Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
It matches observation though, how do you explain that?J C wrote:Whatever about your logistic map, "two plus two always equals four"…….
........and, using a very conservative average fertility rate, that is only marginally above replacement rate would produce the current World population within less than 4,000 years, starting with only two people!!!:D
As to your previus logistic map 'exercise' .... it was obviously based on a population of people who believe that sex is something that you write on a job application form!!!!!!!:eek:
0 -
J C wrote:Son Goku
Except you aren't using the correct maths. Why do you think the logistic map exists?
Whatever about your logistic map, two plus two equals four…….and using a very conservative average fertility rate that is only marginally above replacement rate would produce the current World population within less than 4,000 years, starting with only two people!!!:D
And your previus logistic map 'exercise' was obviously based on a population of people who believe that sex is something that you write on a job application form!!!!!!!:eek:
tritium
Since I'm a statistician,………
OK, as you’re a statistician, I’m sure that you then know what an average fertility rate of 2.5 children per woman means. You should equally know what an average generation length of 35 years also means……
……..put the two together and extrapolate them and tell me how many generations would it take to reach 6 billion people…..
……answer …..98 generations or ONLY 3,430 years!!!:D
tritium
A useful graphical view of historical view of historical population growth worldwide can be found at
http://desip.igc.org/mapanim.html
You see, two posts in to this forum, and I'm already reminded of good advice a friend gave me some years ago, He suggested don't argue with fools, they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience....:)
JC, its pretty obvious that this should be renamed the la la la I can't hear you thread. It's one thing to hypothesise its entirely another to pull 'facts' out thin air to suit your arguement, and another still to reject irrefutable and well documented and demonstrated fact. As has already been pointed out here, this is stuff is well documented by observation. Just for your own benefit, take a look at historical worldwide population estimates and compare how badly your models figures fit those estimates (one source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates - don't usually like wikipedia for this kind of thing, but occasionally it comes up trumps:D). Note that your figures break down even when we look at more recent, verifiable and reliable figures
However, since I'm sure I'll get a fun response from JC to this, I did some digging on this one and found some similiar guff being spouted by one Lambert Dolphin (http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html)- this is funny stuff, he even throws in the annihilation of 9 billion people in the Flood to make the numbers work. JC have you accounted for the annihalation of the world in the flood in your model? If not you should at least double your estimates....
Didn't I see you or another creationist post here that there were also several smaller floods? Maybe we need to push those estimates out some more. Wow, we might find ourselves coming to agreement yet 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Spyral wrote:er just a thing on literal biblical stuff : deut 10:16
Praise God that we're not under the law of the Old testament any more! Ouch!0 -
Scofflaw
it is certain that Snelling is not a competent scientist, since the use of spoil-heap material for dating purposes is either extremely incompetent or deliberate fraud
I don’t know where you got these ‘old wives tales’…….!!!!.:D :eek:
Dr. Andrew A. Snelling is a first rate Geologist, Research Scientist and Technical Editor.
He completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Geology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, graduating with first class honours in 1975.
His Doctor of Philosophy (in geology) was awarded by The University of Sydney, Australia in 1982 for his research thesis entitled “A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia”.
Between studies Dr Snelling worked for six years in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory variously as a field, mine and research geologist……..PROOF that Creation Geologists make excellent Field Geologists.
From 1983 to 1992 he was retained as a geological consultant to the Koongarra uranium project. He was involved in research projects with several CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization) scientists, and in major international collaborative research effort with ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization) and university scientists across Australia, and with scientists from the USA, Britain, Japan, Sweden and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to investigate the Koongarra uranium deposit as a natural analog of a nuclear waste disposal site. As a result of these research endeavours, Dr Snelling was involved in writing numerous scientific reports, and scientific papers that were published in international science journals.
….and if you want to read more about the career of this great scientist look here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp
Originally Posted by J C
Snelling's real 'crime' was sending in rocks of KNOWN young age and getting old radiometric ages back from the labs!
Scofflaw
No, his 'crime' (if you want to be dramatic) is to pull bits of spoil off tip-heaps and send them in as fresh specimens - or to get things dated using methods that no-one expects to yield sensible answers for the type of specimen he's chosen. It's like tuning a radio to static and claiming Marconi was a fraud - or saying that because your household thermometer can't measure the temperature in the Arctic all thermometry is therefore false.
Can I quote from one of Dr Snelling’s peer-reviewed papers on the field evaluation of Potassium-Argon “Dating” using rocks of known recent origin. The following description of the field work for this paper makes it very clear the Dr Snelling procures his rock samples correctly and non-fraudulently……
“Field work and collection of samples was undertaken in January 1996. The Ngauruhoe area was accessed from State Highway 47 via Mangateopopo Road. From the parking area at the end of the road, the Mangateopopo Valley walking trail was followed to the base of the Ngauruhoe cone, from where the darker-colored recent lava flows were clearly visible and each one easily identified on the north-western slopes against the lighter-colored older portions of the cone (Figure 3).
Eleven 2-3 kg samples were collected - two each from the February 11, 1949, June 4, 1954 and July 14, 1954 lava flows and from the February 19, 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the June 30, 1954 lava flows. The sample locations are marked on Figure 3. Care was taken to ensure correct identification of each lava flow and that the samples collected were representative of each flow and any variations in textures and phenocrysts in the lavas.”
Dr Snelling is an honourable man and a very competent scientist!!!!
Your abusive comments about both myself and Dr Snelling indicates that your case for Evolution is so hopeless .......that all you can do is make increasingly shrill and ridiculous personal remarks about lying and fraud........
challenge the facts.....IF you can .........be robust in your defence of Evolution ...IF you can......
.......but stop the unfounded personal remarks!!!
….and you can read Dr Snelling’s paper on “Andesite Flows At Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, And The Implications For Potassium-Argon "Dating" here:-
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_r01
Scofflaw
Citing Snelling only weakens your case, because the man is an easily spotted fraud.
......calling a leading Geologist a fraud!!!!
…… making no worthwhile rebuttals of ANYTHING that I have put onto this thread !!!!!
……..and trying to make up for your non-existent arguments by calling me a liar!!!
…….makes a ‘hat trick’ of ‘own goals’ if ever I saw one!!!!!!:eek:
tritium
I'm already reminded of good advice a friend gave me some years ago, He suggested don't argue with fools, they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience....
...and was your ‘friend’ arguing with YOU at the time?????:eek:
tritium
It's one thing to hypothesise its entirely another to pull 'facts' out thin air to suit your arguement, and another still to reject irrefutable and well documented and demonstrated fact.
I haven’t pulled ANY facts out of thin air!!!!
My projections are based on VERY CONSERVATIVE assumptions.
My projections were designed to PROVE that it was POSSIBLE for two people to produce 6 billion people in less than 4,000 years…….and my calculations DO precisely that……
......I note that you haven’t questioned either the practicality of my assumptions OR any of my calculations!!!:eek:
Finally, could I say that although the AVERAGE fertility rate was about 2.5 children per woman over the 4,000 odd years since Noah’s Flood, this rate varied considerably over time.
The fertility rate was much higher in the immediate generations post-Flood. The expansion rate would then have slowed down as resource limitations, war, disease and reduced longevity took their toll.:D
tritium
As has already been pointed out here, this is stuff is well documented by observation. Just for your own benefit, take a look at historical worldwide population estimates and compare how badly your models figures fit those estimates (one source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates -
ALL reliable projections (including Wickipedia) indicate that the Human population has been following a broadly exponential growth curve for the past 4,000 years…….which is what you would expect as Humans spread out all over the world after the Babel Dispersal!!!:cool:
tritium
JC have you accounted for the annihalation of the world in the flood in your model? If not you should at least double your estimates
Done it already……that’s where the 4,000 years comes in!!!!:cool:
Wicknight
You won't see a pig give birth to a dog, but you can see certain plants, bacteria, or other small life forms shift significantly
…..the significant shifts are known as ‘varieties’……..but unfortunately for macro-Evolution ….pigs ALWAYS give birth to VARIETIES of pig and dogs ALWAYS give birth to VARIETIES of dog!!!!:D
Spyral
er just a thing on literal biblical stuff : deut 10:16
I am NOT a Bible literalist……and a PLAIN reading of the above verse indicates that God was CLEARLY asking the Israelites to harden not their hearts towards their fellow man or towards Him!!!!
keano_afc
Praise God that we're not under the law of the Old testament any more! Ouch!
Anybody who isn't a Christian is STILL under God's Law.....Ouch!!!!
You must be saved to be under God's Grace!!!:)0 -
-
Ciaran500 wrote:JC you realise your posts are starting to look like tabloid news papers where the capatilise IMPORTANT words so the idiots that read it know what words to get agry/suprised/shocked at. Please QUIT IT and learn to use the QUOTE function. Its not hard.
I use the quote function as well........and I also use SMILEYS!!!:D
......or haven't you noticed????:D
......anyway any chance of an auld shred of 'Evidence' for macro-Evolution....so that I can sharpen my teeth on it????
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw
it is certain that Snelling is not a competent scientist, since the use of spoil-heap material for dating purposes is either extremely incompetent or deliberate fraud
I don’t know where you got these ‘old wives tales’…….you must have culled them from some Evolutionist ‘spoil heap’….yourself!!!!.:D :eek:
Dr. Andrew A. Snelling is a first rate Geologist, Research Scientist and Technical Editor.
He completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Geology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, graduating with first class honours in 1975.
His Doctor of Philosophy (in geology) was awarded by The University of Sydney, Australia in 1982 for his research thesis entitled “A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia”.
Between studies Dr Snelling worked for six years in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory variously as a field, mine and research geologist……..PROOF that Creation Geologists make excellent Field Geologists.
There's no reason why they couldn't. It's the theory that they're weak on - and then only when they are writing for Creationist audiences. There are plenty of scientists with odd theories knocking about who are competent when they're not dealing with those theories.J C wrote:From 1983 to 1992 he was retained as a geological consultant to the Koongarra uranium project. He was involved in research projects with several CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization) scientists, and in major international collaborative research effort with ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization) and university scientists across Australia, and with scientists from the USA, Britain, Japan, Sweden and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to investigate the Koongarra uranium deposit as a natural analog of a nuclear waste disposal site. As a result of these research endeavours, Dr Snelling was involved in writing numerous scientific reports, and scientific papers that were published in international science journals.
….and if you want to read more about the career of this great scientist look here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp
Yes, looks impressive, but is neither more nor less than would appear on the CV of a lot of geologists who've been in the business as long as Snelling.J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
Snelling's real 'crime' was sending in rocks of KNOWN young age and getting old radiometric ages back from the labs!
Scofflaw
No, his 'crime' (if you want to be dramatic) is to pull bits of spoil off tip-heaps and send them in as fresh specimens - or to get things dated using methods that no-one expects to yield sensible answers for the type of specimen he's chosen. It's like tuning a radio to static and claiming Marconi was a fraud - or saying that because your household thermometer can't measure the temperature in the Arctic all thermometry is therefore false.
Can I quote from one of Dr Snelling’s peer-reviewed papers on the field evaluation of Potassium-Argon “Dating” using rocks of known recent origin. The following description of the field work for one paper makes it very clear the Dr Snelling procures his rock samples correctly and non-fraudulently……
In respect of the "Triassic Wood sample" that Snelling submitted to a C14 dating lab, this from the Lab Manager:From: Alex Cherkinsky[SMTP:ACHERKINSKY@GEOCHRONLABS.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:58:55 PM
To: Meert Joe
Subject: Re: Some questions
Dear Joe
I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures
lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits especially if it is sand or sandstones which could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions. If you have more questions please let me know.
Best regards.
Dr.Alexander Cherkinsky
Radiocarbon Lab Manager
More here, just for badness.J C wrote:“Field work and collection of samples was undertaken in January 1996. The Ngauruhoe area was accessed from State Highway 47 via Mangateopopo Road. From the parking area at the end of the road, the Mangateopopo Valley walking trail was followed to the base of the Ngauruhoe cone, from where the darker-colored recent lava flows were clearly visible and each one easily identified on the north-western slopes against the lighter-colored older portions of the cone (Figure 3).
Eleven 2-3 kg samples were collected - two each from the February 11, 1949, June 4, 1954 and July 14, 1954 lava flows and from the February 19, 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the June 30, 1954 lava flows. The sample locations are marked on Figure 3. Care was taken to ensure correct identification of each lava flow and that the samples collected were representative of each flow and any variations in textures and phenocrysts in the lavas.”
Yes, JC, and in this case he then sent those samples off to be dated by a technique inappropriate for such young rocks. So in one case he submitted a bogus sample, and in the other he took good samples and submitted them for the wrong form of analysis.J C wrote:Dr Snelling is an honourable man and a very competent scientist!!!!
Your abusive comments about both myself and Dr Snelling indicates that your case for Evolution is so hopeless .......that all you can do is make increasingly shrill and ridiculous personal remarks about lying and fraud........
challenge the facts.....IF you can .........be robust in your defence of Evolution ...IF you can......
.......but stop the unfounded personal remarks!!!
….and you can read Dr Snelling’s paper on “Andesite Flows At Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, And The Implications For Potassium-Argon "Dating" here:-
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_r01
Yes, I read the paper already. Snelling's entire "case" is based on argon excesses which are well-known and discussed in the mainstream geological literature - a fact which he appears not to register.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Citing Snelling only weakens your case, because the man is an easily spotted fraud.
......calling a leading Geologist a fraud!!!!
…… making no worthwhile rebuttals of ANYTHING that I have put onto this thread !!!!!
……..and trying to make up for your non-existent arguments by calling me a liar!!!
…….makes a ‘hat trick’ of ‘own goals’ if ever I saw one!!!!!!:eek:
I haven't called you a liar at all - you are mixing up your opponents. Your other suggestions are simply funny, for a variety of reasons.J C wrote:tritium
I'm already reminded of good advice a friend gave me some years ago, He suggested don't argue with fools, they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience....
Was your ‘friend’ arguing with YOU at the time, perhaps?????:eek:
Ooh. Moody.J C wrote:Spyral
er just a thing on literal biblical stuff : deut 10:16
I am NOT a Bible literalist……
When it suits you, anyway. Anything for a bit of wriggle room, eh?
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:......anyway any chance of an auld shred of 'Evidence' for macro-Evolution....so that I can sharpen my teeth on it????
What, you mean other than the fact that it has been observed to happen in front of peoples eyes and this evidence has been provided to you numerous times on this thread :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
-
MooseJam wrote:I don't know why creations so abhor randomness, I
Neither do I
I have a coin sorter on my desk in work. I can randomly put coins into it, and based on the size of the coin they fall into the correct tubes.
This is an example of ordering coming from randomness based on the environment. The order the coins go into the sorter is random but they will sort themselves out based on their size and where they fall. Order will come from chaos.
But there is still some flexibility for how they sort themselves out. If I grabbed a handful of coins and sorted them how they are sorted will be different than if the handful of coins was different. Order is created, but how it is create is different each time.
I find the coin sorter on my desk fascinating, so you can probably tell how fascinating and wonderful I think Darwinian evolution is.
I genuinely believe that people who say they refuse to accept it are missing out on possibly the most wonderful process in the natural world, missing out on this awe at such natural beauty (evolution, not the coin sorter, thought that is pretty cool too ). 0 -
Originally Posted by J C
PROOF that Creation Geologists make excellent Field Geologists
Scofflaw
There's no reason why they couldn't. It's the theory that they're weak on - and then only when they are writing for Creationist audiences.
Creation Geologists 'are on the ball', whether as Field Geologists or speaking in front of either Creationist or Evolutionist audiences!!!!
Scofflaw
Yes, looks impressive, but is neither more nor less than would appear on the CV of a lot of geologists who've been in the business as long as Snelling
Fair enough!!!
Scofflaw
In respect of the "Triassic Wood sample" that Snelling submitted to a C14 dating lab, this from the Lab Manager:………
……….More here, just for badness.
Sounds like ‘much ado about nothing’ to me!!!!:eek:
……and for those still interested here is a further debate on the subject between an Evolutionist and a Creation Geologist Dr Tas Walker
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative6-26-2000.asp
Dr Snelling has explained that he anticipated objections and here is what he has said happened:-
“Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same ‘age’ as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria.”
……and you can read Dr Snelling’s views on this controversy here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp
….and if you still don’t believe Dr. Snelling here is an article that tells you all you ever wanted to know about the “Dating Game”…….but were afraid to ask!!!:eek:
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
Wicknight
What, you mean other than the fact that it has been observed to happen in front of peoples eyes and this evidence has been provided to you numerous times on this thread
Long on claims…..but short on references (or even ONE example)!!!!!
Stop speaking in riddles…..and give me an example of what you are talking about!!:D
Wicknight
evidence of shifts in variety is not what you have been presented with. You have been presented with observational evidence of speciation.
Long on claims…..and short on references (or even ONE example)!!!!!
Stop speaking in riddles…..and give me an example of what you are talking about!!:D
Wicknight
And some times a insect gives birth to a species of insect quite different to the one you started with a few generations ago. Thus demonstrating that macro-evolution does happen in animals as well as plants.
Long on claims…..and short on references (or even ONE example)!!!!!
Stop speaking in riddles…..and give me an example of what you are talking about!!:D
Wicknight
But again you have already been shown the research demonstrating this. You simply ignore it and then lie and say it has never been presented to you, or pretend that the research demonstrates something other than speciation, as you are doing now.
WHAT are you talking about????
Stop speaking in riddles…..and give me an example of what you are talking about!!:D
Wicknight
I have infinite patience for someone if they make a mistake, but to repeat something they know is wrong simply to mislead or confuse makes me wonder if there is any point in continuing.
WHAT are you talking about????
Stop speaking in riddles…..and give me an example of what you are talking about!!:D
Wicknight
I have a coin sorter on my desk in work. I can randomly put coins into it, and based on the size of the coin they fall into the correct tubes.
This is an example of ordering coming from randomness based on the environment.
This is an example of order being imposed on randomness by an Intelligently Designed machine……your coin sorter!!!
Living organisms also impose order on randomness……because they are ALSO Intelligently Designed ‘machines’!!!!!:eek: :cool:
Wicknight
I find the coin sorter on my desk fascinating, so you can probably tell how fascinating and wonderful I think Darwinian evolution is.
An Evolutionist fascinated by an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED machine ……I suppose it is a start……personally, I find Intelligently Designed people to be even more fascinating than coin sorters......but everyone to their own particular tastes in Intelligent Design, I say!!!:D
Wicknight
I genuinely believe that people who say they refuse to accept it (Evolution) are missing out on possibly the most wonderful process in the natural world, missing out on this awe at such natural beauty
Evolution NEVER happened Wicknight…..it is a figment of your imagination!!!:D
…..and YOU are missing out on the awesome God who created ALL of the awesome natural beauty to which you refer!!!
You are admiring the Creation .....but ignoring it's vastly more awesome CREATOR!!!:D0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw
In respect of the "Triassic Wood sample" that Snelling submitted to a C14 dating lab, this from the Lab Manager:………
……….More here, just for badness.
Sounds like ‘much ado about nothing’ to me!!!!:eek:
Yes, I imagine it does. That might be because you have no idea what it's about.J C wrote:Dr Snelling has explained that he anticipated objections
I'm sure he did. So do the purveyors of cheap Rolexes.J C wrote:and here is what he has said happened:-
“Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same ‘age’ as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria.”
Already covered. Snelling didn't clean the samples properly (it's not the lab's job), and the rest is hand-waving to cover that over.J C wrote:……and you can read Dr Snelling’s views on this controversy here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp
And how surprising his views on the matter are, to be sure. Still, I'm glad you've recovered your calm - it makes far less sense for you to be bothered about these things than us, since you will have eternity to rejoice in if you are correct.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
Ciaran500 wrote:I see you've already forgotten how to use the quote fuction and that dodgy caps lock button is acting up again.
......and those peskey Smileys just keep spontaneously generating all over the place......:)
......it must be Abiogenesis or Evolution......or something!!!:eek:
Just look at the order being randomly generated out of CHAOS by the Laws of Nature!!:D0 -
-
Scofflaw wrote:I'm glad you've recovered your calm - it makes far less sense for you to be bothered about these things than us, since you will have eternity to rejoice in if you are correct.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Every time I come onto this thread I am 'turning the other cheek'.......
My concern was not primarily for myself or Dr Snelling.......it for yourselves and your eternal destinies!!!!:D
Dr Snelling is an honourable man and a very competent scientist!!!!
......and the erroneous comments about both myself and Dr Snelling have no place on the Christianity Forum where love should be the 'order of the day'
......tough love to be sure......but love nonetheless!!!:D0 -
J C wrote:Every time I come onto this thread I am 'turning the other cheek'.......
My concern was not primarily for myself or Dr Snelling.......it for yourselves and your eternal destinies!!!!:D
Dr Snelling is an honourable man and a very competent scientist!!!!
......and the erroneous comments about both myself and Dr Snelling have no place on the Christianity Forum where love should be the 'order of the day'
......tough love to be sure......but love nonetheless!!!:D
Well, JC, equally, I hate to see anyone being conned. Not that the messenger is ever thanked!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Originally Posted by J C
Long on claims…..but short on references (or even ONE example)!!!!!
Stop speaking in riddles…..and give me an example of what you are talking about!! ....................
Galvasean wrote:De ja vu?
Yea, it's De ja vu allright........me giving comprehensive reasoned answers to EVERY question put to me.......
........and the Evolutionists holding their eyes wide shut.......while running around in ever decreasing circles shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire'...........and NEVER providing a shred of valid evidence for their unfounded belief that they are direct descendents of slimeballs!!!!:D 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement