Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 301
view profile
History
Debunking creationist mythsPage 13 of 24    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
scorpio
From what I've read, it's become very clear to me that creationists don't see any particular theory as being necessarily wrong, as long as that it stays within science, and doesn't start being used as a basis to make claims about other people's beliefs that they are stupidly wrong...
I agree. And on a similar note, members of the flat earth society don't see any theory being necessarily wrong, so long is it doesn't show evidence that the earth is round. Sometimes people's beliefs are proven wrong. We do them no favors by remaining silent about it.
...and that it isn't used as a basis to promote a way of life that is against those people's way of life.
Which evolution obviously doesn't do. It explains a lot about life, but doesn't tell you how to live it. Religion on the other hand....

So she should be sterilised, to prevent an explosion of these mal-adapted individuals
Ah yes, eugenics, WW1 Germany - move over Kirk Cameron, we have someone else who can compare evolution to Hitler.
They forcibly sterilise her. You protest this is the opposite of Darwin's theory.
What a foolish protest. Its wrong morally and ethically, not because of the ToE.

Your metaphors are absurd. If you didn't like chefs you could make up a story about a bunch of chefs performing mass murder to use their organs for pies, if you didn't like firemen you could make up a story about them burning people alive, and if you don't like evolution you can make up a story about eugenics, and by the time you're done you'll have an absurd story that portrays good people in a sickening way and it will make no point whatsoever.

loverofwisdom
Now "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are two ways of describing changes in the genetic pool. One is claimed to be related to "speciation" and other is not. Yet they also operate on the same principles just viewed on a different scale. How does "speciation" occur if there are no different processes involved for a new species to emerge?
We know speciation occurs since we've seen it happens countless times. Micro and macro evolution are the same thing - the only difference is scale. Macroevolution is nothing more than a lot of microevolution. The way I look at it is microevolution are changes within a species, as those changes add up it leads to macroevolution which tends to refer to changes between species.
So what then is a species? How do we tell if we have a new one or not?
Speciation occurs when a parent species splits into two (or more) reproductively-isolated populations, each of which then accumulates changes from sexual reproduction and/or random mutation (in addition to any other various contributors to genetic change) until the populations are no longer capable of interbreeding. ~http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php?title=Speciation&redirect=no
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 302
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:54:38 AM

All of your, ah, "alternatives" have Social Darwinism as a defining, and critical element. In my circle, we call that a "weasel" argument. Wouldn't ya think?
to me, not a weasel argument, as we are given teh protagonaist's desire to be truthful about what he thinks he has found out.

One of his problems being that he is opposing those whose salaries depend on them not understanding, and the other is that he is not differentiating properly between Social Darwinism and the "ism" of those who would twist Scientific findings to suit their own Eugenicist program.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 303
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:57:15 AM

I think the distinction isn't probably all that rigidly dichotomous.The genotype isn't particularly used in selection (barring recent technological developments that allow parents to discard certain "unfavorable" genes.) [/quote What Joe nd Sally use it for , to me, is irrelevant to the question I asked.
Is it not correct that a different allele of a gene, if it can be observed, can be called a phenotype, under the definition of "phenotype" ?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 304
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 12:09:34 PM
RE Msg: 507 by Krebby2001:
Ah, yes, Carrie Buck. I remember listenin' to Stephen J. Gould (passed but NEVER forgotten), at a guest lecture, relate the story of Ms. Buck. It created much dismay and humiliation among us graduate students.
See, that's where I would have turned to me friends, and said "Why are you dismayed? There is hardly any area of science that I've read about, that didn't have such situations going on. It's par for the course."

Then after the lecture was over, I would have gone up to Mr Gould, and discussed a lot of different cases of this. He would have pointed out that Britain was much worse at this that Americans have been, and I would have totally agreed with him, and would have cited case after case to illustrate just how often British scientists just forged ahead with science, treating people like cattle. Then I would have asked him if things had changed, that things like this never happen anymore. He would have just said "No. We still have a lot to learn."

All of your, ah, "alternatives" have Social Darwinism as a defining, and critical element. In my circle, we call that a "weasel" argument. Wouldn't ya think?
Only if the vast majority of science wasn't like this. But I find these cases often. I really don't like it. But it's rather "weaselly" of me to pretend that it's the exception, rather than the rule.

RE Msg: 508 by loverofwisdom:
So what then is a species? How do we tell if we have a new one or not?
It depends who you ask. There are even different definitions of what makes a new species.

RE Msg: 509 by rockondon:
I agree. And on a similar note, members of the flat earth society don't see any theory being necessarily wrong, so long is it doesn't show evidence that the earth is round. Sometimes people's beliefs are proven wrong. We do them no favors by remaining silent about it.
And Stephen J. Gould would have told us that we are wrong, for we are told that Xians believed that the Earth was flat, when they didn't at all, and it was only because such a lie was propagated, that people thought that it was a reasonable viewpoint, and it was only because of that lie, that such a society exists at all.

Which evolution obviously doesn't do. It explains a lot about life, but doesn't tell you how to live it. Religion on the other hand....
There is no question that Darwin would have told you that claiming that evolution in any way disproves anything about any particular religion is totally absurd. He would have equally pointed out that religions simply give you more options, as they are by no means a requirement, just as Hume's clerical friends were quick to point out that the Church has only the right to call heresy of those that follow it, and not of Hume, who didn't. But he would have been clear to point out that he is the dissenter amongst his colleagues in believing that evolution was never in conflict with religion, and that he doesn't make it public, for fear of condemnation by his colleagues.

Ah yes, eugenics, WW1 Germany - move over Kirk Cameron, we have someone else who can compare evolution to Hitler.
We are talking about World War I. Hitler was World War II. Do you know the difference? Do you not understand that different wars are different?

What a foolish protest. Its wrong morally and ethically, not because of the ToE.
Darwin would have agreed with you. His cousin, to who we owe the invention of criminal forensics, would have told you that you are nuts, that evolution dictates what is morally right.

Your metaphors are absurd. If you didn't like chefs you could make up a story about a bunch of chefs performing mass murder to use their organs for pies, if you didn't like firemen you could make up a story about them burning people alive, and if you don't like evolution you can make up a story about eugenics, and by the time you're done you'll have an absurd story that portrays good people in a sickening way and it will make no point whatsoever.
If almost no chefs used organs for pies, then no, you couldn't. If lots of chefs make human pies, then you need to ensure that legislation exists in place to stop this, and that chefs are checked. If almost no firefighters burned people alive, then no, you couldn't. If lots of firefighters burn people alive, then you need to ensure that legislation exists in place to stop this, and that firefighters are checked.

But those are not real examples. Let's take a real example. Teachers have to be checked by the police that they have no records of being a danger to children before starting work in UK schools. Other school workers were not. Then Ian Huntley, a caretaker in a UK school, killed 2 little girls, only 10 years old. There was a big enquiry, known as The Huntley Enquiry. The Enquiry revealed that he had been investigated many times for sexual offences up and down the country, and was clearly someone who would have been considered a danger to children, had he been checked. But since there was no requirement to check ALL school employees, he wasn't. The law was changed, and now, any caretaker has to be checked with the police before being accepted to work in a children's school.

Sure, 99.9999% of caretakers are not child abusers. The odds are ridiculously low that any school caretaker would abuse children. But we check them ALL regardless, because there is a risk, and it's not worth it to have preventable deaths on our hands, not when they can be prevented.

The same is true of any profession in the UK. A child abuser can work in all sorts of jobs. He could work as a mechanic, because he won't deal with children. But a mechanic has his own abuses and neglects that he can do, that will cause harm. So can a doctor. So can a lawyer. Each profession has its own dangers. We cover each profession accordingly, or we don't, until so many people die, that we do.

In the meantime, many people say that it's absurd to check caretakers. They say it's absurd to worry if a mechanic has been prosecuted for cut-and-shuts. They say it's absurd to protect women against domestic violence or rape. They say that it's absurd to worry that people may be neglectful or abusive, and just to not worry about it, and that if it happens, well, that's "buyer beware". That's their problem. They should sort it out, not us.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 305
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 12:18:29 PM

Having said that, "what Joe and Sally use it for" may very well be the defining characteristics of a particular distinction. There is a relationship between the meaning of a term and its use (in some schools of thought, they are equivalent) and in addition, words can be defined in terms of their functional role as opposed to its properties. What is a "bed"?
True, but irrelvant, IMO. "What Joe and Sally use it for", is relevant in explanation of results. .eg. usge of the term "Organic".
If used in food market discussion, it refers to the produce of farming practises, or the practise itself.

In chemistry, it refers to certain types of molecules, e.g organophosphates - which certainly are not under the "organic fruit" umbrella.

In medical discussion, "Organic" is used differently again.

In philosophical discussion, "organic" might mean arising without planned interventions...?

Therefore it is important to distinguish which way it's being used and in which field. However, field it is not relevant as to the standard definitions of "Phenotype".
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 306
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 12:24:50 PM
the standard definitions are GIVEN in a field ; field is already stated. i.e. Evolutionary Biology or other.
Usage is being questioned by moi. On several levels.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 307
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 12:48:01 PM
"What do you mean by "standard definition"? Who "gives it" and by what means?"

University departments put out public information pages. That's one place where the definitions are found. Just about any generally recognized authority claiming to represent scientific viewpoints, which puts out that information to the public for Education.

U of Berkeley, as one example.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIA1Genotypevsphenotype.shtml



An organism’s genotype is the set of genes that it carries. An organism’s phenotype is all of its observable characteristics—which are influenced both by its genotype and by the environment. So in defining evolution, we are really concerned with changes in the genotypes that make up a population from generation to generation. However, since an organism’s genotype generally affects its phenotype, the phenotypes that make up the population are also likely to change.

For example, differences in the genotypes can produce different phenotypes. In these house cats, the genes for ear form are different, causing one of these cats to have normal ears and the other to have curled ears.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 308
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 1:40:59 PM
RE Msg: 518 by Krebby2001:
hehe, all I can say is that you are confusing scientific discovery with its use. As a matter of fact, any tool of man has the capacity to cause harm. The inventor of the axe probably had in his lil ol' mind nothing more than using the axe to cut down a few trees and make a nice lil' ol' house for his family.

Fast forward, them axes are being used to slaughter your enemy, beheadin folks, and so on and so forth.

Reckon what we oughta do, based on your logic, is to halt all new discovery, and destroy all inventions of any type, on accounta, well, geez, some bozo or bozos will probably find a way to mis-use it.

That'll take ya back to, hey, before the time of computers, no, wait, way way further back .... oooooh, this here cave looks mighty cozy. How do ya like your mammoth? Naw, can't make it medium rare -- remember, that ol feller who discovered how to make fire got chased outer' here --- on accounta, well, gee whillickers, that ol' fire, why, some feller might up and burn his neighbors' belongin's wif it!

That there's your logic, generally speakin'

Just on accounta science is implemented by bozos in a bad way, you have to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of scientific discovery, and try to find a way to prevent the latter, hmmm?
I think most people here would probably agree with you. Then the subject of arms sales comes up. Those people say that selling guns is bad, and they want the UK to stop doing it. Then other people point out that if arms sales stop, then there is nothing to fund making them, and if there is nothing to fund making them, there is nothing to fund research into weaponry, and that's scientific research. So far, everyone agrees. Then they follow on with your argument, and all those people are forced to agree, that arms sales must be continued. I usually point out that both perspectives can be dealt with equally from my POV, because I never argue for extremes to be put in place. But as you did, those people go to extremes with my POV, and so that makes it impossible to address the problem of arms sales.

I guess you'd say that I'm a religious nut, because I don't believe in extremes. But then, I am an extremist. I say that just because you have some form of control over people, like law, doesn't mean that you should go all totalitarian on them, and just because you have some form of control over scientists, doesn't mean that you should go all totalitarian on them either. I guess that because I'm anti-extremist, you'd call that extremism, because to me, extremism is not the norm, and is not an acceptable form of behaviour. Moderation is my key.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 309
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 1:42:28 PM
If we include "genes" as "observables" then "genes" are part of phenotype in the Berkeley definition and the last two definitions from the page above. If we look at the first definition from the page above:

The observable physical and/or biochemical characteristics of the expression of a gene;

then it's not clear how "genes" are part of the "phenotype" in that sense. Genes are genes, not "expressions" of them. No that there is no room for criticism for this definition but what it indicates that they are not equivalent definitions. What's the "standard definition" here?
You were correct in your apprasial, until you faltered.

The "characterisitics of the expression of a gene", a standard understanding again, for difference allowing naming of it as a phenotype" All 3 definitions are in concordance. The "biochemical characteristics of the expression of a gene" is talking about the proteins and so on associated with that gene. 'm sure you have heard some people talk about about genes being associated with produced proteins.

all "ane" stuff, here, Bucko. Nothing "inane" about it.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 310
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 3:52:35 PM
LOW said: "Where did I falter"

You faltered when you said this, indicating that one of the definitions does not also clearly show how a gene difference can be seen as a phenotype. Your apparent misunderstanding of what was being referred to , then results in your claim that this definition is any different in essence than the others, as far as showing that a difference in gene can be considered a phenotype. You have not shown why this definition makes it any less clear than the others. You say "genes are not gene expressions, which is true. Unfortunately , for you, difference in either or both, can be phenotypes


"If we look at the first definition from the page above:

The observable physical and/or biochemical characteristics of the expression of a gene;

then it's not clear how "genes" are part of the "phenotype" in that sense. Genes are genes, not "expressions" of them. No that there is no room for criticism for this definition but what it indicates that they are not equivalent definitions. What's the "standard definition" here?"


:)

I know you are not the type that cannot bear to be contradicted, and that indeed is fortunate, isn't it?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 311
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 4:17:19 PM

I'm not sure what you even mean by the last sentence here but the first one is crucial.

You acknowledge that genes are not gene expressions.
Certainly.


Hence, genes are not part of the phenotype for that definition.
Incorrect, or rather , and incoherent satement. The 3 definitions ALL encompass both gene difference, and gene expresion difference.


You started out this whole digression by asking whether or not genes, since they are "observable", are not also part of the phenotype.
Gene differences are what I've tried to convey. It's all about NAMING differences, not just saying "genes and phenes are phenotypes".
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 312
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 4:23:51 PM
Like this:

<div class='quote'>is not a gene that is different, name-able

You see, you do not properly understand what a phenotype can be, you only understand what it is, as told to you.
It's all about NAMING a difference. Not only naming a character such as "eye", but naming observable differences, in whatever you are studying.
eye phenotype "blue" vs. "brown", for instance.
when comparing genotypes of mutants, we are not actually talking about the gene, but usually about loci where differing alleles are inferred to be residing.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 313
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 6:54:10 PM
Here is an example where they do name the mutant allele as to gene, and phenotype, as they have already done the necesary genetic research to be able to do so.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNG-45FSD8T-1X&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1114568934&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a74fbb79a2d7cf45a57af505af634c93
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 314
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 7:03:49 PM
And here is the more common kind of reference, Joanne Norton's reference to loci and mutant ( different) alleles.



http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ku38YJKVPG0C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=angelfish+genetics+norton&source=bl&ots=jWmmSPEwVp&sig=jCroRGNNXVg_tMHbApvd1CnlnIU&hl=en&ei=UjUTS77rBpWplAejstWhBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=angelfish%20genetics%20norton&f=false


blue mutant

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/66/2/100
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 315
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 9:02:17 PM
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/quorum.html

For Frogo:


More recently, scientists have begun to understand that the importance of cell-to-cell communication goes far beyond mere head counting. Many things that bacteria do, it turns out, are orchestrated by cascades of molecular signals. One such behavior is the formation of spores that make bacteria more resistant to antibiotics. Another is the unleashing of virulence. For disease-causing pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus, waiting for a quorum to assemble before getting down to business has distinct benefits. A few microbes dribbling out toxins in a 200-pound host will succeed only in calling down the furies of the immune system. En masse, they can do serious damage. The first "sleeper cells" were bacterial cells.

Hastings, who is now at Harvard, admits that he underestimated the significance of what he saw in his lab. He assumed that quorum sensing was limited to the marine microbes he was studying. "I accepted the view that these bacteria were in a very specific situation," he says, with a burr of regret. "It doesn't take much reflection to think this must occur elsewhere."

The conclusion that only highly evolved organisms have the ability to act collectively proved to be a stubborn prejudice, however. On several occasions, Nealson tried to publish a diagram in microbiology journals illustrating cell-to-cell signaling in V. fischeri, but peer reviewers rejected it. Bacteria just don't do this, the critics told him
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 316
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:16:46 PM

hmmmm,
best response


"act collectively" -- find themselves in the same environmental niche (whether it's a petri dish or something else)
no


"orchestrated by cascades of molecular signals" -- found themselves in conjunction with
no


"waiting for a quorum" -- waiting for the proper environmental circumstances of co-existence
no


"have the ability to act collectively" -- have the ability to increase their survival chances in the presence of other pathogens"
no


"quorum sensing" -- to begin reproducing in the presence of other pathogens
no


Etc. etc.
yes


Evolution is not the Taliban acting in Afghanistan, or Congress acting on the Health Reform act, acting on quorums or what not ....
I take it you're not a Determinist ?


Change the language, it might increase Ethos in your argumentation ...
but I fear not the bathos of your'n.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 317
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:29:38 PM
we be havin' them ol' mightychondriacs in dat der cell nuke-ular tingies.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 318
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:35:26 PM


That life exists, whether or not the theory of evolution is true? Yes. That life would definitely have occured if the theory of evolution is true? Not proved at all. Just assumed.


Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis so your line of argumentation isn't even wrong. Evolution can only occur after life already exists, and it doesn't make a spit's worth of difference how life came into existence.



That CHANGE has been observed? Yes. That was observed thousands of years before Darwin. That the theory of evolution was developed into an exact predictive set of formulae, and all them were tested accurately against the data, in a black-or-white quantitative way? Nope. Not been done at all. It's all very hazily treated, qualitatively, rather than quantitatively.


Did anyone say that Darwin invented evolution?

Do me a favor. Calculate the numbers that are going to come up in the next lottery. If you can't then obviously the lottery doesn't exist.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 319
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:44:29 PM
POF is populated with such, don't you know ? but don't be silly; colonies and symbionts, and suchlike - not individuals - as individuals don't have fingers that can type on keyboards.


http://fliiby.com/file/244372/t2eh5jgbvv.html
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 320
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:48:08 PM


His greatest accomplishment in that regard appears to have been constructs appearing to support Parson's Toroidal Ring Model of the Electron. Unfortunately for him, later experiments tended to validate the Standard Model and a lack of ringlike substructure for the Electron. So empirical observation relegated his greatest(?) acheivement to the dustbin.


I had the (mis)fortune of reading his book on the subject. On at least two occassions he claimed that a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and neutrino. A neutron actually decays into a proton, electron, and anti-neutrino. This may seem like a small difference but in particle physics it's not. His work is sloppy because he knows that most Creationists won't recognize it as sloppy.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 321
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:01:33 AM
Reason ya can't tell what them ol' lottery numbers will be is because the process is random. Ain't no "quorum" or "orchestratin' a goin' on betwixt them numbers, ya see ..
or perhaps "Quorum", the "Hydra" feels that it's not random enough. A decision is sure to follow.
http://www.math.mcmaster.ca/fred/TheStar.com.2006.10.26.pdf

Brainman gambling by shape of number and feel of number


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqLzoiVzEY8&feature=channel
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 322
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:05:22 AM


Now, suppose I do not have any children, my parents never get any grandchildren. I get fossilized...Am I transitional in the same way , then ? Between my parents and my kids ? No.

How would I be "transitional" in that case , in a way that is showing Evolution to be true ?


In that case we could look at the broader picture of you being a homo sapiens. Suppose in 100,000 years homo sapiens have evolved into homo superior. Even though you never had children your fossil would still be a transitional fossil between homo erectus and homo superior simply by being a member of a species intermediate between homo erectus and homo superior.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 323
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:08:16 AM

In that case we could look at the broader picture of you being a homo sapiens. Suppose in 100,000 years homo sapiens have evolved into homo superior. Even though you never had children your fossil would still be a transitional fossil between homo erectus and homo superior simply by being a member of a species intermediate between homo erectus and homo superior.
So now a change in the meaning of "transitional" as to the fossil evidences. For this one, now, please explain which definition of "species" are you now using ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 324
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:14:04 AM
no, in this case, of detectin' cheatin'
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 325
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:27:20 AM
Did the numbers cheat? Or did the vendors? Read your own article, darnit.
Krebs, don' get off'n yer cycle jes yet. Ye ain't yet passed yersel last Tuesday on de backpedal.

The vendors were cheating, Cholmondeley.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths