Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

    Jorge in the thread on Junk DNA ( here) says this:

    Originally posted by Jorge
    Stop the Elephant Hurling. Take each of those "data points" one at a time and determine its origin (foundation) and its validity - start with that.
    The he goes on to act as if I somehow ran away from his 'challenge' (here).

    Originally posted by Jorge
    Keep in mind, folks, that that's coming from the Undisputed King of Evasion himself!

    Hehehe ... loved your 'answers' to my "data points" challenges.

    The truth is the only one who has ever run away from a specific debate of the data is Jorge. And this thread is to prove the point.

    So Jorge, post any data you like. I will respond to it. Then I will post some of my own. And we will see if you respond.

    We will soon know who it is that 'evades' or 'runs' from the data.

    I would ask no-one else post to this thread until either Jorge or I have posted some data related to (support for Jorge/contrary to for me) the Earth and Universe being < 10,000 years old.

    Now we shall watch and see who runs from the data, and who can support their point of view scientifically.



    ...
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-24-2014, 04:21 PM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  • #2
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • #3
      "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
      -Unknown

      "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


      I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      I support the :
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          Jorge in the thread on Junk DNA ( here) says this:



          The he goes on to act as if I somehow ran away from his 'challenge' (here).




          The truth is the only one who has ever run away from a specific debate of the data is Jorge. And this thread is to prove the point.

          So Jorge, post any data you like. I will respond to it. Then I will post some of my own. And we will see if you respond.

          We will soon know who it is that 'evades' or 'runs' from the data.

          I would ask no-one else post to this thread until either Jorge or I have posted some data related to (support for Jorge/contrary to for me) the Earth and Universe being < 10,000 years old.

          Now we shall watch and see who runs from the data, and who can support their point of view scientifically.

          ...
          Tell me this is a hoax ... please, tell me that that's what's going on here.


          1. As you know, I just returned from a nearly one month business road trip. Do you think, maybe, that I might have a lot on my plate right now?

          2. For somewhere around 14,000 posts in the 'old' TWeb I presented tons of stuff ... I directed hundreds of posts at O-Mudd. And now O-Mudd is implying/stating/acting as if I'm going to be doing this for the very first time. Is it April 1st again?

          The bottom line for all of my past efforts with O-Mudd was a complete waste of time. O-Mudd for one reason or another never once gave in on any point regardless of the data, the argument or the logic. Now, as if by magic, O-Mudd expects me to believe that it will be different - that he will now be a sincere, open-minded, intellectually-honest scholar. Why, in heaven's name, would I believe in that fantasy?

          3. Next, I know well that O-Mudd has more-than-likely grasped at least some of what I have said in the past (after which he quickly changes subject or ignores altogether, tossing yet another hoop for me to jump through). But let me not digress - here's the point that I wish to make: much of what is regarded as "data" by O-Mudd and the Materialistic scientific establishment isn't data at all but rather the reigning paradigm's PC version/interpretation of certain observations. Evolutionism, for instance, is the accepted paradigm and O-Mudd has already read my thoughts on that subject maybe 80 times or more over the past years. What is it that he expects to hear different? I will not change my view one iota. So in essence what O-Mudd wants is for me to waste my time with him yet again. As stated earlier, I have yet to detect any amount of intellectual honesty from O-Mudd in these matters. What I have detected is a blind, fanatical rage directed at Biblical Creationists such as myself.

          4. Last but not least, it is interesting that O-Mudd should have put this 'challenge' up particularly at this time. My intuition tells me that this was caused by a recent post in which I essentially proved beyond any reasonable doubt that O-Mudd's Christianity should most definitely be questioned (I'm referring to where he clearly expresses doubts on the validity of some/most of the miracles spoken of in Scripture). I'm betting that that struck a raw nerve and so, predictably, O-Mudd resorts to this tactic to save face, namely, to move the spotlight off of that issue and onto something else. Hence this 'challenge'.
          .
          .
          .
          One final comment having nothing to do with O-Mudd. At least one new poster here on TWeb (I forget his name, sounds Indian-ish) has tossed a few posts my way. This person did this in what seemed to me as civil and genuinely scholarly. Spend a few minutes and check out my responses to this individual. Contrast that with my responses to the wacko looney birds such a Beagle, Santa, Roy, Roland and others whom I'll not embarrass by calling out.

          Now, for the next week or so I'll be in and out - mostly out - getting some work done. I check into TWeb when I have spare minutes, mostly just to clear my head, see what may be new and get a few laughs. Most of the time I'm disappointed - as in this new thread. In any event, it only takes a few minutes to rattle the monkey's cage just to hear them go ape-wild. I often get that result. I look forward to the day when I find someone here that is sincere, honest and scholarly - genuinely seeking for answers via a good exchange. The evidence of years demonstrates that O-Mudd is not that person. Nor is Beagle, Roland, ... this is nothing personal. Okay, I'm out of time.

          Now go ahead and respond with what I know you will. It will give you a better night's sleep.

          EDITED TO ADD:

          Important for you to know that when I wrote this:

          "Hehehe ... loved your 'answers' to my "data points" challenges."

          I was referring to the observable, testable, repeatable "data points" that support the feeding of the masses, walking on water and resurrection of Lazarus. I was NOT referring to "data points" of questionable, establishment "science" - which I know that you essentially regard as above Scripture (since its trumps what Scripture says). Okay, sayonara for now.

          Jorge
          Last edited by Jorge; 05-24-2014, 06:29 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Jorge's response to Jim's challenge, shorter version:

            BWAAAK BWAAAK buc buc buc BWAAAAK!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              Tell me this is a hoax ... please, tell me that that's what's going on here.


              1. As you know, I just returned from a nearly one month business road trip. Do you think, maybe, that I might have a lot on my plate right now?

              2. For somewhere around 14,000 posts in the 'old' TWeb I presented tons of stuff ... I directed hundreds of posts at O-Mudd. And now O-Mudd is implying/stating/acting as if I'm going to be doing this for the very first time. Is it April 1st again?

              The bottom line for all of my past efforts with O-Mudd was a complete waste of time. O-Mudd for one reason or another never once gave in on any point regardless of the data, the argument or the logic. Now, as if by magic, O-Mudd expects me to believe that it will be different - that he will now be a sincere, open-minded, intellectually-honest scholar. Why, in heaven's name, would I believe in that fantasy?

              3. Next, I know well that O-Mudd has more-than-likely grasped at least some of what I have said in the past (after which he quickly changes subject or ignores altogether, tossing yet another hoop for me to jump through). But let me not digress - here's the point that I wish to make: much of what is regarded as "data" by O-Mudd and the Materialistic scientific establishment isn't data at all but rather the reigning paradigm's PC version/interpretation of certain observations. Evolutionism, for instance, is the accepted paradigm and O-Mudd has already read my thoughts on that subject maybe 80 times or more over the past years. What is it that he expects to hear different? I will not change my view one iota. So in essence what O-Mudd wants is for me to waste my time with him yet again. As stated earlier, I have yet to detect any amount of intellectual honesty from O-Mudd in these matters. What I have detected is a blind, fanatical rage directed at Biblical Creationists such as myself.

              4. Last but not least, it is interesting that O-Mudd should have put this 'challenge' up particularly at this time. My intuition tells me that this was caused by a recent post in which I essentially proved beyond any reasonable doubt that O-Mudd's Christianity should most definitely be questioned (I'm referring to where he clearly expresses doubts on the validity of some/most of the miracles spoken of in Scripture). I'm betting that that struck a raw nerve and so, predictably, O-Mudd resorts to this tactic to save face, namely, to move the spotlight off of that issue and onto something else. Hence this 'challenge'.
              .
              .
              .
              One final comment having nothing to do with O-Mudd. At least one new poster here on TWeb (I forget his name, sounds Indian-ish) has tossed a few posts my way. This person did this in what seemed to me as civil and genuinely scholarly. Spend a few minutes and check out my responses to this individual. Contrast that with my responses to the wacko looney birds such a Beagle, Santa, Roy, Roland and others whom I'll not embarrass by calling out.

              Now, for the next week or so I'll be in and out - mostly out - getting some work done. I check into TWeb when I have spare minutes, mostly just to clear my head, see what may be new and get a few laughs. Most of the time I'm disappointed - as in this new thread. In any event, it only takes a few minutes to rattle the monkey's cage just to hear them go ape-wild. I often get that result. I look forward to the day when I find someone here that is sincere, honest and scholarly - genuinely seeking for answers via a good exchange. The evidence of years demonstrates that O-Mudd is not that person. Nor is Beagle, Roland, ... this is nothing personal. Okay, I'm out of time.

              Now go ahead and respond with what I know you will. It will give you a better night's sleep.

              EDITED TO ADD:

              Important for you to know that when I wrote this:

              "Hehehe ... loved your 'answers' to my "data points" challenges."

              I was referring to the observable, testable, repeatable "data points" that support the feeding of the masses, walking on water and resurrection of Lazarus. I was NOT referring to "data points" of questionable, establishment "science" - which I know that you essentially regard as above Scripture (since its trumps what Scripture says). Okay, sayonara for now.

              Jorge
              Ah, and so even though YOU challenged ME to debate the data points "one at a time", and even though you mocked me for not taking up the challenge, you will now write a post of some 762 words (longer by almost 30% than the post of mine which you claim is too long) to explain why you turn tail and run.

              This doesn't surprise me of course.

              Oh, and you typically will engage 1st timers to a certain extent if they are polite Jorge (even though you rarely return the favor). You engage them until they ask you a question that reveals they do not buy into what you are telling them. And then they become 'unworthy' of you. You did that even for me my first round here.

              Well, I'll toss out a few odds and ends and we'll see if you'll engage, but this particular post doesn't bode well for your capacity to follow through on your own suggestion.

              Remember Jorge, I QUOTE YOU. YOU asked to debate these points one by one, to look at the assumptions etc. YOU said that is what should be done.

              But it is YOU that backs away from it, that gives excuses, that will not present a 'scientific' case for a young Earth.


              I'll be here waiting Jorge. You can hide shivering behind whatever wall you think makes you look less cowardly, but it is still you running away from the conversation YOU suggested.


              Jim
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-24-2014, 07:38 PM.
              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                Ah, and so even though YOU challenged ME to debate the data points "one at a time", and even though you mocked me for not taking up the challenge, you will now write a post of some 762 words (longer by almost 30% than the post of mine which you claim is too long) to explain why you turn tail and run.

                This doesn't surprise me of course.

                Oh, and you typically will engage 1st timers to a certain extent if they are polite Jorge (even though you rarely return the favor). You engage them until they ask you a question that reveals they do not buy into what you are telling them. And then they become 'unworthy' of you. You did that even for me my first round here.

                Well, I'll toss out a few odds and ends and we'll see if you'll engage, but this particular post doesn't bode well for your capacity to follow through on your own suggestion.

                Remember Jorge, I QUOTE YOU. YOU asked to debate these points one by one, to look at the assumptions etc. YOU said that is what should be done.

                But it is YOU that backs away from it, that gives excuses, that will not present a 'scientific' case for a young Earth.


                I'll be here waiting Jorge. You can hide shivering behind whatever wall you think makes you look less cowardly, but it is still you running away from the conversation YOU suggested.

                Jim
                Tell me what part of this you did not understand and I'll try to break it out into monosyllables for you:

                "Important for you to know that when I wrote this:

                "Hehehe ... loved your 'answers' to my "data points" challenges."

                I was referring to the observable, testable, repeatable "data points" that support the feeding of the masses, walking on water and resurrection of Lazarus. I was NOT referring to "data points" of questionable, establishment "science" - which I know that you essentially regard as above Scripture (since its trumps what Scripture says). Okay, sayonara for now."


                You either did not understand it or, as you often do, you just ignored it since it doesn't serve your agenda. Your less-than-honest tactics are noted and recorded, O-Mudd. I will continue to force you to the 'top-dead-center' position in spite of all of your efforts to shift elsewhere.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  Evolutionism, for instance, is the accepted paradigm and O-Mudd has already read my thoughts on that subject maybe 80 times or more over the past years. What is it that he expects to hear different? I will not change my view one iota.
                  The bolded part is all you need to know. Scientists can and do change their views as new and better evidence becomes available. Jorge flat out tells us that no amount of evidence will ever change his mind.

                  That's why Jorge isn't a scientist and Creationism isn't science.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                    The bolded part is all you need to know. Scientists can and do change their views as new and better evidence becomes available. Jorge flat out tells us that no amount of evidence will ever change his mind.

                    That's why Jorge isn't a scientist and Creationism isn't science.
                    Jorge's remark is very reminiscent of Ken Ham's response about 2 hours into his debate with Bill Nye to a question from a member of the audience of what, if anything, would convince him to change his mind. Nye, OTOH, answered the question by saying just one piece of evidence to support the YEC interpretation of Earth’s formation could do it.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Tell me what part of this you did not understand and I'll try to break it out into monosyllables for you:

                      "Important for you to know that when I wrote this:

                      "Hehehe ... loved your 'answers' to my "data points" challenges."

                      I was referring to the observable, testable, repeatable "data points" that support the feeding of the masses, walking on water and resurrection of Lazarus. I was NOT referring to "data points" of questionable, establishment "science" - which I know that you essentially regard as above Scripture (since its trumps what Scripture says). Okay, sayonara for now."


                      You either did not understand it or, as you often do, you just ignored it since it doesn't serve your agenda. Your less-than-honest tactics are noted and recorded, O-Mudd. I will continue to force you to the 'top-dead-center' position in spite of all of your efforts to shift elsewhere.

                      Jorge
                      Ah, so now we are going to debate what you 'really' meant in the exchange.

                      Yes Jorge, there are two contexts of data points challenge. One where you challenged me to debate specific data and science (the one mentioned here), and a second one were you got all confused as to the difference between the kinds of data we have available to shed light on the interpretation of Genesis 1, and Biblical stories where we have no evidence that can shed any light on what was meant beyond the text itself.

                      Far be it from me to debate which one YOU had in mind, unlike you I don't assume I can read minds and intent. Nevertheless, you offered the challenge to debate specific data, you stated quite clearly that is what was needed. And I am here to allow you the opportunity to do just that ...

                      Not that you will take it.

                      Why won't you take it?

                      The same reason as always. You make lots of excuses, but for the most part you don't debate science Jorge. You debate theology and claim without ever presenting justification that your theology can be supported by science. Most people avoid exchanges they know will end in failure. And those few times you attempt to venture away from insults and personal pot shots at the faith of those who disagree with you, you invariably lose.

                      Our first conversation was one of the better ones on Lake Suigetsu. You never presented a YEC explanation for the correlation between layers and c14 date. But you did make a number of accusations concerning the failings of my theology.

                      At one point I opened a thread (well - I think it was me that opened the thread, forgive me if I got that part wrong) on these topics where at some point you realized Meteor Impacts presented a problem for your POV, and you spent a good bit of time composing a 'response' to the problem, which I llink to here: Jorge on Meteor impacts on the Earth

                      Now - Jorge has received a good bit of justifiable ribbing over this, but he did try.

                      And So, since in this thread where once again Jorge is given free reign to present this mysterious science that backs up his theology, Jorge has refused thus far to take advantage of his opportunity. An opportunity to do what he said 'needs to be done'. Therefore, I will take the initiative and begin with his own treatise on meteor impacts and ask two simple questions:

                      1) Assuming it is even possible for the solution you present to be viable (which all evidence around the specified events would suggest it is not), why does making 100 mile wide craters via steam explosions present any better a solution to the effects of such an explosion on life and civilization than an actual meteor impact?

                      2) Assuming, again, that your proposed solution might be possible, what about the moon Jorge? Were did the water come from to make all those craters? And if the craters on the moon are meteor impacts, and the Earth and moon are roughly the same age as implied by YEC (<10,000 years):

                      How did the Earth avoid being hit by the barrage that left what we can observe on the moon? (or mars, etc). The moon is only 240,000 miles away. How could that many meteors and asteroids zip thought this part to the solar system, leaving scars on mars, the moon, mecury, vesta, ceres, and a whole host of other bodies, and MISS the Earth???? How did the Earth and the Moons surfaces even remain solid to the point we could even be here if such a barrage took place over at most a few centuries only a few thousand years ago?


                      This is, of course, no issue in the Old Earth scenario. All this happened very long ago, and over a very long timeframe, and in line with the time frames indicated by the amounts of erosion and the radioisotope dating of materials on the moon and on the Earth. And it is all perfectly consistent. Not one meteor crater on the Moon or the Earth carries with any historical marker or dating element that would be inconsistent with Human civilization being able to flourish and also remain roughly unconscious of their presence until the last half of the 20th century.


                      Jim
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-25-2014, 03:22 PM.
                      He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                      "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The very first data point is cordially invited to make a grand entry into this thread.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Boys and girls,

                          Let's give Jorge a little help. Here are several "data points" that YECs have used as evidence for Earth and Cosmos being no more than 10,000 years old. He can pick one and run with it.

                          * Polonium halos

                          * Decay of the speed of light in vacuo both explains how we can see objects billions of light years away in 6000 years. This would also demolish uniformitarianism (a YEC cuss word.)

                          * Large ancient flooded areas, e.g. the NW US Scablands

                          * Salinity of the oceans

                          * Beginning of writing fits a YEC time frame

                          * Lack of expected thickness of lunar regolith

                          * The Moon should be farther from Earth if uniformitarianism is true.

                          * Low angle thrust faults producing a putative reverse order of superposition (I think St. Henry Morris came up with this one.)

                          * Pollen on Paleozoic and Precambrian rocks in the Grand Canyon.

                          * Formation of canyons in unconsolidated ash within hours after the Mt. St. Helens eruption.

                          * Fossils in limestone (which is a shallow marine deposit) near the summit of Mt. Everest.

                          * The Junkyard/Tornado/F-16 Gedanken

                          * A roomful of monkeys typing out War and Peace.

                          * Dragons of Medieval legend actually are dinosaurs.

                          * Steady decay of the human genome after the Fall due to the declining ages of the pre-Abrahamic patriarchs.

                          Anyone think of some more? I'd like to hand him some ammo and give the poor dude a fightin' chance.

                          He should feel free to quote "Woodmorappe", Mortensen, Sofarti, and Lisle as needed.

                          K54

                          P.S. Well, it's worth at least a try, ain't it?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            Boys and girls,

                            Let's give Jorge a little help. Here are several "data points" that YECs have used as evidence for Earth and Cosmos being no more than 10,000 years old. He can pick one and run with it.

                            * Polonium halos

                            * Decay of the speed of light in vacuo both explains how we can see objects billions of light years away in 6000 years. This would also demolish uniformitarianism (a YEC cuss word.)

                            * Large ancient flooded areas, e.g. the NW US Scablands

                            * Salinity of the oceans

                            * Beginning of writing fits a YEC time frame

                            * Lack of expected thickness of lunar regolith

                            * The Moon should be farther from Earth if uniformitarianism is true.

                            * Low angle thrust faults producing a putative reverse order of superposition (I think St. Henry Morris came up with this one.)

                            * Pollen on Paleozoic and Precambrian rocks in the Grand Canyon.

                            * Formation of canyons in unconsolidated ash within hours after the Mt. St. Helens eruption.

                            * Fossils in limestone (which is a shallow marine deposit) near the summit of Mt. Everest.

                            * The Junkyard/Tornado/F-16 Gedanken

                            * A roomful of monkeys typing out War and Peace.

                            * Dragons of Medieval legend actually are dinosaurs.

                            * Steady decay of the human genome after the Fall due to the declining ages of the pre-Abrahamic patriarchs.

                            Anyone think of some more? I'd like to hand him some ammo and give the poor dude a fightin' chance.

                            He should feel free to quote "Woodmorappe", Mortensen, Sofarti, and Lisle as needed.

                            K54

                            P.S. Well, it's worth at least a try, ain't it?

                            I think you have to be more succinct here. Rather than discussing these topics from the outset I would try and get YECs to discuss the actual data first. So pmc values in the layers of system's such as Lake Suigetsu would be a great start and then go into correlation with layering events and then radiometric dating, build up the complexity slowly and hopefully find a consistent YEC explanation that has more substance than "I do not know, but we're right and your wrong" schtick. The usual tactic, if trying to discuss lake varves and radiometric dating, is for them to dispel the whole system by appealing to unreliability such as the detection of trace radiocarbon in diamond, supposedly collapsing the whole "house of cards". Start with the actual data first and the discussion might go somewhere. Start with the system first and then its nipped in the bud from vacuous appeals and general hand waving.

                            If someone is willing to start with pmc values in layered systems (see attached images), this is something I've been trying to get YEC answers to, but without success. Naturally Jorge's recollection is different to reality and as we have seen Jorge's recollection trumps all. But reality was that he never had presented and discussed the actual data itself, only to have cast a cursory glance at a few papers (JonF linked to?) dealing with the data and provide his conclusion of "nu uh". He also suggested that the scientists involved in the Lake Suigetsu projects had conducted their research incorrectly, casting aspersions to the data collection techniques. He then bailed when I said I would help him with a JSPS funded project to redo the data collection. Sadly, all lost on the old TWeb server.

                            (images came from here)
                            wd_fig_4_3.jpgwd_fig_4_4.jpg

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Jorge's remark is very reminiscent of Ken Ham's response about 2 hours into his debate with Bill Nye to a question from a member of the audience of what, if anything, would convince him to change his mind. Nye, OTOH, answered the question by saying just one piece of evidence to support the YEC interpretation of Earth’s formation could do it.
                              That's right, rogue06, keep on reminding the readers that you, as well as O-Mudd, place Naturalistic "facts and evidence" above the Word of God - but only when that suits you. I issued the challenge to O-Mudd and, predictably, he has evaded it as if it were the Bubonic Plague.

                              Let's see you take a stab at it. Give us the observable, testable, scientific data points that support your belief in the feeding of thousands of hungry men, women and children with just a few loaves and fishes. Give us the observable, testable, scientific data points that support your belief that a man (Jesus) may walk unassisted on the surface of a stormy sea. Give us the observable, testable, scientific data points that support your belief that a dead man (Lazarus) in a state of decomposition (from the smell) could live again.

                              Come, come now ... we be awaiting ...

                              By the way, this came my way and thought I'd share it with you all - it is so very apropos to the discussion at hand: http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/e...hoery-copy.jpg [sic]

                              It fits to a 'T' the promoters of Evolution and the deniers/distorters of 'Literal' Scripture (you know, people like you, O-Mudd, et al.).

                              Jorge
                              Last edited by Jorge; 05-26-2014, 07:29 AM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              33 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              51 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              34 responses
                              213 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X