Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
28 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,617 Year: 16,653/19,786 Month: 778/2,598 Week: 24/251 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 1 of 309 (662087)
05-11-2012 10:44 PM


All of nature abides by the physical laws of the universe. Much of creationism is "proven" wrong because its claims violate known physical laws. What if there were a different set of values for all the constants and the equations for forces and fields and energies were slightly different at the beginning than they are today? Isn't it possible to have a functioning universe with a different set of constants and forms of the laws we have today? Are the constants and equations we have today the only possible ones that can produce a universe of matter, energy, space and force? If it is indeed possible for such a reality to exist, wouldn't a change of all the constants and equations to the ones we see today produce a catastrophe of epic proportions? Wouldn't such a scenario make perfectly stable stars turn into supernovas or put them on the path to becoming supernovas? Wouldn't such a scenario make the structure of the original universe undetectable to modern scientific instruments?

This is food for thought for the anti-creationists. It is true that if all the physical laws and constants have been the same as they are today then the claims of creationism are impossible without invoking "poof" type magic. Of course, changing all the laws and constants would be "magic" because there is no physical mechanism that could make such a thing happen. But, what if there is more to reality than the physical world. What is there is another reality that cannot be detected by physical means? If so, such a change in laws and constants would not be magic; it would merely be the result of actions of beings in the non-physical world.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-12-2012 8:16 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 05-12-2012 8:36 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 5 by jar, posted 05-12-2012 9:13 AM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2012 10:30 AM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 05-12-2012 2:22 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 05-12-2012 7:25 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2012 8:09 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 16 by kbertsche, posted 05-13-2012 1:31 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 05-13-2012 5:30 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 05-13-2012 5:30 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 19 by dwise1, posted 05-14-2012 3:33 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 05-14-2012 9:26 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 11 of 309 (662153)
05-12-2012 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
05-12-2012 9:13 AM


Re: change leaves evidence.
It's really very simple; change leaves evidence.

As mentioned above, if you change the speed of light you change the amount of energy, and not just a little but rather a great amount.

E=mc2

I just wanted to comment to let everyone know I haven't just posted a topic and abandoned it. I will address this part I quoted for now. What you have stated would be true if only the speed of light were changed. I am not talking about merely changing the value of one constant. I am talking about changing them all, even the laws themselves. A higher speed of light would not result in greater energy if the mass were less by an amount equal to the square root of its former value. Another possibility would be that energy itself would be required in vastly greater amounts than is current required today to do the same amount of work. The main point is that all of the constants would be different than today and possibly even the laws. Changing those to the values we see today would be the mechanism for a great catastrophe in my mind. It could certainly be the mechanism that would allow great quantities of water to come unlocked in the rocks of the mantle and a great quantity of water that is suspended about the solar system to collapse inward toward the sun and bathe all the planets on the way there.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 05-12-2012 9:13 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 05-12-2012 10:19 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2012 10:39 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2012 10:47 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2012 12:36 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 33 of 309 (662435)
05-15-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
05-12-2012 10:30 AM


Re: Another reality?
I'll let others comment on the physical laws stuff for awhile. If cavediver or Son Goku don't show up, I'll bring the physics later. I'd likely start with a discussion of SN1987A.

But I did want to comment on this alternate reality stuff, because I see a contradiction. You postulate an alternate reality that is undetectable, yet has noticeable and significant impact on this universe. I think such a concept is an oxymoron. Non-physical beings with a physical impact sounds like just magic to me.

Not magic at all. It is quite simple. The alternate reality existed before the physical reality. The alternate reality created the physical reality simply by commanding matter into existence and then commanding that matter to follow some physical laws that were decided by beings in that alternate reality. That alternate reality still has the capability to interact with the physical reality today but chooses not so as not to make itself obvious. It did so in the past but mankind was much more willing to accept a reality beyond the physical in the past. There was a purpose to interacting in the past and not interacting today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2012 10:30 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 9:18 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 35 of 309 (662437)
05-15-2012 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
05-12-2012 9:13 AM


Re: change leaves evidence.
One way is by looking at rings produced when various elements radioactively decay. The energy level produced by the decay of a given mass of an element determines the energy level of the particle produced and that energy level determines how far the particle travels before it gets absorbed. The fact that particle emitted by a given isotope of a given element always travels the same distance before being absorbed so that concentric shells are formed is evidence that the energy level of that reaction has remained constant throughout the time involved to create the rings.

When we look at a uranium or radon halo from 1.5 billion years ago it is identical to a uranium or radon halo created today.

The idea that the physical laws were different at anytime during the existence of the Earth has simply been refuted.

It has only been refuted if all the physical laws besides the speed of light stayed the same. The Uranium halo from 1.5 billion years ago could be only from 100,000 years ago if there was accelerated decay. You say that is impossible? It isn't impossible with a greater speed of light. You say that is impossible because of greater energy? It isn't impossible if the very nature of matter was different. What is mass anyway? If particles are not jiggled by the absolute zero vacuum energy, they have zero mass. Particles could have had different mass in the past if the zero vacuum energy were less. The ancient uranium halo and the modern uranium halo are the same size because the ALL the constants involved in radioactive decay changed in TANDEM so that now it appears that todays physical constants have always had the same value as they do today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 05-12-2012 9:13 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 10:04 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 10:31 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2012 10:33 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 36 of 309 (662438)
05-15-2012 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by NoNukes
05-15-2012 9:18 PM


Re: Another reality?
How is commanding matter into existence not magic simply by nature of who does the commanding or when the commanding was done? I think you are trying hard to make a difference where none exists.

It is magic to you because commanding matter into existence in the PHYSICAL reality is MAGIC. Commanding matter into existence in the supernatural reality is simply the way things are done there. They don't have the same rules to abide by as we have here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 9:18 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 9:45 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 78 by DWIII, posted 05-19-2012 8:04 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 37 of 309 (662440)
05-15-2012 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
05-12-2012 2:22 PM


Well that's always possible. Maybe there's an alternative universe with elves, gnomes, tooth fairies and the like. But if it is undetectable, then it has no important effects on the world of our experience, so it has no relevance to us.

I would say that the beginning of the physical universe is a very important effect. If that physical universe has been so distorted by a changing of the physical laws that there is no way to physically detect it as such today, we would be assuming that the present physical reality is the only reality that has ever existed and we would be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 05-12-2012 2:22 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 05-17-2012 9:05 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 38 of 309 (662443)
05-15-2012 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
05-12-2012 7:25 PM


There's a Spanish proverb, fev, that goes, "Si su tia tenia cojones, seria su tio." (well, with a few accent signs it goes better....)
That means, "If your aunt had testicles, she'd be your uncle." That is precisely the sort of "what if" you are engaging in here. Creationism is "proven" wrong because your aunt has no testicles and isn't your uncle. The only reason to even entertain the possibility that "laws were different" is a quirky interpretation of a 3000-year-old document. All the evidence we've ever found indicates that the laws weren't different. Only fundy Christian/Muslim/Jewish "true believers" think otherwise - and their opinions aren't even based on science.

My reply to nwr answers this nicely. The fact that my aunt has no testicles doesn't mean there was never a time when aunt did have testicles. Creationism is only proven wrong if you assume all the physical laws and constants have been the same since the beginning. Like I said to nwr, if the prior physical universe and its laws were so radically changed and its forms radically changed to the point to were there was no way to tell it ever existed, you would have no way of knowing it ever existed. You can have a wild sex party in your parents basement but clean it up and leave everthing exactly the way it was before and make sure everyone has alibis for the time in question, your parents would have no reason to believe there was ever a wild sex party that occurred in their basement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 05-12-2012 7:25 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2012 10:50 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 119 of 309 (663918)
05-27-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
05-24-2012 9:18 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
This was offtopic on your thread about tree dendrochronology correlations for the last 8000 years, so I copied it here to see what your reply is.

Changes of many fewer orders of magnitude are also ruled out by measurements of many different phenomena that would be affected. Brief descriptions and references for further reading may be found at The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2 both by the eminently qualified Steve Carlip.

steve carlip writes:

The supernova SN1987A was observed in 1987, when we saw a star ``explode'' about 170,000 light years from Earth. This distance is unambiguous---it can be obtained by trigonometry, with no assumptions except that Euclidean geometry is nearly right in and near our galaxy.

After the initial supernova, much of the energy produced by SN1987A came from the radioactive decays of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57. These decays can be identified because they emit gamma rays of very precise frequencies, which are easily detectable. We've looked at the decay rates, and they're exactly the same as the ones we observe in the laboratory. So there's been no change in at least the 170,000 years it took for the light to reach us.

Note that you don't have to assume a constant speed of light here---the supernova gives an independent check. That's because many of the features of a supernova, from the amount of energy and the number of neutrinos emitted to the spectral lines of the elements in the ``afterglow,'' depend sensitively on the speed of light. If, for example, the speed of light had been different when the supernova occurred, we wouldn't have seen the cobalt decays at all, since the frequency of the gamma rays emitted in the decay depends on the speed of light.

I use this example because it's relatively simple to understand. But there have been *lots* of other searches for changes in physical constants, using methods ranging from astrophysical observations of the spectra of distant stars, to searches for anomalous luminosities of faint stars, to studies of abundance ratios of radioactive nuclides, to (for current variations) direct laboratory measurements.

The result is a net of observations that fit together quite rigidly ---you can't tweak one without contradicting many others. For instance, if you suppose the speed of light varies, that affects spectral lines in distant stars. It affects different lines in different ways, and so would be easy to see. (That's what Webb et al. were looking for.) You can try to compensate by allowing the charge of the electron to vary in synch with the speed of light. But that requires that the charge of the proton must vary as well, since otherwise hydrogen gas wouldn't be neutral (which would have dramatic and easily observable effects). But if the charge of the proton varies, the rates of nuclear reactions will change, affecting the production of energy by stars in a way we don't see. You might then propose that the strength of the nuclear interaction could change exactly in synch with the speed of light and the charge of the electron and proton. But nuclear interactions affect neutrons as well, and again you'd end up with drastic changes in the behavior of stars that we would see (and don't). People have gone through this kind of argument carefully and quantitatively. It just doesn't work.

This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. He waves his hand and said people have considered the argument carefull and say it just doesn't work. Oh really? Does steve understand the underlying reality behind all the constants? Does he really understand what mass or energy is? Does he understand what time or space is? Is space merely a mathematical construct or does it have physical properties? If it is the latter, does steve understand what those properties are? If the vacuum of space and the energy associated with it can change, so can the constants. If the mass of sub atomic particles is dependent upon the physical characteristics of the vacuum of space, then their masses can also change. I don't think steve took the last two concepts into consideration when he said all the experts tried working the "changing physical constants" argument out, and found it unworkable.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 05-24-2012 9:18 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 8:26 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 142 by JonF, posted 05-27-2012 10:12 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 121 of 309 (663921)
05-27-2012 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by jar
05-27-2012 8:26 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
I have already shown earlier in the thread that change does not always necessarily leave evidence. Have you been able to show the flaws in my logic. I probably did read message #20. What about it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 8:26 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 8:36 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 123 of 309 (663925)
05-27-2012 8:46 PM


copied from RAZD's dendrochronology thread
dwise1 writes:

Certainly, the official creationist line is an age for the earth that is no greater than 10,000 years, even though the Ussher reckoning would require it to be no older than 6,000 years. I've always assumed, since "creation science" had to play the game of "Hide the Bible" in order to deceive the court system, that they just rounded up in order to hide their source.

And, certainly, while most creationists would be expected to just blindly follow the official creationist line that they've been fed, there should be and are variant views on that particular question. And, certainly, when those variant views present themselves, we quite naturally want to ask how those variant views had been arrived at.

So then, please, on what do you base your one-million-year maximum age? Is it a variation of the two-hundred-year-old Gap Theory? And if, in differing from the clear genealogies used by Ussher, one million years is not out of line, then what about two million years? Or a hundred million years? Or a billion years? Or about 4.5 billion years? What is it that draws the line in the sand at one million years?

About 20 years ago on a Yahoo Groups forum, a creationist gave me two aha! epiphanies. The first was when he used that hoary old PRATT about the concentration of sodium in the oceans (the old sea salt concentrations claim, which actually deals with residence times for various elements and compounds; aluminum's is 100 years, but instead of trying to claim that the seas could be no older than 100 years, Henry Morris just wrote something like "Huh? I wonder what that would mean."). Now, this creationist had already demonstrated before that he toed the party line of no older than 10,000 years, but here he was arguing for millions of years instead. When I pointed out to him that he was contradicting himself, he said that he did not care whether it was 10,000 years or a hundred million years, "just so long as it's not BILLIONS OF YEARS as science says it is". That is when I had one of the epiphanies he gave me: creationists don't care what any of their claims really mean, just so long as they can disprove or cast doubt on what science says; they're not trying to prove or promote creationism, but rather they're just attacking science.

So then, do you actually have a reason for setting the limit at one million years? Or are you just allowing for more age, just so long as it's less than what science says?

I don't believe things just so that it will contradict science. I know that is your impression of creationists. Perhaps that description fits some of them. 4.56 billion years is a ridiculous amount of time for mankind to be around and for the bible to be absolutely silent about most of that time. The bible says all the original animals were created whole and did not come from prior animals. It specifically says they were created in a 2 day period. That does not allow for darwinian evolution. We do know that evolution has occurred and is occurring right now. Darwinian evolution requires millions of years to work. Darwinian evolution is in direct contradiction to the creation of animals in a 2 day period. Created animals that came off the ark with environmentally cued evolution preprogrammed into their genes does not require millions of years to work. 1 million years is sufficient time to get todays diversity from a couple thousand of originally created animals. The 1 million year figure comes from the absurdity of expanding 20 generations in a genealogy to several million generations of humans who are not even mentioned in passing. It also comes from the necessity of providing an explanation for the fossil record and observed evolution that does not contradict the clear wording of scripture regarding the creation of animals.


Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 8:57 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 132 by Panda, posted 05-27-2012 9:15 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 143 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 10:42 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 11:19 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 149 by dwise1, posted 05-28-2012 1:44 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 153 by Taq, posted 05-29-2012 3:30 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 124 of 309 (663926)
05-27-2012 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
05-27-2012 8:36 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
No, you have NOT shown that change might not leave evidence.

I certainly did.

Logic has nothing to do with reality.

Sorry to disappoint you , but it does

If you read message 20 then you would know that the mass did not change as you asserted.

How do you know it did not change?

The fact is that simple observation shows us that the physical laws have not changed in billions of years.

So you say, but you have yet to make a case for it.

Until you can present evidence of the change you have nothing but fantasy and fairytales.

Until you can present evidence that change ALWAYS AND BY NECESSITY leaves evidence of that change, you have nothing but fantasy and fairytales


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 8:36 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 9:01 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 9:11 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 127 of 309 (663931)
05-27-2012 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
05-14-2012 8:56 PM


Re: So let's really look at mass.
jar writes:

root of its former value.

So what difference would that make?

First, none of us would be here and there would be no star sitting at the center of this solar system.

HUH?

How can that be true?

Well the mass of the Sun is currently about 2 x 1030kg.

If the mass was "less by an amount equal to the square root of its former value" what would the effect be?

Well the mass would be √2 x 1015 or 1.4 x 1015kg.

Now that's still a really big number, BUT, how big is it?

Mass of Jupiter = 1.9 x 1027kg.

Mass of Saturn = 5.7 x 1026kg.

Mass of Uranus = 8.7 x 1025kg.

Mass of Earth = 6 x 1024kg.

Mass of Mars = 6.4 x 1023kg.

It's less than the mass of Jupiter, of Saturn, of Neptune, of Uranus, less than the mass of the Earth, even less than the mass of Mars. Jupiter is too small, has not enough mass to become a Sun. And all the others are real lightweights compared to Jupiter.

So IF the assertion above was true, there would be no sun, likely no solar system, maybe something like the Oort Cloud at best.

It's possible to imagine a Universe where the laws and constants are different than here, but it's impossible to have THIS universe.

Yes, the sun would have less mass than jupiter currently has. Under the currently laws of physics, the sun would be unable to even be a sun with that amount of mass. We need to consider the matter a little deeper then, don't we?

What are the physical laws that make it possible for the sun to shine and be a star today? Is it possible to tweak those laws in a way that would make it possible for the sun to have the mass of jupiter and still behave as the thermonuclear oven that it is today? It would seem so to me. The problem you have is that you limit your possibilities to only what you can perceive physically happening today.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 05-14-2012 8:56 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 9:11 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 137 by ReverendDG, posted 05-27-2012 9:34 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 139 by JonF, posted 05-27-2012 10:00 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 146 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 11:16 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 128 of 309 (663932)
05-27-2012 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by jar
05-27-2012 9:01 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
I know mass did not change because the earth exists. See Message 20.

Already rebutted.

Please provide the link to where you showed that changing the physical laws might not leave evidence.

My reply to nwr answers this nicely. The fact that my aunt has no testicles doesn't mean there was never a time when aunt did have testicles. Creationism is only proven wrong if you assume all the physical laws and constants have been the same since the beginning. Like I said to nwr, if the prior physical universe and its laws were so radically changed and its forms radically changed to the point to were there was no way to tell it ever existed, you would have no way of knowing it ever existed. You can have a wild sex party in your parents basement but clean it up and leave everthing exactly the way it was before and make sure everyone has alibis for the time in question, your parents would have no reason to believe there was ever a wild sex party that occurred in their basement.

Prior to the above post that I copied from earlier in the thread, see post #37 in response to nwr

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 9:01 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by nwr, posted 05-27-2012 9:53 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 131 of 309 (663935)
05-27-2012 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by jar
05-27-2012 9:11 PM


Re: So let's really look at mass.
Yes it was a rebuttal. I can't help it if you are too retarded to recognize it as such. I already gave you the evidence; its not my fault that your ideology prevents you from accepting it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 9:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 9:16 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 140 by JonF, posted 05-27-2012 10:07 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 134 of 309 (663938)
05-27-2012 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2012 9:11 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
That's all well and good but you and jar are the ones who are claiming that flying pigs exist.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 9:11 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 9:17 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 136 by Panda, posted 05-27-2012 9:24 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 11:14 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019