Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,474

    Creationism (sf stars as holes etc)

    What I find incredulous is Capa Fan doubting it when he as a doctor of science he persists in believing in a young earth in the 21st century. I was only 4+ years old when accepting that whereas he is about fifty years old???
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,474
    Apologies all round there AC. Not as stupid as Capa Fans young earth theory
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,841
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    Apologies all round there AC. Not as stupid as Capa Fans young earth theory
    AC, there is much evidence for a Young Earth. Check out creation.com and search on Young earth.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,474
    Now Adamski, I presume we are also referring to a young universe. Now we know that are distant stars, not holes in floor variety, whose light has already reached Earth. And scientists tell us that it took hundreds of thousands of years to reach us. Don't come the con job that light travelled a lot quicker. before.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  5. #5
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski View Post
    AC, there is much evidence for a Young Earth. Check out creation.com and search on Young earth.
    Ummm, I'd like to point out that young earth creationists have certain issues, such as the fact that different people give different ages to the earth, which contradicts each other, such as some people say that the earth is only 4000 years old while others say 6000, some even say 10,000 but then which one is it. And if the earth is this young, why isn't there an exact age of the earth, as there have been people who have been saying the earth is [inset some age here] for a very long time, which doesn't exactly make sense, since it should be possible to pinpoint how old the earth is if it is so young.

    Another point is that there is no way evolution can occur in only a few thousand years, that would be basically impossible since tiny changes occur over thousands to millions of years in order for evolution to occur.

    Now let's get to the juicy part, the most common arguments for YEC that I hear, and how they are debunked. (Note, basically all YEC also believe that evolution is false, so I'm including thing about it.)

    "Evolution is just a theory, not a fact"
    Evolution is a scientific theory, which is far different from a theory. The definition of "scientific theory" according to the dictionary.com is
    "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:"
    Evolution has gone through years and years of research by scientists through the scientific method and has been classified as a scientific theory due to this. Same goes with gravity, gravity is also a scientific theory.

    "Any sort of fine-tuning argument, such as "the body is designed so well" or "the earth is in the perfect spot to sustain life"
    This is just straight-up wrong, no matter what you look at, there will always be flaws, nothing can ever be perfect, such as how come some people have a vision problem, or the fact that in our head, we have 2 poorly placed sinuses, 2 sinuses that drain down, and the 2 behind your cheeks drain UP. Which is why we get sinus infections and other issues related to the sinuses.
    The "goldilocks zone" argument is even worse, as it is relying on the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy, which is when someone decides that they do not understand how something could happen, so that can not happen. In this case, they add in "So [blank] did" Even though it is possible for the earth to form. (This is a very brief explanation)

    Evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics
    This is a straight-up lie, the second law of thermodynamics state that the entropy of an isolated system increases. (This is the most simplified definition) Note how it says "isolated." The earth is in no way close to an isolated system, there is the sun that gives energy directly to the earth, so this argument has already been disproved. Ask anyone who uses this argument what the other 3 laws of thermodynamics are and in most cases, it would be "uhhhhhhh, let me google it" or something

    Now, there are many more, if anyone would like to bring up them, I would be happy to respond.

    Onto the website, creation.com, after a search of "young earth" there is this article on the evidence. I don't go over all of them as that would take way to long, but I will go over some. Link: https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth (there are 101 "ev
    DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

    Now, even though a valid point has been made here, there is an issue with this argument. Many years ago, there were studies that were published on how scientists have thought to have isolated DNA from millions of years ago. In reality, this was most likely due to contamination in the lab, so it was not accurate. Nowadays, we say that DNA can last for around 100,000 years, which the scientific consensus says that it is accurate. It is thought that the maximum age DNA can last for is a million years, but that is just an opinion. The point is that 100,000 years is significantly larger than 10,000 so the first argument is debunked.


    Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
    This is not an argument for YEC, the "claimed" isolation of the bacteria is actually being debated, and we are still uncertain of the reliability. Even if this was proven false, it does not prove that the earth is young. It's like saying, I can't see subatomic particles, therefore they don't exist.
    This point can be made to many "evidence" that the article provides. So I'll go debunk some that attempt to prove YEC.

    Point 51-53 says that
    Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
    Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
    Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.


    The issue here is that the sources that were used are not accurate. The first source used for coal has disappeared from the internet, and the other 2 for oil and fossil wood uses sources that promote creationism, and not science. This can be seen as the title for the "scientific study" (it really isn't) is "Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model"
    There is already a bias in the study which makes the study unreliable as a good source. The other source links to a creation.com article which is just terrible citation.

    If anyone can come up with some new arguments that have not already been debunked by science feel free to conduct a study, get it peer-reviewed and published in a trusted source. Then collect your nobel prize for debunking decades of hard work by scientists.

    Anyways, if anyone would like to bring up some points, feel free to.

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,474
    What surprises me is that creationists think that other people are as gullible as they are. But then maybe I should not be so surprised. I consider them an insult to the modern scientific world but like cockroaches they will always be with us.

    The nuns who taught me, probably like my parents and grandparents, had no scientific education so they had an excuse but modern day creationists have no such refuge to hide.
    Last edited by antichrist; 20-01-2020 at 11:01 PM.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,474
    Don't get me started. Decades ago I had root canal trouble but unfortunately my nerve roots were coming in at strange angles so the dentist took two healthy roots out in error. So altogether I was in six weeks of excruciating pain that also cost me a fortune - more than a trip around the world including carbon off sets. Then about 20 years later those de-rooted teeth had to come out due to them being dead.

    And creationists think our bodies are perfectly designed?? Pull the other tooth it is false too.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Ummm, I'd like to point out that young earth creationists have certain issues, such as the fact that different people give different ages to the earth, which contradicts each other, such as some people say that the earth is only 4000 years old while others say 6000, some even say 10,000 but then which one is it. And if the earth is this young, why isn't there an exact age of the earth, as there have been people who have been saying the earth is [inset some age here] for a very long time, which doesn't exactly make sense, since it should be possible to pinpoint how old the earth is if it is so young.

    Another point is that there is no way evolution can occur in only a few thousand years, that would be basically impossible since tiny changes occur over thousands to millions of years in order for evolution to occur.

    Now let's get to the juicy part, the most common arguments for YEC that I hear, and how they are debunked. (Note, basically all YEC also believe that evolution is false, so I'm including thing about it.)

    "Evolution is just a theory, not a fact"
    Evolution is a scientific theory, which is far different from a theory. The definition of "scientific theory" according to the dictionary.com is
    "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:"
    Evolution has gone through years and years of research by scientists through the scientific method and has been classified as a scientific theory due to this. Same goes with gravity, gravity is also a scientific theory.

    "Any sort of fine-tuning argument, such as "the body is designed so well" or "the earth is in the perfect spot to sustain life"
    This is just straight-up wrong, no matter what you look at, there will always be flaws, nothing can ever be perfect, such as how come some people have a vision problem, or the fact that in our head, we have 2 poorly placed sinuses, 2 sinuses that drain down, and the 2 behind your cheeks drain UP. Which is why we get sinus infections and other issues related to the sinuses.
    The "goldilocks zone" argument is even worse, as it is relying on the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy, which is when someone decides that they do not understand how something could happen, so that can not happen. In this case, they add in "So [blank] did" Even though it is possible for the earth to form. (This is a very brief explanation)

    Evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics
    This is a straight-up lie, the second law of thermodynamics state that the entropy of an isolated system increases. (This is the most simplified definition) Note how it says "isolated." The earth is in no way close to an isolated system, there is the sun that gives energy directly to the earth, so this argument has already been disproved. Ask anyone who uses this argument what the other 3 laws of thermodynamics are and in most cases, it would be "uhhhhhhh, let me google it" or something

    Now, there are many more, if anyone would like to bring up them, I would be happy to respond.

    Onto the website, creation.com, after a search of "young earth" there is this article on the evidence. I don't go over all of them as that would take way to long, but I will go over some. Link: https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth (there are 101 "ev
    DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

    Now, even though a valid point has been made here, there is an issue with this argument. Many years ago, there were studies that were published on how scientists have thought to have isolated DNA from millions of years ago. In reality, this was most likely due to contamination in the lab, so it was not accurate. Nowadays, we say that DNA can last for around 100,000 years, which the scientific consensus says that it is accurate. It is thought that the maximum age DNA can last for is a million years, but that is just an opinion. The point is that 100,000 years is significantly larger than 10,000 so the first argument is debunked.


    Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
    This is not an argument for YEC, the "claimed" isolation of the bacteria is actually being debated, and we are still uncertain of the reliability. Even if this was proven false, it does not prove that the earth is young. It's like saying, I can't see subatomic particles, therefore they don't exist.
    This point can be made to many "evidence" that the article provides. So I'll go debunk some that attempt to prove YEC.

    Point 51-53 says that
    Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
    Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
    Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.


    The issue here is that the sources that were used are not accurate. The first source used for coal has disappeared from the internet, and the other 2 for oil and fossil wood uses sources that promote creationism, and not science. This can be seen as the title for the "scientific study" (it really isn't) is "Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model"
    There is already a bias in the study which makes the study unreliable as a good source. The other source links to a creation.com article which is just terrible citation.

    If anyone can come up with some new arguments that have not already been debunked by science feel free to conduct a study, get it peer-reviewed and published in a trusted source. Then collect your nobel prize for debunking decades of hard work by scientists.

    Anyways, if anyone would like to bring up some points, feel free to.
    Hi username. Since I know who you are maybe we can have a chat about this at the club one night! I haven't got the time for a point by point debate now.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Ummm, I'd like to point out that young earth creationists have certain issues, such as the fact that different people give different ages to the earth, which contradicts each other, such as some people say that the earth is only 4000 years old while others say 6000, some even say 10,000 but then which one is it.
    Usually these are round figures and upper limits. Big whoop.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    "Evolution is just a theory, not a fact"
    Evolution is a scientific theory, which is far different from a theory. The definition of "scientific theory" according to the dictionary.com is
    "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:"
    Try arguing against something that informed creationists are not aware of. It is one of the Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    "Any sort of fine-tuning argument, such as "the body is designed so well" or "the earth is in the perfect spot to sustain life"
    This is just straight-up wrong, no matter what you look at, there will always be flaws,
    The fine tuning argument for the universe is invulnerable to those arguments. I.e. there is a very narrow range of constants that allow atoms and molecules to form. Without atoms and molecules, you can't have biology. See this book by evolutionist cosmologists in Australia, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    nothing can ever be perfect, such as how come some people have a vision problem,
    The result of the Fall. It's certainly time that the "backwardly wired retina is bad design" argument was thrown on the scrap heap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    or the fact that in our head, we have 2 poorly placed sinuses, 2 sinuses that drain down, and the 2 behind your cheeks drain UP. Which is why we get sinus infections and other issues related to the sinuses.
    Debatable. Sinues reduce skull weight, increase resonance of the human voice, insulate the sensitive dental roots and eyes from the rapid temperature changes in the nasal cavity, and humidify inhaled air. The direction of drainage depends on posture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    The "goldilocks zone" argument is even worse, as it is relying on the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy, which is when someone decides that they do not understand how something could happen, so that can not happen. In this case, they add in "So [blank] did" Even though it is possible for the earth to form. (This is a very brief explanation)
    Not at all. It is about the ability to support liquid water and carbon-based life. It's an argument from what we do know about the limitations of silicon, for example, because the main silicon oxide is an almost insoluble solid unlike the main carbon oxide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics
    This is a straight-up lie, the second law of thermodynamics state that the entropy of an isolated system increases. (This is the most simplified definition) Note how it says "isolated." The earth is in no way close to an isolated system, there is the sun that gives energy directly to the earth, so this argument has already been disproved. Ask anyone who uses this argument what the other 3 laws of thermodynamics are and in most cases, it would be "uhhhhhhh, let me google it" or something
    Both evolutionists and creationists have mishandled the Second Law, but you are mistaken if you think that thermodynamic considerations can be ignored in closed or open systems. It takes more than sunlight to make proteins or DNA fronm some sort of primordial soup. See The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Now, there are many more, if anyone would like to bring up them, I would be happy to respond.
    You might try learning what creationists actually say instead of trying to refute arguments they caution against.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Onto the website, creation.com, after a search of "young earth" there is this article on the evidence. I don't go over all of them as that would take way to long, but I will go over some. Link: https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

    Now, even though a valid point has been made here, there is an issue with this argument. Many years ago, there were studies that were published on how scientists have thought to have isolated DNA from millions of years ago. In reality, this was most likely due to contamination in the lab, so it was not accurate.
    Not so. It is found where the cell nuclei were in some cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Nowadays, we say that DNA can last for around 100,000 years, which the scientific consensus says that it is accurate. It is thought that the maximum age DNA can last for is a million years, but that is just an opinion. The point is that 100,000 years is significantly larger than 10,000 so the first argument is debunked.
    No, the argument is that this is an upper limit, not the age. The normal DAPI probe for DNA, which requires a double helix, detected DNA in dino bones allegedly 68 Ma.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
    This is not an argument for YEC, the "claimed" isolation of the bacteria is actually being debated, and we are still uncertain of the reliability. Even if this was proven false, it does not prove that the earth is young. It's like saying, I can't see subatomic particles, therefore they don't exist.
    This shows that DNA was still intact, so the bacteria and the strata they are in are not that old.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Point 51-53 says that
    Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
    Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
    Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.


    The issue here is that the sources that were used are not accurate. The first source used for coal has disappeared from the internet, and the other 2 for oil and fossil wood uses sources that promote creationism, and not science. This can be seen as the title for the "scientific study" (it really isn't) is "Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model"
    There is already a bias in the study which makes the study unreliable as a good source. The other source links to a creation.com article which is just terrible citation.
    So only young-earth sites are biased, but not old-earth sites and other sites that are overtly atheopathic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    If anyone can come up with some new arguments that have not already been debunked by science feel free to conduct a study, get it peer-reviewed and published in a trusted source. Then collect your nobel prize for debunking decades of hard work by scientists.
    No Nobel has been awarded for evolution theory. It's not what it's for. So it would never be awarded for a YEC discovery, quite aside from the politicization of the award committees, which means that warmonger Obama and terrorist Arafat were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and Damadian was denied a Nobel although he was the main inventor of MRI.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,474
    Capa Fan, what are the advantages of Bells Palsy and Vertigo that I suffer from both? Bells is a virus that was linked to some one with flu coughing on me after other known causes were eliminated. Vertigo may be caused by injury to the head, I can only think of about a million waves crashing on my skull. Some crystal like is supposed to loosen and travel along canals in middle ear.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,841
    Thanks Capa-Fan for taking the time to respond to Username's points
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,147
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    Capa Fan, what are the advantages of Bells Palsy and Vertigo that I suffer from both? Bells is a virus that was linked to some one with flu coughing on me after other known causes were eliminated. Vertigo may be caused by injury to the head, I can only think of about a million waves crashing on my skull. Some crystal like is supposed to loosen and travel along canals in middle ear.
    Sorry to hear that. The problems of life in a fallen world.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,147
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    And creationists think our bodies are perfectly designed?? Pull the other tooth it is false too.
    There is a perfect concept of design, but we now live in a fallen world where there are deteriorations. When it comes to teeth in particular, there are tufts in the enamel that greatly increase the toughness of what would otherwise be a brittle substance, because they block crack propagation, and the tooth repairs itself by filling in behind a crack. I wrote on this a few years ago.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,147
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    The nuns who taught me, probably like my parents and grandparents, had no scientific education so they had an excuse but modern day creationists have no such refuge to hide.
    Well, we do know what Catholic thought on the cosmos was even back in your day (and even back to the Middle Ages): the earth is almost perfectly spherical, it is tiny compared to the distance to the stars, every one of which is larger than the earth. But you choose to rely on a discredited 19th-century anti-Catholic polemic by John Draper masquerading as a book of science history. So you may not be the best judge of good science.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Sorry to hear that. The problems of life in a fallen world.
    I was hoping you could come up some compensatory benefit to make me feel better. My religious mother turned atheist at the end because of terrible disease leading to her youngish death. Her rational was that being a good church goer her whole life and this still happened so there is no God.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Stars as holes in the floor of heaven (sf Christians banned)
    By Patrick Byrom in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-02-2020, 05:29 AM
  2. 2019 JZMC Rising Stars
    By Zelgiusfan5000 in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22-12-2019, 09:57 PM
  3. Origins - Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism
    By Spiny Norman in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 796
    Last Post: 27-07-2019, 12:48 PM
  4. Replies: 107
    Last Post: 30-12-2006, 11:23 AM
  5. Holes in theory
    By Trent Parker in forum Coaching Clinic
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 14-10-2005, 05:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •