Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 1 of 255 (293027)
03-07-2006 3:18 PM


In thread Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some Faith presented some of her evidence and arguments for the great flood, and at one point (Message 176) PurpleDawn attempted to clarify the discussion by explaining to evolutionists how the debate looked from the perspective of someone not very familiar with science. My impression was that she thought the evolutionist demands appeared to some extent to be unreasonable, and that evolutionists often weren't clear about what evidence they wanted or why. She also thought she noted a condescending tone.
The purpose of this thread is to examine what is wrong with typical evolutionist approaches to explaining their position, and I'd start off by raising the issue of evidence. PurpleDawn appeared to be saying that she sees a difference between presenting evidence versus showing how that evidence supports your position (she called it "proving your evidence", but I think I've captured her meaning).
I think few if any of the science-minded on the evolution side would ever have anticipated such a criticism, but if PurpleDawn's perspective is widely shared by those unfamiliar with science, and I'd have to say that Faith obviously shares this view, then it might go a long way toward explaining why there is often such a large disconnect in these discussions.
So I guess the place to start is to discuss how evolutionists might explain the difference between presenting evidence and showing how that evidence supports theory. I think to a lot of us that when Faith says, in effect, "The presence of fossils everywhere around the world is strong evidence for a global flood" that she may as well be saying, "That fire is hot and ice is cold is strong evidence for a global flood." In other words, we can't see how one (global flood) can in any way follow from the other (fossils everywhere).
Obviously our knowledge of other evidence (and what Faith would call our preconceptions) is what leads us to not for even a second consider the fossils as flood evidence, so *we* know that we dismiss the evidence for good reason. But how are others unfamiliar with this evidence specifically and with science generally supposed to know?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 03-07-2006 3:53 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 03-07-2006 5:42 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 5 by jar, posted 03-07-2006 6:05 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 10 by purpledawn, posted 03-07-2006 10:18 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 03-07-2006 11:30 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 4:56 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 17 by nator, posted 03-08-2006 7:32 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:51 PM Percy has replied
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 7:09 PM Percy has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 255 (293033)
03-07-2006 3:34 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 255 (293045)
03-07-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-07-2006 3:18 PM


But how are others unfamiliar with this evidence specifically and with science generally supposed to know?
Don't they find out when they present what they think is their evidence, and we respond with "that actually isn't evidence for your position for these reasons"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 3:18 PM Percy has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 255 (293077)
03-07-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-07-2006 3:18 PM


Percy,
Obviously our knowledge of other evidence (and what Faith would call our preconceptions) is what leads us to not for even a second consider the fossils as flood evidence, so *we* know that we dismiss the evidence for good reason.
I think there's a few things going on. Firstly, although any evidence that is consistent with a hypothesis is evidence of it, we are specifically looking for data that informs us of something that supports any given hypothesis at the expense of it's competitors. Any evidence that can be explained by multiple hypotheses isn't particularly impressive. So Faith's fossils are everywhere "evidence" is as unimpressive as evidence can get, because it is explained by trivial observation that life is global in the first place.
But how are others unfamiliar with this evidence specifically and with science generally supposed to know?
As Crashfrog points out, when their evidence is challenged & reasons given. They are free to counter that, of course, but Faith's tactic is to ignore any critique & just declare she was right in the first place.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 3:18 PM Percy has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 255 (293085)
03-07-2006 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-07-2006 3:18 PM


one major difference IMHO
is that there really do seem to be two types of people, those who look for answers to questions, and those who question answers.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 3:18 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 6 of 255 (293093)
03-07-2006 6:24 PM


I wasn't thinking of this thread as a place where evolutionists repeat claims of doing all that can reasonably be expected to convince the poor deluded and science-challenged creationists. PurpleDawn is not unsympathetic to the evolutionist position, yet she found it had weaknesses as expressed in that thread. If that thread is in any way typical, it could provide important clues to why scientists are good at convincing each other but not anyone else. Does everyone really believe we're doing the best that can be done? Or is there something we can learn?
AbE: Faith is as frustrating to me as she is to everyone else. She's pushed me over the edge on several occasions. But just because Faith is being rude and illogical again doesn't mean we're doing everything right. Faith isn't the only one out there unconvinced by evolutionist evidence and arguments. If our only solution is a science education then evolution will probably always be viewed skeptically by the general public.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 03-07-2006 06:28 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by purpledawn, posted 03-07-2006 6:51 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 03-07-2006 6:57 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 03-07-2006 10:34 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 03-08-2006 7:54 AM Percy has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3447 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 7 of 255 (293102)
03-07-2006 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
03-07-2006 6:24 PM


Working
quote:
If that thread is in any way typical, it could provide important clues to why scientists are good at convincing each other but not anyone else.
And I had my post almost done and AOHell disconnected and I lost it. Now I have to start all over. So I probably won't get it done tonight.
My name's not going to be mud after this is it or will I have to wear shades in the chat room?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 6:24 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by zephyr, posted 03-08-2006 2:54 PM purpledawn has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 255 (293103)
03-07-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
03-07-2006 6:24 PM


At the risk of boring people by continuing to plug Douglas Theobald's essay, I will point out that he presents some good evidence for the theory of evolution and explains why it counts as evidence.
The idea is that the theory of evolution (and the assumptions made in conventional geologic sciences) imply certain consequences. One can take these assumptions and make predictions as to what phenomena we observe. When we actually observe these phenomena, which do not have to exist, then the theory is considered verified to a slightly higher degree than before. If the phenomena is not observed, or if the phenomena that are specifically precluded by the theory are observed, then the theory must be examined more carefully to see if the discrepency can be resolved; if it cannot, and continual failed observations require the continual addition of ad hoc explanations, then it will perhaps become necessary to abandon the theory.
Since the scientific method was not completely formalized until just a few centuries ago (or even more recently), perhaps this procedure isn't completely intuitive and obvious; however, it certainly seems to me to be obvious once it has been pointed out. If this procedure doesn't make sense to someone, then I truly don't know what more can be done except to try to explain this concept better.
The case of the fossils that are being argued, the relevant point is the patterns we see in the fossil record. The theory of evolution makes some predictions as to the sequence of fossils species, makes some predictions of what sorts of fossils we are likely to find, and makes predictions of what sorts of fossils we definitely will not find. Once the principles of radioactive decay were discovered, the theory of evolution (or at least conventional geology) makes predictions about the correlation of fossil types with narrow ranges of radiometric ages. These predicted phenomena are observed to occur; there is no reason, without the assumptions of evolution and conventional geology, to expect these phenomena to occur. To a creationist, these phenomena must remain unexpected surprises and amazing coincidences; under current biological and geologic theories, not only are these phenomena explained, but they can actually be predicted a priori.
As I said, once the scientific method is pointed out, this makes so much sense that I do not understand how it cannot make sense to anyone else.
But, without knowing Faith's particular objections in detail, I will note that most creationists do not argue against the scientific method; what most creationists do is to deny facts that are true or to present made up "facts" that are false.
The problem is to explain to people what the evidence actually is (that is, to explain what phenomena have actually been observed) and then to point out how evolution (or geology or cosmology) predicts a priori that these phenomena must be observed, and that if these phenomena were not observed then that would have presented a problem for the theories.
It is also a problem that a few people are simply stubborn; they are so committed to their beliefs that they cannot and will not see any contrary evidence. There is simply nothing that one can do for people like that; they will have to become tired of expending the energy to maintain their beliefs against the constant barrage of facts (like happened to me when I was still in high school). But I am confident that most people are not this far gone; most people can be pursuaded if the facts are explained carefully (and, perhaps, care should be taken not to seem like one is attacking another's beliefs).

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 6:24 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2006 9:44 PM Chiroptera has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 255 (293118)
03-07-2006 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
03-07-2006 6:57 PM


denial is critical
If the phenomena is not observed, or if the phenomena that are specifically precluded by the theory are observed, then the theory must be examined more carefully to see if the discrepency can be resolved; if it cannot, and continual failed observations require the continual addition of ad hoc explanations, then it will perhaps become necessary to abandon the theory.
There is a difference between evidence that supports a theory and evidence that is contra-indicative of the theory, and I think this is one of the problems with discussing evidence.
No amount of evidence "proves" a theory, but one piece of evidence can dis-prove a theory (or invalidate it).
For example you can still cite evidence for the earth being the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it: you can readily observe the sun to rise and track across the sky before setting, you can see the stars "fixed" in the sky, etc.
The use of fossils "everywhere" as proof of a flood are similar, because it ignores the details that tell a different story, the "epicycles within epicycles within epicycles" ...
... what most creationists do is to deny facts that are true or to present made up "facts" that are false.
This is the critical element: denial of evidence that exists that is contra-indicative of a theory, or making up ad hoc explanations to support the ad hoc explanations that were invented ad hoc to patch the problems made by the contra-indicative evidence.
It's not a matter of what you believe, it's a matter of what you have to deny to maintain that belief, that speaks to the validity of the belief.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 03-07-2006 6:57 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2006 8:45 AM RAZD has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3447 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 10 of 255 (293120)
03-07-2006 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-07-2006 3:18 PM


Know Your Audience
When I say nonscience person, I mean someone who does not have any science degrees, does not work in the field of science and whose hobbies are not science oriented. It does not mean I’m not able to understand science from a layman’s standpoint.
I do not work in a science field, but I find science fascinating. Any personal research I have done dealing with science is in the medical arena (father’s cancer, daughter’s depression, mother’s health) and that was due to necessity. I spent a lot of time observing behavior and causes.
Growing up on a farm I loved biology in HS and etymology when I was younger.
My field of work has been journalism, public relations and secretarial. The fastest I can read is 1800wpm.
My point in mentioning all this is so you understand me. I am open to learning, I love to learn. I’ve learned quite a bit on my side of the river.
Once I became an Admin, I watched the conflicts more and what leads up to them. (my behavioral side showing). This last time that Faith got called on the carpet, I looked into the thread.
What I saw was a thread started to call someone out to get pummeled. I say this because Faith has been debating on this forum long before I came to this board. I feel her level of expertise is well known. I assume she’s a bit more than me, but I’m guessing. You already know that she cannot or will not provide you with the level of evidence you require.
Dictionary
Evidence: 1. the condition of being evident 2. something that makes another thing evident; indication; sign 3. something that tends to prove 4. Law-something presented before a court, as a statement of a witness, an object, etc. which bears on or establishes the point in question.
The dictionary definition is my view of evidence. Now I tried to find a definition of scientific evidence on the internet, but the definitions varied with who was asking. Basically it seems to say that scientific evidence is evidence that is technical in nature. Some said tests, analyses, research, studies, or other evidence based on the expertise of professionals and others said peer reviewed scientific studies published in or accepted for publication.
As a nonscience person I don’t necessarily have access to this type of information. I can only provide what I have at my disposal and what I think I understand.
Something I learned in journalism: Know your audience. You don’t write like a college professor if your audience is junior high students.
Now granted Faith gave an off topic opinion that she has stated many times and we could assume that she does this so that she won’t have to provide backup to her statement, but I don’t think she is the sole owner of that tactic. Given her belief system and past performance, you know her response is not going to provide the caliber of evidence required by science people. She apparently hasn’t to date. So why call her out for an off topic opinion?
I do think some of the questions to Faith are colored by past encounters with Faith, but remember we have those who lurk.
Now in my initial post I was very clear about my level of expertise.
As a nonscientist, I have questions about your OP. So when and if you answer, please explain as you would to a new student.
I wanted to know what was wrong with her opinion since the responses in the OP were vague and didn’t say a lot and I apparently misunderstood what they did say. The first response to my questions gave me nothing to work with, no place to go.
Mallon was the only one who gave me something to think about and work with. His response showed that all the statements by Faith weren’t totally out of line. Later discussion might have, but I got annoyed because people seemed more concerned with the fact that I was defending Faith's "evidence."
But look at the one question he asked me and unfortunately I wasn’t able to get back to ask him about it.
Question: if a global flood really did occur that covered the tops of the highest mountains, then why do we have fossilized footprints from terrestrial animals preserved throughout the rock record?
Another poster sent me to this link for information. I have no clue what any of that means.
Look at the questions being asked of Faith and her answers:
Did grasses run for higher ground in the flood?
Message 19 - I don’t understand the point of this one either. How can we explain what we don’t understand?
By the time someone actually gets around to a more instructive mode, your target is annoyed.
Now given my apparently limited understanding of evidence, if I provide the evidence that I feel supports my opinion because that is the evidence that helped me come to my opinion, when you say that it isn’t evidence and ask for real evidence or ask some critical question that I can’t answer; I have nothing left to provide. Personally I would give up and did actually. That’s why you don’t find me on the science side except B:A&I. But Faith does try to answer to the best of her ability.
Since we do consider our “evidence” as valid because it convinced us, when you ask for more it feels like we have to justify (prove) our evidence especially if you don’t explain why it isn’t acceptable. Our thoughts may not be original and others have already thought through them and found them wrong, but we haven’t worked through that process. I didn’t feel that Faiths first statements were seriously addresssed.
I’ve researched how sugar impacts cholesterol. I can tell you that you need to stop consuming processed sugar and HFC and your cholesterol will go down. I can show you tests and give you personal testimony, but unless you are ready to change, you won’t. I can’t make you accept my information and I can’t make you admit that I’m right. All I can do is give you the tools to make an informed decision.
Hardcore creationists are probably not going to change their position no matter what you present, so IMO, it is fruitless to try; but if you don’t provide your evidence in relation to theirs then those on the borderline may just stick with what they already know or stop reading.
Well those are my thoughts, so let me know if I need to buy purple sunglasses.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 3:18 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2006 2:50 AM purpledawn has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 255 (293122)
03-07-2006 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
03-07-2006 6:24 PM


If our only solution is a science education then evolution will probably always be viewed skeptically by the general public.
Not everybody operates in a mode of thought where they conclude that that which is best supported by the evidence is probably the best conclusion. Many people reach conclusions based on how poorly they're supported by the evidence, reasoning that "things are usually not what they seem." Many people reach conclusions based on what everyone around them seems to believe, reasoning that "a million people can't be wrong." Those people will not be convinced of evolution because no one around them believes it, either.
And, indeed, many people reach conclusions based on the degree to which those conclusions can be supported by the Bible.
It's not clear how science-minded individuals can be expected to reach these people. We can hardly argue that the best-evidenced theory in science should be believed because it doesn't have much evidence, for instance. Some people simply are not equipped to reach accurate conclusions about the natural world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 6:24 PM Percy has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 12 of 255 (293129)
03-07-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-07-2006 3:18 PM


So I guess the place to start is to discuss how evolutionists might explain the difference between presenting evidence and showing how that evidence supports theory.
Part of the problem is that the non-scientists have a poor understanding of what we mean by "scientific theory." And part of the problem is that we don't explain it very well.
I often see "scientific theory" defined as a well supported explanation. However, to the average person, "explanation" simply means an intellectually satisfying story (something that satisfies your curiosity). And creationists supply explanations under that definition. The point about science, is that scientists are never satisfied so "explanation" is the wrong way to define "theory."
The most important aspect of a scientific theory, is that it provides the basis for methodology that is useful for prediction and control. When Dobzhansky said "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (see Wikipedia) he wasn't talking about intellectual satisfaction. It's the role of the theory in providing the basis for methodology that makes it so important.
The main evidence for a theory is the effectiveness of the methodology based on that theory. If oil companies were finding oil more effectively using flood geology, then what is currently being taught in geology classes would be seriously questioned.
Facts by themselves do not prove a theory. Given any collection of facts, we can come up with an ad hoc hypothesis to account for those facts. It is the effectiveness of the methodology that is the important evidence. But this makes it hard to present evidence. It is far easier to cite facts than to go into the details of the methodology and its effectiveness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 3:18 PM Percy has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 13 of 255 (293138)
03-08-2006 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by purpledawn
03-07-2006 10:18 PM


Re: Know Your Audience
If I understand you correctly you are saying that we all know that Faith was blowing hot air and didn't really have the evidence that she claimed to have. Isn't that an adequate reason for calling her on it ?
She wasn't being asked for huge amounts of technical detail - she would need to know some basic geology to answer the OP, but by making the claims she did without qualifying them she was implying that she understood the basics well enough to at least attempt it.
If there is a valid criticism of the OP it is that, as an OP it could have done with a bit more explanation of the issues.
To further set the context, consider what Faith says in message 16 in the thread:
quote:
You bet the Bible is right whenever there is a conflict. But that doesn't mean there aren't also scientific observations that accord with it. There are plenty. A lot more than I'm familiar with personally, but the few I am familiar with are in my opinion pretty damning of the OE and ToE claims.
Isn't it reasonable to ask her to back up that claim ?
On the issue of behaviour I'm in favour of going easy on creationists because it seems that they can't help themselves. But on the issue of the actual evidence I think that it is right and proper that their claims to have evidence should be open to question. Isn't it demeaning to say that we shouldn't question them because they don't know what they are talking about ? But that is what you seem to be suggesting.
w

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by purpledawn, posted 03-07-2006 10:18 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by rgb, posted 03-08-2006 3:39 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 9:21 AM PaulK has replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 255 (293141)
03-08-2006 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
03-08-2006 2:50 AM


Re: Know Your Audience
PaulK
quote:
Isn't that an adequate reason for calling her on it ?
I'm not sure if it's an adequate reason. I've read her posts and I'm getting the impression that she comes from a social background where a simple "I heard somewhere that..." or "god has shown me that..." is a good enough reason to believe in something. Combine that with an upbringing in an environment where "goddunit" was the explanation for everything.
If anything, Faith seems to be extremely deprived of logical thought. She is incapable of understanding something from another person's perspective. To her, if something is obvious enough that it must be true, all other views are wrong.
Because of her total lack of will power (yes, I truly don't believe she has free will), I don't think she is even capable of realizing that everything she says is just hot air.
You all saw her reactions when people started calling her on it. When people pointed out that the only thing she ever said in that thread was that all the evidence pointed to a flood and never explained why the evidence pointed to a great world wide flood, she immediately lost her temper and stated that she couldn't understand why people didn't see something so obvious. Calling her on it is like trying to ask a first grader why the integral of x^4+2 is not 2 after she claimed it to be.
quote:
If there is a valid criticism of the OP it is that, as an OP it could have done with a bit more explanation of the issues.
My take on the thread overall is that it shouldn't have existed in the first place. The OP starter wanted to ask Faith something he knew she was incapable of answering in a reasonable sense.
My question is is setting someone up for the person to humiliate himself acceptable?
quote:
Isn't it reasonable to ask her to back up that claim ?
Why ask if you know she's just going to dodge it?
Look, guys, Faith is unlikely to change her personal view of the world because of this forum. I can see that many people are frustrated. Why not just let her back in and ignore her? If she's going to change how she views evidence, it will happen either through a major life changing experience, like god appearing and telling her she's going to hell, or somebody pointing a gun to her head.
I say just let her back in and let this whole thing go. Keep a look out for more reasonable creationists and debate with them. I am beginning to think that this forum lacks thinking creationists. Is there any? Ever since I started reading threads here, I've been seeing plenty of, as you call it, hot air on the most basic things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2006 2:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2006 6:53 AM rgb has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 255 (293148)
03-08-2006 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-07-2006 3:18 PM


I think the case for evolution has been a little overstated. People on here have said it's as certain as the earth revolving around the sun. I do not get that impression myself.
Most of the evidence seems to consist of elimination of possible falsifications (except fossils).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 3:18 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 03-08-2006 7:52 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2006 8:50 AM robinrohan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024