Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
139 online now:
jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 137 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,834 Year: 1,582/23,288 Month: 1,582/1,851 Week: 222/484 Day: 40/105 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Most convincing evidence for creation theory
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 61 of 307 (411678)
07-21-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by EltonianJames
07-21-2007 6:36 PM


PRATTs and Problems ...
I have not conversed with any evo who has not already seen and rejected the above.

It's not a matter of rejecting the evidence out of hand, but of showing how the assumptions behind the interpretations of the evidence are false -- not the evidence. Don't be disingenuous.

These are PRATTs -- so far these are the "BEST" evidence presented, so lets see what they claim to show:


  • our galaxy is a few hundred million years old
  • the current earth land mass is 15 million years old
  • the current ocean floors are 15 million years old
  • the ocean salt is 42 million years old
  • the current magnetic field is 10,000 years old
  • 20 geological horizons buried trees before the decayed
  • some rock strata were bent and folded "less than thousands of years" after forming
  • atmospheric helium took 2 million years to reach current atmospheric density
  • helium retention in deep rocks is millions of years old
  • neanderthal and cro-magnon fossils accumulated over a few hundred years

Looking at this list I don't see ONE of them that shows that the universe is 6,000 years old or any other element that could be considered evidence FOR the YEC model of creation.

What they show is a wild scattering of results,and all but 3 would still invalidate the YEC model, and those 3 do not speak to age. The conclusion I reach is that this is a list of arguments designed to show that current scientific models are incorrect rather than to show that the YEC creation model is correct. Thus this still misses the requirements of the OP for evidence FOR creationism.

Where is the evidence that the YEC model is correct?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : 3 not 2


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by EltonianJames, posted 07-21-2007 6:36 PM EltonianJames has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 62 of 307 (411680)
07-21-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Buzsaw
07-21-2007 7:24 PM


Re: Wholistic Approach I E Corroborative Quantity
The most convincing aspect of ID creationism is the quantity of evidences for ID, all of which are needful to bring about what is observed in the cosmos and upon earth, some examples as follows:

In order for this message not to draw off topic, I suggest that responses pertain to my best argument, being quantity of needful corroborating evidences for ID, all wholistically supportive to ID creationism.

This can be taken as generic evidence of fine tuning of life to the universe we know OR fine tuning of the universe for the life we know.

Taking it as generic evidence for the latter, how does this support biblical creationism versus hindu, aztec, deist etc creation?

If the evidence does not support your specific religion it is not evidence for it.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2007 7:24 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 07-22-2007 11:25 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 102 of 307 (412041)
07-23-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Cold Foreign Object
07-22-2007 6:39 PM


Re: By Jove, he's right!
Those two things - the appearance of design and the Bible's support for creationism - are, indeed, the two best pieces of evidence for creationism.

Crashfrog is 100 percent correct.

So the "best" evidence is affirming the consequent and the argument from incredulity, combined with assuming the bible is true to prove that the bible is true.

Sounds about right to me.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2007 6:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-24-2007 2:22 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 103 of 307 (412050)
07-23-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
07-22-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Wholistic Approach I E Corroborative Quantity
It supports my Biblical creation theory as evidence regardless of what/who else it supports. Can you agree to that? If not, why not?

A room is opened and the lights turned on revealing 10 living people and one dead person with a knife in his chest.

The evidence shows that one person is a murderer, but no-one can be singled out.

You walk in and point to one person you believe looks like a murderer and say "he did it" ...

The evidence does NOT support that conclusion.

You buy a lottery ticket and tell the lottery company that they should just pay you the million dollars because you believe you have the winning ticket: the evidence shows that someone will definitely win, but not that you will definitely win.

This is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent:

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm

quote:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A

If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)


Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 07-22-2007 11:25 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 07-23-2007 8:28 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 104 of 307 (412054)
07-23-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by IamJoseph
07-23-2007 3:58 AM


Re: Positive Evidence
Nor can we expect such answers from science, math or history - which are tools found only THIS side of creation, and which cannot be applicable OUTSIDE the universe where the same criteria and products do not exist. Basically, this says, science can only make determinations of what is post-universe, namely about everything within the universe, but not of a premise precedent or outside the universe; your house keys don't apply where there is no house

But science can speak volumes about what is on "THIS side of creation" ... and it has. The is evidence of what the creation IS, regardless of what anyone believes it is. I see in Message 81 that you believe in an old universe\earth.

Long post, but it still does not provide any positive evidence for creation.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : oec


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by IamJoseph, posted 07-23-2007 3:58 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 109 of 307 (412134)
07-23-2007 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
07-23-2007 8:28 PM


Re: Wholistic Approach I E Corroborative Quantity
Razd, imo your argument is a strawman.

Your opinion does not enter into it. It either IS or it ISN'T and all you need to do to SHOW it is provide the evidence.

Conversely that fact that your argument can be used with EQUAL legitimacy by:
Hindu
Muslim
Norse
Egyptian
Aztec
Etc
Etc
.
.
.
Any religion you care to name

Means that it does not show your "ID Creationism" is correct -- it is not positive evidence for YOUR belief.

Enjoy


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 07-23-2007 8:28 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 146 of 307 (412245)
07-24-2007 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by IamJoseph
07-24-2007 8:59 AM


What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
This proves what? That you can use another in a long line of logical fallacies in your argument.

This topic of the thread is evidence for creationism, and so far you have:

(1) evidence of (apparent) design is evidence of a designer

(2) randomness cannot occur so there must be a designer

Aside from the fact that both of these are arguments from ignorance, how do they show that YOUR faith is correct and not the thousands of other faiths in the world?

So far all you have is a generic god-did-it assertion of evidence and NO connection to your faith.

Without that connection this is not evidence for your faith.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by IamJoseph, posted 07-24-2007 8:59 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by IamJoseph, posted 07-24-2007 9:17 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 152 of 307 (412262)
07-24-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by IamJoseph
07-24-2007 9:17 AM


Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
Its got nothing to do with my faith -

So you admit that it is not evidence for your faith and your particular brand of creationism. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now can we get to the positive evidence for your creationism?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by IamJoseph, posted 07-24-2007 9:17 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by IamJoseph, posted 07-24-2007 9:47 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 164 of 307 (412316)
07-24-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by IamJoseph
07-24-2007 9:47 AM


Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
Why do you think science has not found any cause behind the universe's emergence - or a single item's origin within the universe? This is evidence, even in a murder trial in a court, as (circumstantial) evidence by elimination. No alternative exists for creationism.

Excuse me while I chuckle: you have had 150 plus some odd posts to provide evidence for your faith version of creationism, and all any of you can provide is:

Message 147
quote:
(1) evidence of (apparent) design is evidence of a designer

Correct. No alternative exists here, and no science exists when this is strayed from.
quote:
(2) randomness cannot occur so there must be a designer

Correct. A complexity never results from a random foundation - even allowing an eternal period of time.

You can provide no evidence for anything more than a Deist god that designed the universe to operate by his physical laws.

Not one piece of evidence for any involvement since then, because everything, down to the formation of snowflakes and the behavior of subatomic particles, is governed by those established physical laws.

Sorry if this offends your faith.

It doesn't: I'm a Deist. A highly amused Deist.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by IamJoseph, posted 07-24-2007 9:47 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by bluegenes, posted 07-24-2007 3:42 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 179 of 307 (412398)
07-24-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by bluegenes
07-24-2007 3:42 PM


Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
What's your most convincing evidence for creation, then?

It's faith, a feeling of one... it's in the sig

Enjoy


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by bluegenes, posted 07-24-2007 3:42 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Brian, posted 07-24-2007 4:30 PM RAZD has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 180 of 307 (412407)
07-24-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Cold Foreign Object
07-24-2007 2:22 PM


Re: By Jove, he's right!
Your comments make no sense whatsoever.

Cognitive dissonance Ray?

Affirming the Consequent:

quote:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A

# If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)


In your case:
If a designer then a design
DESIGN!
Therefore a designer!

Argument from Incredulity:

Gosh, would you look at all that design! Even snowflakes are designed!

Assuming the bible is true to prove that the bible is true

I refer you to Message 166:

Once the identification correspondence is made we then refer to the most respected and proven and factually infallible source for invisible Designer (the Bible).

And gosh this shows that the bible is a proven source ... etc

This is called Begging the Question

quote:
We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists. What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and God never lies.

It's not rocket science Ray, it's logic.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-24-2007 2:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-25-2007 12:29 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 213 of 307 (412551)
07-25-2007 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by IamJoseph
07-25-2007 9:42 AM


Summary to date ... what there is ...
I gave my view here.

To reiterate and summarize then, the "most convincing evidence for creation theory" is:

(1) the assertion that the appearance of design IS design and thus requires a designer

(2) the assertion that nothing is random (down to behavior of subatomic particles and the patterns of snowflakes)

(3) the assertion that the bible is true

At 200 plus posts there isn't anything else. These are at best subjective opinions, not facts.

Creationism is the superior science and logic here.

Science is built on objective facts and so far none have been presented.

Valid logical conclusions are built on validated premises and proper structure, neither of which have been presented here. Instead we have a list of logical fallacies.

The above arguments are neither science nor logic, but bald unsupported assertions.

Where are the facts? Where are the premises devoid of logical fallacies?

Message 209
it does represent a significant opportunity for creationists to enumerate their most convincing evidence.
... it also leaves the impression that creationists are not talking about positive evidence because they don't really have any.

Particularly where is the evidence that supports just biblical creationism?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by IamJoseph, posted 07-25-2007 9:42 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by dwise1, posted 07-25-2007 11:35 AM RAZD has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 217 of 307 (412586)
07-25-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Cold Foreign Object
07-25-2007 12:29 PM


Still with the logical fallacies I see.
Any person of ordinary intelligence can see the illogic (= rhetoric) of the top scenario. The top scenario is a straw man; application of straw man ("In your case"/bottom scenario) makes perfect sense even though it is stated awkwardly.

You are forgetting that you are using the appearance of design as evidence of design. Let me rephrase the bottom scenario with an example in place of "DESIGN"

In your case:
If a designer then a design
SNOWFLAKE!
Therefore a designer!

Again, appearance of design logically corresponds to Designer and not an antonym.

An evolutionist and a creationist are walking behind an elephant in a parade when the elephant drops a steaming load. The evolutionist goes to step around it when the creationist says "Don't you see the awesome intricate design of these droppings? Don't you see how they were intentionally designed and placed just for us to walk through?"

Again, how is design corresponding to Designer illogical?

Because you have not refuted apparent design produced by random processes. Claiming this does not make it happen, as nature is surprisingly unimpressed by your opinion of what it can and cannot do.

The logic is invulnerable and any disagreement by said evolutionist tells any objective person everything they need to know about the way evolutionists think (perverted).
By RAZDs "logic":

By Ray's "logic" we need to joyfully walk through steaming piles of elephant dung while singing praise to the designer. Now that's perverted.

Enjoy.

ps -- just for the sake of the topic, where is your evidence for biblical creation? What is the evidence that ties the "evidence" provided so far to biblical creation versus any other possible creation?

Edited by RAZD, : ps


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-25-2007 12:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-25-2007 6:39 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 218 of 307 (412589)
07-25-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object
07-25-2007 12:35 PM


Re: Summary to date ... what there is ...
... attempting to evade caused by the inability to refute.

One cannot refute that which does not exist. Inability to provide evidence = inability to make argument.

Where is the evidence for biblical creation? What gets us from these simplistic (at best) arguments given above to being evidence for biblical creation? So far = (nada). To quote an old ad:

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-25-2007 12:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 223 of 307 (412675)
07-25-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Cold Foreign Object
07-25-2007 6:39 PM


Ray adds more logical fallacies to his list ...
Ray in Message 220:
Since 45 percent of all Americans, according to polling data are Creationists, this fact means ...

Diddly boo. This is the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity

quote:
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust) sector of the population. This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.

Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?


And he hasn't yet dealt with the logical fallacies already exposed.

How else should design appearance be interpreted?

As what it is ... the appearance of design. You need to show there is a designer that makes snowflakes to go any further. It's called connecting the dots.

... from the Creationist perspective, design indicating invisible Designer is prima facie evidence for Creationism.

How does it relate to biblical creationism Ray? All you have are two buns (randomness and appearance of design) and a pickle (the bible says the bible is true so therefore the bible is true):

Where's the BEEF?


Where's the rest of the picture? How do you get from appearance of design to biblical creation and ONLY biblical creation?

How do you get to the Cheeseburger in Paradise?

Awkwardly stated, but still true. Since every snowflake is different but generally the same, that is, a snowflake, we have face value evidence of special creation. No special pleading required.

No, STILL a logical fallacy. It is the form of the argument that makes it a logical fallacy, Ray, irrespective of the argument, and you STILL fail to deal with this issue honestly.

Absurd misrepresentation or bad joke. Keep your day job, RAZD.

The steaming pile of elephant dung is just as designed as the snowflake Ray, don't forget to praise the designer as you embrace it. Praise the dung, Ray, full steam ahead ...

RAY: We already know that Atheist-Darwinism special pleads the appearance to not correspond to Designer, what is your point RAZD?

That it is STILL a logical fallacy, no matter how you try to hide the pea Ray: your latest argument is both the logical fallacy of the Red Herring and the logical fallacy of Style Over Substance.

It is a matter of the FORM of the argument that makes it invalid, regardless of what is IN the argument. What you believe about other people and their argument is irrelevant, because YOUR argument is STILL invalid. Stop trying to avoid the issue: failure to refute and all that eh?

And still no connection to biblical creation ... :rolleyes:

Where's the BEEF?


Enjoy.

(theme music)

But at night I'd have these wonderful dreams
Some kind of sensuous treat.
Not zucchini, fettuccini, or bulgur wheat,
But a big warm bun and a huge hunk of meat.

Cheeseburger is paradise.
Heaven on earth with an onion slice.
Not too particular, not too precise.
I'm just a cheeseburger in paradise.

I like mine with lettuce and tomato,
Heinz Fifty-seven and French fried potatoes.
Big kosher pickle and a cold draft beer.
Well, good God Almighty, which way do I steer
For my cheeseburger in paradise.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-25-2007 6:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-25-2007 10:34 PM RAZD has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020