Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 8:10 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,199 Year: 15,235/19,786 Month: 1,958/3,058 Week: 332/404 Day: 50/96 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   should creationism be taught in schools?
nator
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 256 of 301 (436330)
11-25-2007 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Beretta
11-25-2007 6:50 AM


Re: "Interpretations"
So, Beretta, what scientific predictions does ID make?

How have they been tested?

What were the results?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 6:50 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 257 of 301 (436333)
11-25-2007 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Beretta
11-25-2007 2:01 AM


Re: First short warning suspension
Well thanks for noticing. I'm trying to talk about what should be taught and yes I'm going off topic but only in order to respond. To all those demanding evidence -we are talking about why it should be taught in schools - I'll be happy to discuss what should be taught but in order to get to the evidence, another thread would be needed but I'm having too much fun here and I don't want to go.I feel like I have a pack of hyenas on my back just waiting to try to shred me for dinner.

Having a "pack of hyenas on your back" is your idea of "fun"?

Tastes differ, I guess.

I really truelly believe in the existance of a creator for so many many reasons. I also believe there are more than enough scientific reason to believe that. I also know that being taught evolution helped me push the concept, and I believe reality, of God aside because evolution and the belief in a specific creator, the one in the Judeo-Christian Bible, do not gel. I accepted the one (evolution), I lost the other. You'd probably be surprised how many people have connected the dots the same way.Later when I started to read about the evidence against evolution (not micro), I felt cheated by a system that gave no choice and effectively took away my childhood belief in God by not allowing for that possibility; that taught as fact that which is not provable.

Science by its nature cannot get into the realm of the supernatural even though it exists but then it should stick strictly to what is scientifically verifiable and present clearly as theories those things that are not provable (like pre-historical suppositions, inference and extrapolation.)

But this is rubbish. We are not teaching that there's no God. We're teaching that if there is a God, he worked through evolution rather than fiat creation of species.

Science is not set back by not believing in evolution.

Er ... yes it is.

Instead of teaching that the rocks are old, teach how that thinking came about ...

If you knew how "that teaching came about" instead of listening to halfwitted creationist lies, you'd know that the rocks really are old.

That's why I say, teach the controversy ...

But "teaching the controversy" involves teaching plain halfwitted lies about how "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes" and ridiculous nonsense like that. It is not possible to teach creationism without teaching stupid lies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 2:01 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 258 of 301 (436334)
11-25-2007 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Beretta
11-25-2007 2:39 AM


Re: Already posted this in the coffee house thread, but its pertinent here
No controversy, just refuse to allow the opponent's evidence in.

So we shouldn't teach both theories and allow children to decide for themselves?

Oooh ... "censorship".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 2:39 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 259 of 301 (436335)
11-25-2007 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Beretta
11-25-2007 5:34 AM


Re: Already posted this in the coffee house thread, but its pertinent here
You have been indoctrinated here, I can assure you.

You also assured us that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes".

I am not interested in your assurances, I'm interested in facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 5:34 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 260 of 301 (436336)
11-25-2007 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Beretta
11-25-2007 6:50 AM


Re: "Interpretations"
Scientific journals are reluctant to print anything that smells of opposition to evolution ...

Scientific journals are reluctant to print that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes", because this is stupid crap.

This is not "censorship", this is a desire not to print halfwitted lies.

Saying it is all rubbish is like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'go away, go away' while refusing to hear them.

No, saying that it's rubbish is "like" finding out whether or not it's true, and discovering that it's rubbish.

All earth's creatures do not have two eyes. That's a fact. The person who claims they do is talking rubbish.

And to stick to the point - creation/ID arguments against evolution need to be heard and then everyone can make up their minds.Teach both sides.If theirs nothing to it, it will fade out and you have nothing to worry about.Shouting lies, rubbish, insanity makes more people interested in what is going on.

And yet you don't think that Holocaust denial should be taught, although the same arguments, if valid, would apply.

Quoting ID proponents to you even though they are every bit as learned in science as the evolutionists you admire, will not apparently move you one iota. Your verdict is through.

Your fantasies about me are not a valid reason for ducking my challenge.

You pretend that there are learned scientists who agree with you. But you can't name, cite, or quote a single one of them. This is because you're a liar.

You say that your gibberish is supported by scientists. Please name, quote, or cite one single scientist who supports your gibberish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 6:50 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 261 of 301 (436340)
11-25-2007 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Beretta
11-25-2007 6:50 AM


Re: "Interpretations"
Quoting ID proponents to you even though they are every bit as learned in science as the evolutionists you admire, will not apparently move you one iota. Your verdict is through.

Let's imagine that your stupid fantasies about me are right.

Let's suppose that quoting these learned scientists will not convince me in any way.

Heck, let's suppose it's raining naked women and candy sprinkles. Imagine what you please.

But I have challenged you to prove that these learned scientists who agree with your gibble-gabble exist. Name them. Cite them. Quote them.

In the magical fantasy world in your head, I won't believe what they're saying. This daydream must be a great consolation to you. But my challenge to you is to prove that they exist. They don't have to convince me. Probably they won't. If you quote a "learned scientist" saying that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes", then of course I will not believe him, 'cos I know that this is bollocks.

But if you quoted a scientist saying that, then I would acknowledge that a scientist had said that.

But you can't quote a single scientist endorsing any of your stupid lies, can you?

You just believe, by faith, without proof, that somewhere out there there's some scientist who agrees with your stupid lies, although you can't name him or cite him or quote him.

It's fucking pathetic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 6:50 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Doubleneck
Junior Member (Idle past 4197 days)
Posts: 6
From: Silver Spring MD USA
Joined: 11-22-2007


Message 262 of 301 (436355)
11-25-2007 9:15 AM


I'll say it again... FAITH IS NOT FACT. Fact does NOT need faith to make it true. That's where Mr. Beretta and the whole ID movement are stuck.
This issue is sadly one of the main reasons for the attempted financial abandonment of the Public School System in this country. Since the attempt to replace fact with faith WILL EVENTUALLY FAIL, cutting the throat of the PSS is the logical next step for the shoot first, ask questions last, cowboy mentality of our current administration and it's followers/leaders.
All of course, in my humble opinion.
Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by dwise1, posted 11-25-2007 4:57 PM Doubleneck has not yet responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3826 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 263 of 301 (436358)
11-25-2007 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Jaderis
11-25-2007 5:41 AM


Re: First short warning suspension
Why creationsim should be taught is the topic

'Should creationism be taught' is what I see as the topic and I reiterate, no it should not. My contention is that ID and the evidence that opposes evolution should be taught, not creationism as such even though I believe the creation science perspective.

You see, most people here respect the forum rules...that is why you have had so many requests to present evidence in other threads

I am still relatively new to this forum and am perhaps spending too much time replying to what is already being discussed to even think of getting to another. What's the point of having too many discussions to handle? When I say I'm having too much fun on this one, you presume I am laughing -what I am saying is that I am enjoying the debate that is occurring here and since I sometimes cannot say anything for days due to internet restraints, I don't want to leave every reply unsaid and move on - unless and until the discussion gets boring or else peters out naturally.

Do you think that you can win an argument with generalities?

No I don't think it is very likely that anyone is going to win but we are going to get some new ideas to challenge our arguments. i'm interested in all the arguments but sometimes it seems that you don't see what I see and vica versa. I do not believe that any dedicated evolutionist is being stupid on purpose or lying on purpose, yet so many evolutionists on this site seem dedicated to believing in conspiracies and complete stupidity as regards the opposing argument.

so much easier to shout "Mt. St. Helens proves catastrophic geology!" than to actually learn how geologists know the difference between local volcanic activity and the other myriad ways sediments are laid down

There you go again assuming simple sources and incomplete understanding. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I do not understand why you persist in believing what you do.

Well, that is not the fault of evolution

It is if the evolution that is being taught insists on random and undirected natural processes. That leaves God quite out of the equation and that is the message that kids get when they learn evolution at school. There is no design, it is all random and if it looks like design, it is not. That's what they teach and they teach it as if it were fact which naturally extracts the creator from the equation which is their point exactly.You don't have to mention God at all but the point is taken nonetheless and since it is not proven to be true it should not be allowed to be taught to the exclusion of other scientific possibilities.

Right, so why teach supernaturalism in science class?

If the truth is that God exists, then 'science' should not be writing out of the equation that of which they know nothing.
If God exists then they are completely on the wrong track.

We should believe the Bible (much of which has no external evidence to support it...although some of it does) because someone wrote it down and we should just trust your (or your preachers) interpretation even though we weren't there to see it?

You should not believe the Bible if you feel so inclined but neither should you teach that there is no possibility that it is true by forcing random undirected evolution following on spontaneous generation with no alternative down unsuspecting throats.
By the way neither should you trust your preacher to interpret the Bible -we have our language and the Bible correlates with itself -if you substitute preacher for own brain and ability to understand, you may find yourself in a cult.Even in a church it's advisable to take your own Bible along and check it out for yourself.It's supposed to be the Word of God and if God gave you a brain, you need to use it to understand what He is saying.

the genealogies for a specific tribe of people, not the entirety of humanity or of the earth.

The Bible starts with the very first people of all people and then follows the geneologies through to the Hebrew people who were chosen to write down and preserve the Word of God for all people -so it does mean to tell you of all people and the earth from the beginning.

the further back you go the more likely they are to be mythical

Except if it is truelly the Word of God as it claims to be, then God who made us knew what to do to make sure there was a record of all that happened in order to make sure we had the opportunity to believe or not. It's all about choice and its not so difficult to believe if you actually read it.

You have yet to explain WHY marine fossils would be the first to be buried under the creationist model (and simultaneously appear on mountaintops).

They would be the first to be buried and the most numerous because they would be at the bottom and less likely to escape moving tumultuous sediment movement.Those higher up would have been more likely to drown, die, rot and leave no trace.
There is mention of the time of Peleg when the mountains rose up and the valleys sank down so everything was under water and then some parts full of sediments and fossils rose out of the water and the water washed off the high areas leaving marine fossils high and dry.

So, since evolution is taught in public schools and creationsim is taught in (many) churches, why do you not bring in a biologist into Sunday school?

Because many children don't go to church so they will never hear that side of things. Since children go to school, they will all have the opportunity to hear the evolution side of things.Also, one hour a week in church (for those who go) is unlikely to counter the evolutionary indoctination in the school because they will be left thinking the Bible is a mythical story and that science and reality insist that evolution is the truth.

Because you don't really want children to learn "both sides." Am I right?

Personally I will teach my kids both sides so that they know what is generally accepted in science right now but also the controversy that exists and the reasons why. If anything I will be teaching them more evolution because I will spend time showing them the complete story not just that evidence that is used to support evolution.

They learn that they have been LIED TO and they lose all faith.

If the parents don't know how to defend their faith, then yes the children indoctrinated into evolution will believe they have been lied to and yes they will probably lose their faith.

they think they can debate actual geologists on an internet forum based on an 8th grade Earth Science course and some creationist pamphlets. Do you see how absurd that is?

Yes that does sound absurd which is why I read the books and opinions of geologists that believe in ID to make quite sure that it is reasonable from the viewpoint of these other geologists that know exactly what they are talking about.

because we don't actually have australopithecines hanging around to use as extras in a cable science show.

But it is reasonable to suggest that if the face looks like a monkey, or an ape, it just might be one. Only evolutionists would ever conclude otherwise because that is what they are looking for and what they believe exists .

so you would "imagine" that chimpanzees have no possible similarities to humans

Similarities, yes -but that does not mean we need to conclude evolution. Common designer, yes, but we are quite separate from the animals - of that I am certain.

that's without the genetic confirmation)

It depends how you read it and what you believed to begin with what you would conclude.We are far from being able to conclude relationships though we would expect somethings to be alike. That does not mean we are related. It is an interpretation of the data.

No one is keeping information from them

If they want to prevent ID input then they are censoring the information.Give them the downside of the tale.

they will be taught the science which is confirmed to be science. They will be taught the history that is confirmed to be history

They will be taught the popular view in science and the politically correct historical perspective. Everything is filtered.

only reason to "teach the controversy" is to proselytize to kids who don't get taught your poison in church

No it's to prevent the proselytizing to the evolution faith only. It is to keep the choice open so that children can still think, not just be told what to think.

You have no wish to really "teach the controversy." Just admit it

Since it is not true, I will be forced to deny it.I like the teach the controversy idea, then those who still wish to believe in evolution, after seeing all the evidence, are welcome to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Jaderis, posted 11-25-2007 5:41 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2007 10:21 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 267 by sidelined, posted 11-25-2007 10:40 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 270 by nator, posted 11-25-2007 3:53 PM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 272 by dwise1, posted 11-25-2007 5:17 PM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 277 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2007 7:09 AM Beretta has responded
 Message 278 by nator, posted 11-26-2007 7:40 AM Beretta has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 264 of 301 (436363)
11-25-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Beretta
11-25-2007 2:01 AM


Re: First short warning suspension
Beretta writes:

I really truly believe in the existance of a creator for so many many reasons. I also believe there are more than enough scientific reason to believe that.

We know you believe there is scientific support for your religious beliefs, in this one thread alone you've said this many times. But science class teaches what science believes has scientific support, not what Christian fundamentalists believe has scientific support.

You argue that we should teach the controversy, but as has been pointed out, there is no controversy within science. Only around one out of a thousand biologists reject evolution, and that doesn't qualify as a controversy. A much higher percentage of physicists question relativity, but no one is calling that a scientific controversy.

The controversy is socio-religious, not scientific. Teaching the controversy might be appropriate for a social studies class.

You claim that creationist scientists are being excluded from scientific outlets for their research simply because they don't support evolution, but even if this were so the solution is still not to take their evidence and arguments to church congregations, school boards, popular press books and websites, which must comprise about 99% of what actually creationists do.

Science is not set back by not believing in evolution.

Were creationism rather than evolution a theory which more closely described the real world, then creationist biologists would be making all the significant biological and medical contributions, but they're not. In fact, they don't make any significant biological or medical contributions at all. If you know of any, name them.

As I mentioned before, Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, is a microbiologist at Lehigh University and the most visible proponent of ID, yet he has never submitted a paper about ID to any technical journal. He knows the scientific evidence isn't there. He understands that the concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity cannot be given any definition based upon scientific evidence.

I fail to see why evolution as the only alternative should be taught.

Many have asked you what you would teach about creationism in science class. Would you teach that there are no transitional fossils? But paleontologists have identified scads of transitional fossils and have described them in the technical literature, and the scientific consensus is that transitional fossils abound, so how could you justify teaching something science doesn't believe in science class?

Or would you teach that if something looks designed that it must have had an intelligent designer? Science doesn't accept this, either, so again, how could you teach something as science that science doesn't believe?

This is the point Dr Adequate has been trying to communicate to you, albeit a bit bluntly. If you teach as science something that isn't science, no matter how sincerely Christian fundamentalists think it should be, then you are teaching something that isn't true. You can honestly believe that creationism is true and evolution is false, and you can honestly believe that science is wrong in not including creationism, but you cannot honestly teach that science believes there are no transitionals or that something is designed if it looks designed or that there's a scientific controversy over creationism, because none of these things are true. And whatever we teach in school, it certainly shouldn't include things that aren't true.

You mention some specifics:

Instead of teaching that the rocks are old, teach how that thinking came about since they do not come with dating labels attached and just how do you see that a rock is old?

If you discuss radiometric dating as an aging method, discuss the assumptions which cause others to believe that the earth may not be as old as evolutionists think. Discuss possible accelerated decay and the helium still locked in the rock crystals that should have escaped millions of years ago.Let them know how the geologic time scale came about, the belief in a uniformatarian principle and why some believe it and some do not.

There's no scientific evidence for accelerated decay or for a young earth. If creationists believe such evidence exists then it is incumbent upon them to present this evidence to the scientific community by submitting papers to peer-reviewed technical journals. If the science is solid, the papers will be published. And if the conclusions implied by the evidence become accepted within the scientific community, then they'll be taught in science class. This is how everything else taught in science class got there, not by lobbying school boards and arguing for "equal time" or for "teaching the controversy" that they themselves invented.

Saying that some accept the "uniformitarian principle" and some do not is a bit misleading, as uniformitarianism is not a label used in modern geology. If you check any geology textbook you'll find that uniformitarianism is only mentioned in one of the opening chapters, the one which relates the history of geology. The term fell out of favor long, long ago. Today geologists would instead say that the same array of forces and processes operating on our planet today have been operating on it continuously throughout geologic time. This is what they've always believed, and it's probably why the term uniformitarianism is no longer used, because to too many people it implies gradualism. Certainly gradual change is a large part of geology, as with the slow accumulation of sediments on sea bottoms at rates measured in centimeters per thousand years, but so is rapid change, as with volcanic eruptions, asteroid strikes, floods, storms and earthquakes.

In other words, in criticizing uniformitarianism you're targeting an archaic term. Geologists no longer use the term to describe their views.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 2:01 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 265 of 301 (436365)
11-25-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Beretta
11-25-2007 9:27 AM


Re: First short warning suspension
'Should creationism be taught' is what I see as the topic and I reiterate, no it should not.

Thank you.

My contention is that ID and the evidence that opposes evolution should be taught ...

But what should be taught?

We might teach kids that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes", except that that is bollocks.

If anyone can come up with any "evidence that opposes evolution" that is actually true, then I shall stand side by side with you and say that it should be taught to children.

But all the "evidence that opposes evolution" that creationists come up with is absurdly, laughably false.

So what are we meant to teach them?

No I don't think it is very likely that anyone is going to win ...

We've won. Deal with it.

There you go again assuming simple sources and incomplete understanding. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I do not understand why you persist in believing what you do.

However, the fact that you don't know what the theory of evolution is does mean that you don't understand why we believe what we do.

It is if the evolution that is being taught insists on random and undirected natural processes.

Like that, for example. You keep saying that we should "teach both theories", but you yourself know nothing of evolution.

If the truth is that God exists, then 'science' should not be writing out of the equation that of which they know nothing.

There is nothing whatsoever in science that denies the existence of God, as you would know if you knew the first damn thing about science, instead of the lies that your creationist liemasters have taught you to recite. You poor deluded sucker.

You should not believe the Bible if you feel so inclined but neither should you teach that there is no possibility that it is true ...

No science teacher teaches this.

Personally I will teach my kids both sides.

No you won't. You have no idea what the theory of evolution is, nor do you know the evidence supporting it. You are therefore incapable of teaching you children "both sides". Instead, you will teach them a lot of lunatic lies about how "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes" and stupid deluded crap like that.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 9:27 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 266 of 301 (436366)
11-25-2007 10:24 AM


The Hypocrisy Of "Teach Both Sides"
Beretta keeps saying that we should teach "both sides" of the argument to children.

But his posts make it clear that he doesn't know what the theory of evolution is, or what the evidence is for it.

He says that we should teach both sides, but he himself has never bothered to learn the first damn thing about the side that he disagrees with.

What a fucking hypocrite.


sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 301 (436368)
11-25-2007 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Beretta
11-25-2007 9:27 AM


Re: First short warning suspension
Beretta
'Should creationism be taught' is what I see as the topic and I reiterate, no it should not. My contention is that ID and the evidence that opposes evolution should be taught, not creationism as such even though I believe the creation science perspective.

Then if you are of the opinion that Intelligent Design should be taught but not creationism then why are you in a debate thread dealing with creationism and whether or not that should be taught?

If you were to start your own thread then you could do what no one else has yet managed to do and that is show what the evidence is for Intelligent Design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 9:27 AM Beretta has not yet responded

EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 301 (436369)
11-25-2007 10:48 AM


Teach both sides everywhere
How receptive do you feel your church would be to letting a group of atheists come in to teach Sunday school twice a month, equal time anyone? Obviously there is a controversy and we should teach children both sides to every controversy. I am not suggesting atheists come in and teach evolution, but discuss theology. (It is church after all and we should stick to the subject appropriate to that venue). Sounds only fair to me if you really want to argue the fairness of 'teaching the controversy'.

I think this is the reason god should stay in the church and science in the science classroom.

-x


reiverix
Member (Idle past 4048 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 269 of 301 (436381)
11-25-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Beretta
11-25-2007 2:01 AM


Show me
I'll be happy to discuss what should be taught but in order to get to the evidence, another thread would be needed but I'm having too much fun here and I don't want to go.

I'm totally ready to listen to the evidence and take your side if it is for real. In the meantime, all you have done is show me why ID should not be taught in the classroom. This is so typical.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 2:01 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 270 of 301 (436410)
11-25-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Beretta
11-25-2007 9:27 AM


Re: First short warning suspension
quote:
I like the teach the controversy idea, then those who still wish to believe in evolution, after seeing all the evidence, are welcome to it.

The consensus of professional Historians agree that the Holocaust really did happen, and that the evidence overwhelmingly supports this view.

However, there is also a group of passionate, committed, vocal people who interpret the evidence differently and believe that the mainstream, consensus view is wrong and that all those Historians are mistaken or deluded.

Surely, you must support the Holocaust deniers in their struggle to get their interpretation taught in history classrooms.

All they want to do is "teach the controversy", and present both sides and let the children come to their own conclusions. That's only fair...

Right?

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 9:27 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019