101 Scientific Facts: The Bible-Creationism is accurate and true.

gladiatrix · Aug 3, 2016

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And I'm still waiting for @joshua 1 9 to provide evidence for his claim that following the Bible can 30 years to a persons life...

Don't hold your breathe...it's bovine scat and here's why:

Do Religious People Really Live Longer? Religion May Not Be the Elixir After All

This question can be asked in two different ways. One can ask whether religious people live longer than their non religious compatriots, or one can ask whether people living in religious countries enjoy longer lives than people in secular countries. Oddly, the answers to these questions are very different.

Countries with very low life expectancy are mostly very religious. The nations of sub-Saharan Africa are a good example. Plagues of malaria, parasites, dengue fever, cholera, diarrheal diseases, HIV/AIDS, etc., lop decades off life expectancy that is below 60 years for most of these countries. The presence of many serious chronic illnesses, and the expectation of an early death, predicts universal belief in God and the importance of religion .
. . . .
So secular populations definitely live much longer than residents of highly religious countries. Examples include Sweden (life expectancy of 81 years) and Japan (life expectancy of 82 years) where residents outlive more religious Americans (78.5 years). Now, what happens if one compares religious and secular people in the same country?
. . . .
When we compare people living in the same country, religious people enjoy a health advantage if they are part of a large majority, as is true of the U.S. That advantage disappears if religious people are in the minority.

Why? One plausible reason that non religious people in the U.S. have worse health is that they are largely excluded from participation in politics, and find that they have less of a role to play in their local communities because religious people consider them unworthy. One key reason for this is that churches play a central role in organizing charities and civic organizations.

In predominantly secular countries, community involvement is very high so that atheists are much more active in their communities than they would be in a comparatively religious country such as the U.S. Instead of feeling like second class citizens, the non religious are fully integrated in their communities with all of the health advantages this brings. So what had looked like advantages of religion could be simply an advantage of being in the mainstream.

BOTTOM-LINE
1. In the US, religious people enjoy a health advantage (more robust immune systems, lower blood, healthier lifestyle, better stress management, etc.), BUT it's a phenomenon NOT observed in other developed countries. This advantage is lost IF the person becomes part of a religious minority.

2. Atheists in the US don't have the same advantage, but then they are part of a minority that's actively despised by the many in the majority, resulting in more isolation and stress with its attendance health effect.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Aug 3, 2016

gladiatrix said:
Don't hold your breathe...it's bovine scat and here's why:

Do Religious People Really Live Longer? Religion May Not Be the Elixir After All

This question can be asked in two different ways. One can ask whether religious people live longer than their non religious compatriots, or one can ask whether people living in religious countries enjoy longer lives than people in secular countries. Oddly, the answers to these questions are very different.

Countries with very low life expectancy are mostly very religious. The nations of sub-Saharan Africa are a good example. Plagues of malaria, parasites, dengue fever, cholera, diarrheal diseases, HIV/AIDS, etc., lop decades off life expectancy that is below 60 years for most of these countries. The presence of many serious chronic illnesses, and the expectation of an early death, predicts universal belief in God and the importance of religion .
. . . .
So secular populations definitely live much longer than residents of highly religious countries. Examples include Sweden (life expectancy of 81 years) and Japan (life expectancy of 82 years) where residents outlive more religious Americans (78.5 years). Now, what happens if one compares religious and secular people in the same country?
. . . .
When we compare people living in the same country, religious people enjoy a health advantage if they are part of a large majority, as is true of the U.S. That advantage disappears if religious people are in the minority.

Why? One plausible reason that non religious people in the U.S. have worse health is that they are largely excluded from participation in politics, and find that they have less of a role to play in their local communities because religious people consider them unworthy. One key reason for this is that churches play a central role in organizing charities and civic organizations.

In predominantly secular countries, community involvement is very high so that atheists are much more active in their communities than they would be in a comparatively religious country such as the U.S. Instead of feeling like second class citizens, the non religious are fully integrated in their communities with all of the health advantages this brings. So what had looked like advantages of religion could be simply an advantage of being in the mainstream.

BOTTOM-LINE
1. In the US, religious people enjoy a health advantage (more robust immune systems, lower blood, healthier lifestyle, better stress management, etc.), BUT it's a phenomenon NOT observed in other developed countries. This advantage is lost IF the person becomes part of a religious minority.

2. Atheists in the US don't have the same advantage, but then they are part of a minority that's actively despised by the many in the majority, resulting in more isolation and stress with its attendance health effect.

Regardless, I want him to answer. Or if not, wear him down enough to crack and admit that he was spouting bull-spit.

joshua 1 9 · Aug 3, 2016

gladiatrix said:
Do you, joshua, have any of these points that you find particularly compelling and actually want to discuss?

I have done this a number of times but I would point to number 5 having to do with the sanitary laws of Moses: "Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago" Of course the The Code of Hammurabi (a well-preserved Babylonian law code of ancient Mesopotamia) is older then the law that we get from Moses. But the law of Moses is a lot more valid for us today. For example the Jewish ghettos during the black plague seemed to do better then those who were not following the Sanitary laws set down by Moses. Even when a women has her menstrual (Leviticus 15:19-33). The advise Moses gives could be substantiated by modern science today. Although having to sacrifice two turtledoves may not be considered essential in this day and age.

joshua 1 9 · Aug 3, 2016

gladiatrix said:
1. In the US, religious people enjoy a health advantage (more robust immune systems, lower blood, healthier lifestyle, better stress management, etc.)

Having been through Cardiac Rehab after I had a stent I know how resistant people are to making a lifestyle change to live a more healthy lifestyle. Even though there is overwhelming evidence for the benefit of a healthy lifestyle. Still the insurance company well gladly pay for the healthy lifestyle program because those who follow the program have a lot less medical procedures and that saves them money. Healthy lifestyles means more healthy people needing less operations and less drugs. Healthy people are not lucky, healthy people have to work hard to be healthy. Esp in the area of diet, exercise and healthy relationships (avoiding dysfunctional people and dysfunctional relationships) Christians call this temperance, at least in the church I attend.

joshua 1 9 · Aug 3, 2016

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I want him to answer.

I already answered that question at least a dozen times. You must have an issue with reading comprehension. I can understand that because the program at the hospital requires 36 classes. That is how many classes it takes to show people how to live the lifestyle that science tells them is the best lifestyle for them. You may want to argue the Bible does not say what it says but that could be because you do not know what the Bible says and how much science shows us the Bible is 100% accurate and true. If people are not interested in learning the truth then there is very little we can do to help them. People have to discover the truth for themselves. You can not spoon feed it to them the way the public school system works. There is no reason for us to waste our time on people that do not want to know the truth.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Aug 3, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
I already answered that question at least a dozen times. You must have an issue with reading comprehension. I can understand that because the program at the hospital requires 36 classes. That is how many classes it takes to show people how to live the lifestyle that science tells them is the best lifestyle for them. You may want to argue the Bible does not say what it says but that could be because you do not know what the Bible says and how much science shows us the Bible is 100% accurate and true. If people are not interested in learning the truth then there is very little we can do to help them. People have to discover the truth for themselves. You can not spoon feed it to them the way the public school system works. There is no reason for us to waste our time on people that do not want to know the truth.

No, you have not. You have not presented a single bit of evidence that backs up your claim that following the Bible can medically add 30 years to a persons life.
You have shown how modern science can add years to a persons life, but nothing from the Bible.

gladiatrix · Aug 3, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
I have done this a number of times but I would point to number 5 having to do with the sanitary laws of Moses: "Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago" Of course the The Code of Hammurabi (a well-preserved Babylonian law code of ancient Mesopotamia) is older then the law that we get from Moses. But the law of Moses is a lot more valid for us today. For example the Jewish ghettos during the black plague seemed to do better then those who were not following the Sanitary laws set down by Moses.

1. What "sanitary industry"? Let's have those verses and have a gander at this so-called "industry":

Deuteronomy 23:12-14 NIV
12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself.

13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.

14 For the Lord your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.

2. What a joke! A cat scratching in a hole for itself in my lawn does as well!

The problem here is where "outside the camp" on scratches one's hole.
IF it's uphill of or too close to the camp's water supply, then sickness/disease could easily be spread,
I don't see ANY kind of relevant/good advice on where one "scratches" one's hole and in FACT such "holes" could actually be prove to be most unsanitary IF all their filth was in the wrong spot (e.g., uphill of or too close to the water supply).

3. CONCLUSIONS:

A. A cat does just as well, so I guess the cat must have beat science to the "punch" when it comes to inventing a "sanitation industry".

B. Color me so NOT impressed with this obvious hyperbolic bunk about Moses inventing a "sanitation industry" (the cat beat your Moses to that "scratch", so to speak!).

joshua 1 9 said:
Even when a women has her menstrual (Leviticus 15:19-33). The advise Moses gives could be substantiated by modern science today.

1. You've got to be kidding me! That misogynistic tripe about menstruating women being "unclean".... how is that substantiated by ANY modern research? ==> your citation of any scientific literature that supports/"justifies" any of the egregious, vile humiliation of women below:

Leviticus 15:19-33 NIV
19 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening.

24 “‘If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

25 “‘When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period.

26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period.

27 Anyone who touches them will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

28 “‘When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean.

29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge.

31 “‘You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place,[a] which is among them.’”

32 These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of sperm,

33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who has sexual relations with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.

2. OBSERVATIONS:

A.First, what does being "unclean" mean scientifically? Is she carrying the plague/some deadly disease while menstruating that isn't there during her "clean" days?

B. Second, you claim that science backs up this tommy-rot about a woman being "unclean" (definition?) which means you will need to support that with actual scientific research showing that a menstruating woman is so dangerous that

people shouldn't even touch her
come in contact with any object she has (chairs, beds, etc.)
have sex with her

C. Well, where's the "beef"?
IOW, where are your citations showing that a menstruating woman is "unclean" which actually defines what this means and shows it to be so dangerous that such prohibitions as given above are actually warranted?

CONCLUSION:
1. That's just another rasher of the disgusting misogyny that's so rampant in the Bible.

A. Woman-hating control freaks using any excuse to emotional/physically humilate the women even going so far as to vilify them as filthy based on a bodily function that's absolutely necessary for the continuation of the human race.

B. How do you think this ranting of you're unclean!, UNCLEAN! would make a woman feel about herself?...it's only real function is to destroy her sense self-worth by humiliating her to the max! (all control-freaks employ this trick to gain control of a now mentally/emotionally castrated victim).

C. I guess that pack of Bronze Age/Iron Age woman-haters didn't know the actual function of the menstrual cycle when they designated menstruation as "unclean", something that only shows their profound IGNORANCE of human biology.

D. It is however, an excellent example of a common tactic employed by all control-freaks/abusers, first destroy the self-confidence/sense of self-worth of your target, in this case we have a deliberate, institutionalized monthly round of vicious, humiliating degradation of the woman (you're unclean!, you're UNCLEAN!)

joshua 1 9 said:
Although having to sacrifice two turtledoves may not be considered essential in this day and age.

IF your Bible is so "scientifically accurate" then why NOT?

Or could it be people have realized this kind of animal cruelty accomplishes nothing but...cruelty?

BOTTOM-LINE
Another big ZERO for your claim that "science verifies the Bible" when investigation of what's actually written there just shows how grotesquely ignorant they actually were.

gladiatrix · Aug 3, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
I already answered that question at least a dozen times. You must have an issue with reading comprehension. I can understand that because the program at the hospital requires 36 classes. That is how many classes it takes to show people how to live the lifestyle that science tells them is the best lifestyle for them.

WHERE are any of these "36 classes" actually given in the Bible?

joshua 1 9 said:
You may want to argue the Bible does not say what it says but that could be because you do not know what the Bible says

I've read the Bible cover-to-cover and I've never seen any instructions on how to maintain/improve cardiovascular health, so why don't you pony up with those verses.

joshua 1 9 said:
and how much science shows us the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

So again, tell show me the science that supports the Biblical vilification of a woman being "unclean"during her menstrual cycle (to the point that she so badly "contaminates", with what one wonders, a chair that anyone, especially a man who sits on it, has to go bathe, just for openers).

How about putting some scientific citations where your mouth is to support the above claim that a menstruating woman is "unclean"? (all it means to me is just an another vicious attack on women intended to humiliate/demean and control them, something the Bible is rife with IMO).

joshua 1 9 said:
If people are not interested in learning the truth then there is very little we can do to help them. People have to discover the truth for themselves. You can not spoon feed it to them the way the public school system works. There is no reason for us to waste our time on people that do not want to know the truth.

What "truth" have you presented, joshua?

All you done is without any support assert that the Bible is 100% true...where's the "beef" because your 101 "points" have been discussed/refuted/sliced-n-diced, point by point HERE (beginning with 1-10) with links to a separate page for each 10 and also HERE in Exposed-101 Scientific Facts in the Bible (NOT!) in this older archived refutation, again point-by-point.

joshua 1 9 · Aug 3, 2016

gladiatrix said:
WHERE are any of these "36 classes" actually given in the Bible?

I do not have time for this. If you do not understand what I said then I would say we have a breakdown in communication.

Jimmy D · Aug 4, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
If you do not understand what I said then I would say we have a breakdown in communication.

I think Gladiatrix understands what you said perfectly well (as we all do), that fact was reflected in a lengthy critique and refutation of your assertions which you have ignored as usual.

joshua 1 9 · Aug 4, 2016

Jimmy D said:
I think Gladiatrix understands what you said perfectly well (as we all do), that fact was reflected in a lengthy critique and refutation of your assertions which you have ignored as usual.

No she does not, she is confused between science and the Bible. She is confused about how Science proves that the Bible is 100% accurate and true. The fact remains science is true, the Bible is true and they agree with each other. There are no contradictions. Neither one falsifies the other. So she has zip, zero, nothing to go on if she is looking for any sort of conflict at all. Both the Bible and Science gives us a LOT of suggestions on how to be healthy. If we ignore either science or the Bible then we are making a choice to be sick. We say choose life, choose health, choose prosperity and choose to abide in God's blessing. Make the right choices in life. In this day and age there are lots of people and lot of commercials making lots of claims. So it is very hard to use science and the Bible to get at the truth because of the abundance of lies and the amount of deception we have to deal with. Perhaps you and Gladiatrix do not want to be deceived and that is good. But there are an abundance of people that do want to be deceived. They have made their choice and they have no intention of changing their mind to choose what is good and right and true. They want to fight the truth with every ounce of strength they have.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Aug 4, 2016

Still waiting for @joshua 1 9 to provide evidence for his claim that following that Bible can medically add 30 years to a persons life.

bhsmte · Aug 4, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
No she does not, she is confused between science and the Bible. She is confused about how Science proves that the Bible is 100% accurate and true. The fact remains science is true, the Bible is true and they agree with each other. There are no contradictions. Neither one falsifies the other. So she has zip, zero, nothing to go on if she is looking for any sort of conflict at all. Both the Bible and Science gives us a LOT of suggestions on how to be healthy. If we ignore either science or the Bible then we are making a choice to be sick. We say choose life, choose health, choose prosperity and choose to abide in God's blessing. Make the right choices in life. In this day and age there are lots of people and lot of commercials making lots of claims. So it is very hard to use science and the Bible to get at the truth because of the abundance of lies and the amount of deception we have to deal with. Perhaps you and Gladiatrix do not want to be deceived and that is good. But there are an abundance of people that do want to be deceived. They have made their choice and they have no intention of changing their mind to choose what is good and right and true. They want to fight the truth with every ounce of strength they have.

Heavy dose of; LOL

gladiatrix · Aug 4, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
No she does not, she is confused between science and the Bible. She is confused about how Science proves that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.
The fact remains science is true, the Bible is true and they agree with each other. There are no contradictions. Neither one falsifies the other. So she has zip, zero, nothing to go on if she is looking for any sort of conflict at all.

ORLY!
1. WHERE is the scientific support for the vile characterization of menstruating women as "unclean"<< what does this mean and once defined where's the science that shows a menstruating woman is such a health menace that no one should touch either her or anything she's comes in contact with either?

2. WHERE is the scientific literature showing that burying ones urine/feces in a hole rank as "sanitation" (the Bible doesn't give any instruction on where to dig this hole, except that it be outside the encampment), let alone deserve the description as a "sanitation industry". Again, any cat does as well, I guess cats have a "sanitation industry" as well (by the "Biblical standard" for sure!)

joshua 1 9 said:
Both the Bible and Science gives us a LOT of suggestions on how to be healthy. If we ignore either science or the Bible then we are making a choice to be sick. We say choose life, choose health, choose prosperity and choose to abide in God's blessing. Make the right choices in life. In this day and age there are lots of people and lot of commercials making lots of claims. So it is very hard to use science and the Bible to get at the truth because of the abundance of lies and the amount of deception we have to deal with.

WHERE in the Bible are there "suggestions" whose goal is the maintenance of one's continued good health?

Science actually does that based on the evidence that what's proposed actually works. Why should I rely on a cherry-picked selection of the Bronze Age/Iron Age ramblings of a pack of ignorant, misogynistic, often brutally cruel tribesmen for anything?

joshua 1 9 said:
Perhaps you and Gladiatrix do not want to be deceived and that is good.

1. I don't want to be deceived which is why I put no credence in the unsupported assertions of ignorant ancient humans, many of whom I'm convinced were simply mentally ill, a conclusion that a number of psychologists have come to as described in this article The Role of Psychotic Disorders in Religious History Considered (full text) which states :

The authors have analyzed the religious figures Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul from a behavioral, neurologic, and neuropsychiatric perspective to determine whether new insights can be achieved about the nature of their revelations. Analysis reveals that these individuals had experiences that resemble those now defined as psychotic symptoms, suggesting that their experiences may have been manifestations of primary or mood disorder-associated psychotic disorders. The rationale for this proposal is discussed in each case with a differential diagnosis. Limitations inherent to a retrospective diagnostic examination are assessed. Social models of psychopathology and group dynamics are proposed as explanations for how followers were attracted and new belief systems emerged and were perpetuated. The authors suggest a new DSM diagnostic subcategory as a way to distinguish this type of psychiatric presentation. These findings support the possibility that persons with primary and mood disorder-associated psychotic symptoms have had a monumental influence on the shaping of Western civilization. It is hoped that these findings will translate into increased compassion and understanding for persons living with mental illness.

2. Of course, the above assumes that the religious figures actually existed to be analyzed in the first place, I'm not so generous (little to no archeological evidence for existence of patriarchs like Abraham or for Moses, only the cherry-picked Gospels, just 4 out of many, poorly attest to existence of Jesus, for instance).

Or to put it another way, here's a question from ChinaCat:

"If you talk to something that's invisible and insist that it talks back, that it rules every thought, word and action of your life and you can't make any kind of move without it and that someday you will be with it after you die;

If you call it Daisy the flying hippo, you end up in a padded cell;

If you call it god, nobody thinks twice about it.

What really is the difference?"

What I find extremely arrogant about some theists is that they apparently haven't stopped for a moment to consider that they and every other theists on this planet may be as mistaken as the "Daisy the Hippo" crowd.

joshua 1 9 · Aug 4, 2016

gladiatrix said:
That misogynistic tripe

I can see we are wasting our time because you do not understand the Bible and you do not know take a document from 3400 years ago and apply that to our lives today. Clearly you have never been to Bible college and going to a secular college does in no way prepare you to interpret the Bible and apply it to your life. Perhaps I could suggest a 101 class in basic Bible interpretation at the Bible college. They maybe able to help you. I think I am beginning to understand why Paul tells Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man". Tim2:12 "it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression."

joshua 1 9 · Aug 4, 2016

Jimmy D said:
I think Gladiatrix understands what you said perfectly well

Oh, I would expect that she does understand me. I did take four (4) teacher training classes at the Bible college and it was a women that teaches that class. So I expect I learned a little on how to communicate on all levels with most anyone.

joshua 1 9 · Aug 4, 2016

gladiatrix said:
1. I don't want to be deceived which is why I put no credence in the unsupported assertions of ignorant ancient humans

You claim that you do not want to be deceived and yet your statement shows that you are. You do not understand what Adam represents and the part that he played in the evolution of man and the neolithic revolution. You do not understand the significance of the transition from hunter gather nomads to civilized food producers. As we go from the stone age to the metal age and the beginning of the industrial revolution.

bhsmte · Aug 4, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Oh, I would expect that she does understand me. I did take four (4) teacher training classes at the Bible college and it was a women that teaches that class. So I expect I learned a little on how to communicate on all levels with most anyone.

You don't seem to do well communicating support for your countless claims.

gladiatrix · Aug 4, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
I can see we are wasting our time because you do not understand the Bible and you do not know take a document from 3400 years ago and apply that to our lives today. Clearly you have never been to Bible college and going to a secular college does in no way prepare you to interpret the Bible and apply it to your life. Perhaps I could suggest a 101 class in basic Bible interpretation at the Bible college. They maybe able to help you. I think I am beginning to understand why Paul tells Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man". Tim2:12 "it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression."

ROFLMAO!
1. Your pompous pontifications telling me what I know and don't know are quite entertaining (you can read minds?). Why is it that I strongly suspect the ONLY metric you have for making your "assessment" is based on whether or not I unquestioning goosestep to/ servilely slop up your every pronouncement as pure gold/true....do so get over yourself!

2. I stand by every word I posted (and HERE), that bunkem about menstruating women being "unclean" is NOTHING but misogynistic tripe.

3. You've asserted that science backs up the claim that menstruating women are "unclean" (define?) BUT what I note is your complete FAILURE to give a single citation that actually agrees with that vile pack of misogynists, something you underscore by quoting that schizophrenic woman-hater Paul.

4. Any time you come up with evidence that Adam/Eve actually existed because there's no science supporting that ludicrous story either, i.e., just another tale crafted by evil men jonesing for an "excuse" to demote women to the status of property, mere THINGS to be dominated, abused, enslaved at their whim).

RealityCheck01 · Aug 4, 2016

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And I'm still waiting for @joshua 1 9 to provide evidence for his claim that following the Bible can 30 years to a persons life...

Did that unsupported claim pop here too?
In another thread I asked for Biblical references to support the claim and the obvious questions:
Are there historical reports of Christians living 30 years longer then their neighbors?
Is there evidence that modern Christians live a lot longer than non-Christians in the same location? For example a comparison of New York Christians and non-Christians?

101 Scientific Facts: The Bible-Creationism is accurate and true.

Card-carrying EAC member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Card-carrying EAC member

Card-carrying EAC member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Card-carrying EAC member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Card-carrying EAC member

Newbie

Similar threads