another manifestation, though produced in a less direct way.

The breaking up must have been fairly jolting,...

The earthquakes and volcanos - sure.

...but then there was the subduction on the west side of the Americas that pushed up mountains etc. I happen to think it occurred in conjunction with the beginning of the receding of the Flood, because of the effects like the cutting of the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase and the other massive erosion events in that area; and the dramatically deformed rocks in other places would be a natural result of such a tectonic bashing.

Edge replied to this this way:

edge writes:

So, the deformation occurred before the Tertiary rocks were deposited.

That's an important issue, and I'll address your response in a minute, but there are other important issues. What makes you think Pacific Plate subduction beneath the North American Continent, a process ongoing for millions of years, could be linked to erosion caused by receding flood waters.

It is true that deformation can result from plate collisions, what you're calling "tectonic bashing," but that is not the only result of tectonic forces. For example, the East African Rift is undoubtedly the result of tectonic forces, but plates are being pushed apart rather than colliding. This pushing apart is also deforming strata.

No, the conventional timing of the breakup of Pangaea is incorrect, as evidenced by the continuous laying down of the strata up to Recent time,...

This is an interesting statement for you to make, although "Recent time" is ambiguous. Assuming you mean roughly the present or at least sometime within the last couple hundred years, you seem to be saying that sedimentation and strata formation continued after the Flood but recently ceased. That of course is not true. We observe sedimentation occurring today, and there is no doubt it will continue on into the future. The products of erosion have to go somewhere, and the mechanisms of transport pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of sediments eventually end up on pond, swamp, lake, lagoon and sea bottoms.

But how does continuous sedimentation up to "Recent time" provide evidence for when Pangaea broke up? The dating of sea sediments from ocean cores tells us that the bottom layers from the oldest parts of the Atlantic, such as off the Maine coast, are around 175 million years old. The dating is mostly done through magnetic striping.

...as shown on the Smith cross section of England. Had the strata since the Jurassic not been deposited at the time of the breakup of Pangaea,...

Pangaea's breakup occurred over a long stretch of time from around 175 Ma to around 60 Ma. The end of the Jurassic does roughly correspond to the beginning of the breakup of Pangaea, so as long as one isn't too picky about when your "strata since the Jurassic" began being deposited, it is simply a truism that after the Jurassic strata were deposited during the period of Pangaea's breakup. But since the conclusion of Pangaea's breakup 60 Ma strata have continued to be deposited.

...it would not be deformed in the same pattern as all the rest were,...

What is this "same pattern" that you're referring to, what strata does the phrase "all the rest" refer to, and why do you think they're similar to the strata in the Smith diagram?

...because that deformation is best explained as the result of the tectonic event we are discussing which came after all the strata were in place.

This is incorrect. Angular unconformities around the world are the result of tectonic forces tilting strata, and strata have been tilted by tectonic forces during all different time periods.

In fact the recent strata in the UK would probably have been laid horizontally on top of all the other strata if the conventional timing was true because that's the way those strata were probably originally deposited.

It's impossible to know what recent means to you since to you everything is geologically recent, but in general sediments are deposited roughly horizontally and always on top of whatever is there. It has nothing to do with whether "the conventional timing" is true - it's just something that's been understood since Steno.

Instead the pattern of deformation across all the time periods shows that the continents did not split until after all the strata were laid down.

The mere existence of angular unconformities is proof that deformation occurred before all strata were deposited.

The strata in the Grand Staircase area demonstrate the same thing: all in place up to Claron before tectonic disturbance formed the GS cliffs and the GC.

As has been stated before, the Colorado Plateau has been relatively quiet tectonically for hundreds of millions of years, but not the rest of the world, including the regions immediately adjacent to the Colorado Plateau.

In the same way that the moon's lack of rotation held back astronomy by centuries, that the Colorado Plateau is the region where erosion has exposed so much earth history is holding back your own views by centuries. You're focusing all your attention on the Grand Staircase region not because it's typical of world geology but because that's where the strata are visible. You're like the drunk looking for his keys under the lamplight because that's where the light is, not where he dropped them.

Oh it does conform to the facts.

It's been explained many times how your views not only don't conform to the facts, but are often contradicted by them. Your reaction is to ignore or to simply repeat unsupported assertions as if they hadn't already been multiply rebutted.

So you had the mountains forming in western North America and the continents breaking up in eastern North America.

When did the Appalachians form?

The continents split between the east coast of America and Europe/Africa of course. I think the Rockies were pushed up as a result of the subduction beneath the west coast of America, but the whole continent was affected, I don't think you can split it between east and west, it all happened at the same time due to the same tectonic event.

The evidence we have says that the breakup of Pangaea occurred over a period of about a hundred million years.

The Appalachians of course formed at the same time but the pressure wasn't as forceful on that side of the continent as it was in the west so they are more of a buckling or crumpling of the land than a thrusting up of whole blocks of strata as in the Rockies.

The Appalachians can be found in Ireland, so since North America split with Europe very early in the Pangaea breakup the Appalachians already existed when the breakup began. The Rockies came much later with the Laramide Orogeny.

And there was volcanism released as a result of this event too of course, which accounts for the Sierras among other things.

If by Sierras you mean the Sierra Nevada range then yes, volcanism played a role in it's formation, but that fact by itself says nothing about when it happened.

The dike at Siccar Point one remnant of it in that area. The magma that reaches all the way to the Claron in the GS is another. Magma doesn't reach as far in the GC because the strata had been washed away above the point where the magma did spill over. The Hurricane Fault and the angular unconformity to the north of it were also the result of this tectonic event, the result of the raising of the land to the south, and apparently a LOT of sedimentary material just sort of fell off the cliff on the north, a lot of it getting washed away by the Flood water as so much of the Grand Staircase was also. Oh there's more...

It doesn't matter that there's more, you have no evidence for what you've already said. You've mentioned a bunch of things that exist but provided no evidence for when they happened.

The plain fact of the matter is that you're still just making up stories. Usually you just tell your stories and don't mention evidence, and when you do mention evidence it's unconnected to your claims.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by Faith, posted 06-17-2018 7:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 722 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 1:56 PM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 719 of 877 (835191)
06-19-2018 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 717 by Faith
06-19-2018 12:46 PM


subjective interpretation
Is a poor substitute for detailed study. Modern geology is the produce of centuries of detailed work, and subjective interpretations are not an inadequate response. Better than fabrication and innuendo and misrepresentation, I will admit but still hardly adequate.

Indeed the idea of massive erosion as evidence of a destroyed world sits poorly with your own ideas. According to you all that was “ruined” to form those features was featureless horizontal sediment full of dead things. Hardly “perfect”. According to you it was not the Flood but the run-off from it that carved these features, even when it makes no sense at all. The Grand Canyon with its sinuous form being a prime example.

So, your subjective impressions don’t even agree with your own ideas. How then can you think that they have any value as evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 12:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 721 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 1:45 PM PaulK has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6671
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 720 of 877 (835192)
06-19-2018 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 717 by Faith
06-19-2018 12:46 PM


Re: Evidence of the Flood writ large
Faith writes:

... but I've come to think that we're looking at the devastated remains of what must originally have been a spectacular beauty and order now utterly lost.

Yes, just like the Dark Lord Sauron would have done to Hobbiton if he hadn't been stopped by Frodo and Sam with the help of the Fellowship.

Luckily the Shire survived in all its homely loveliness


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 12:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
4647
48
4950
...
59NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019