proving evolution as just a "theory"

MrAnderson9 · Sep 28, 2017

Bungle_Bear said:
The most logical answers are not necessarily the correct answers.

That's true.. but the flaw isn't logic.. it's in our understanding.. what's logical now... may not be so logical once more is revealed to us. I've believed things with everything in me.. and they were completely wrong. my thought and capacity isn't absolute. But absolute logic is.

MrAnderson9 · Sep 28, 2017

Ophiolite said:
If we take the second of your two proposed options, that who we are is based solely on the effects, etc. then clearly we do not have free will. Yet you claim that we do. Please apply the critical thinking you noted earlier as being important and recognise that is illogical.

Rocks do not have free will. A rock rolling down a hillside under the influence of gravity has no free will. According to you it simply does not exist. Aha! I've wasted a significant part of my life studying things that do not exit. Alas!

I don't claim we have freewill.. I state that it's very probable that we don't. I came to the conclusion long ago that YOU make the choices.. but you didn't get to pick who "YOU" are.. so there's a conflict there. I believe we have Freewill because I have faith that we are really separated from the events that created us. And even with freewill.. without a certain level of intelligence you're at the mercy of the environment. You could lose yourself. You could become a robot making decisions based on complete misunderstanding of the consequence of your action.

MrAnderson9 · Sep 28, 2017

Ophiolite said:
I follow the principle that logic
is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion.*

In serious discussions it is normal to use the accepted meaning of words. My starting issue is that you do not appear to be using the accepted meaning of logic. This will make further discussion at best, difficult, and at worst, impossible.
That said, I can just about twist your words around to get a fit between your definition and the accepted one. Unfortunately, I then find - so far - no instances where you have made an ordered argument.

The beliefs in the balance of your post do seem consistent, yet contradict your earlier assertions. Frankly, your posts seem all over the place. That might be me. I'm signing off from further conversation with you today, but shall read all of your post tomorrow and see if I can detect a sensible pattern.

But you said.....

Ophiolite said:
It's just a thought, but many readers are more readily persuaded by an argument when the argument is not presented in a patronising tone.

: ) Good night friend thanks for making me think tonight..

USincognito · Sep 28, 2017

Waggles said:
Sure. Ask your friend to show you real evidence for evolution.

There are hundreds of papers published every year full of evidence for evolution. It is a fantasy to think they are all full of nothing but question marks and blank space.

Ask for him to take you to any museum and share the evidence of species transitioning from one species to another.

Museums are not where you would go to find detailed evidence of speciation. For that you would look at published papers.

Ask him to show you how kidneys evolved, or the liver or the spleen or the heart and circulatory system evolved. Ask for the evidence. Ask him to prove it.

There's no such thing as proof in science. As for the evolution of various organs, you do realize that most tetrapods (including humans) have basically the same internal organs, right? And many of those organs are the same in fish. There's nothing special about human organs.

You know dinosaurs had all the body components - skeleton; muscles, organs, digestive systems;eyes; brains; spinal cords; etc etc etc - they died out some supposed 65 million years ago and ruled the world for hundreds of millions of years before.
So if dinosaurs had everything to be complex warm blooded animals and reproduce then just when did all these necessary body parts evolve to allow for this? and from what?

Do you even understand evolution? I ask because this question is something anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the subject would know the answer to. Dinosaurs (and marine and flying reptiles) evolved from basal archosaurs, as did crocodilians. Bascal archosaurs would have had all those body parts, as did basal saurians, etc. etc.

Show me the evolution of the eyes and sight:

Even Darwin himself figured this out 170 years ago.
Eye Evolution

USincognito · Sep 28, 2017

MrAnderson9 said:
Water puts out fire.. why? Says who? Who says that the interaction between water and fire happens the way it does? Where did this definition come from? God.

Actually blankets, dirt, shaving cream and lime Jello put out fire as well. Fire is merely a chemical reaction and anything that prevents the fuel from getting oxygen will extinguish the flame. There's nothing special about water and there is no interaction between the two.

AV1611VET · Sep 29, 2017

USincognito said:
Fire is merely a chemical reaction ...

And that chemical reaction responds according to blueprints.

pitabread · Sep 29, 2017

MrAnderson9 said:
Because logic exists. Because science exists. ... and most importantly.. because we can THINK. without structure.. there is no thought. There is no reason to have a mind if everything just does anything.

: )

That... doesn't answer my question. :/

AV1611VET · Sep 29, 2017

MrAnderson9 said:
Just as the objects require creation.. the laws governing interaction in the physical world (definition)... require creation as well.

pitabread said:
Why?

Because the universe is not in anarchy, it is in entropy.

sfs · Sep 29, 2017

AV1611VET said:
I can't speak for him, but I think he's making the point that, as implied in this passage:

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

... God set up the universe in such a way that its physical laws "dovetail" into each other and all fit together like a hand in a glove.

He can believe whatever he likes, as can you and I; we all may even believe the same thing in this case. But if he claims that his belief is supported by logic, he should provide a logical argument. That has so far been lacking.

sfs · Sep 29, 2017

MrAnderson9 said:
We all know what gravity is right?

No. In fact, no one knows what gravity is. We know that matter behaves in certain ways, and we call that behavior "gravity".

MrAnderson9 said:
But why does gravity behave the way it does? Why isn't gravity and electricity the same thing?

Because electricity is mediated by a spin-1 boson while gravity is mediated by a spin-2 boson. At least that's the speculation, although no one has come up with a testable quantum theory of gravity.

MrAnderson9 · Sep 29, 2017

USincognito said:
Actually blankets, dirt, shaving cream and lime Jello put out fire as well. Fire is merely a chemical reaction and anything that prevents the fuel from getting oxygen with extinguish the flame. There's nothing special about water and there is no interaction between the two.

No offense but the concept is beyond your intellectual capabilities.

AV1611VET · Sep 29, 2017

sfs said:
He can believe whatever he likes, as can you and I; we all may even believe the same thing in this case. But if he claims that his belief is supported by logic, he should provide a logical argument. That has so far been lacking.

He may be of the persuasion that Jesus is the Logos; i.e., logic personified (John 1:1).

_-iconoclast-_ · Sep 29, 2017

Hey hey bugsy

Bugeyedcreepy said:
I have a mate of mine who tells me Islam is definitely the last true religion and that Christianity is just confused, and the Prophet Jesus (may peace be upon him) will be back to tell you all so too...

Ok you have my attention friend. What point are you trying to make?

Bugeyedcreepy said:
Not really sure which one you're referring me to, so I'll assume you meant this one?:

These days, they trust me and my guidance based on experience even though it still in part comes down to respect as their authority figure... so again, experience and reason.

Please excuse me.

My original post was to do with times when faith is acceptable and faith being rewarded. The substance here is an appeal to authority. Mother says to the child dont touch the stove. Child has faith in mother, does not get hand burnt.

Obviously reason and experience are important to any human but i was not debating that.

I hope you and your family are safe and healthy.

Bugeyedcreepy said:
On trust and faith definitions and conflating the two:

Again, not sure which one you intend me to look at, so I'll assume this is it?:

So did as instructed - I see you included the first definition from Google, which was the non-religious definition of Faith, but you for some odd reason, didn't include the definition of Faith as it relates to religion - that is "2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." - ...."rather than proof"!! so, still back to evidence free belief

The reason why i gave the first definition is because that is the defintion im discussing in relation to an appeal to authority. Thank you for being so kind to go back. I think you will need to go back further.

Bugeyedcreepy said:
....so Faith in your version of the bible is "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" - nothing about evidence or reason? If Faith is "Total Trust" then ought we not be really, really sure about it before putting so much stock in something? I for one, would want absolute verification before investing so much of myself for so long in such a thing

That is a declaration of faith. A statement of faith, not a dictionairy definition my dear

My favourite version is KJV and I use niv.

You can have faith with evidence and faith without evidence. Faith = total trust in someone or something.

What evidence would you accept then my friend?

Bugeyedcreepy said:
Atheists get it just fine, this is why we don't just believe without evidence first. Put 'Theory' in front of it all you like, but the evidence still won't be there to support it. Again, every religion out there has this kind of unevidenced "Faith"

Would you say you have a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values

Again what constitutes evidence for you re a belief in God?

Bugeyedcreepy said:
.
So, on my experiences with chairs point:

I go into construction sites all the time. Back to this point though because this is hilarious, if I see a chair work, see other people use a chair, have the operation and purpose of a chair explained to me, how is my use of that chair as prescribed then some kind of Assuption?? Are you trying to tell me that everyone's reality is only real for them? Do we not share this same reality with everyone else??

On my trust in my coworkers:

You have accepted a thing as true or as certain to happen, without first proving it. It worked for someone else so therefore it will work for you. You put trust into seeing someone sit on the chair so therefore it is safe. That is your reasoning.

Nothing wrong here. We all do it.

On a site once. I saw people walking along a wood plank over a trench. Someone placed it there and everyone used it. The plank was old and after a period of time, someone fell through it. No one was fatally hurt but the victim assumed that everyone else was using it so therefore it must be safe.

I sat on a chair at a friends house once. It seemed fine for some time. One day it broke while someone attempted to sit in it.

What u think?

Bugeyedcreepy said:
..and of course, Trust (you literally just said "Noyou have trust in their abilities"!!).... There is no such thing as 100% Trust, we deal in degrees of certainty. I wouldn't trust someone straight off the bat if I didn't have evidence of their abilities/capabilities...

Certainty - firm conviction that something is the case. This is linked to confidence, assurance, truth and fact.

What happens when you have a firm conviction that something is the truth but have misconstrued the facts?

So you would not trust a doctor to perform on you unless you certified his qualifications?

"We deal in degrees of certainty"

What do you mean by the above statement, do you mean we reason the facts?

Bugeyedcreepy said:
Exactly. Its not like cars and airplanes to crash!

Because I have experience of such, and is therefore not Faith. Unless of course you still insist that Faith & Trust are the same thing?

I do not demand anything forcefully. Faith is a complete trust in someone or something. I did not make up the word my friend. Words describe words and we use many words to define one word.

Bugeyedcreepy said:
Have you tried?

When I was younger, yes. Not that I really had any direction, so nothing ever popped into my head as being something I should take notice of... this point alone should be cause forconcern - if there is an all-omnipotent, omnipresent being who wanted to have a relationship with me, I would've been all in, hook, line and sinker! but nuthn....

Are you suggesting here that you are open to God but it has to be on your terms?

Bugeyedcreepy said:
Do fairies answer prayers, give Visions and perform the miraculous?

Don't know about Visions (perhaps you should see someone about that??) but Fairies answer prayers and perform the miraculous at exactly the same r

Bugeyedcreepy said:
Do fairies answer prayers, give Visions and perform the miraculous?

Don't know about Visions (perhaps you should see someone about that??) but Fairies answer prayers and perform the miraculous at exactly the same rate as intercessory prayer does.

Much of the folklore about fairies revolves around protection from their malice, by such means as cold iron or charms of rowan andherbs, or avoiding offense by shunning locations known to be theirs.[42]

Some pranks ascribed to them, such as tangling the hair of sleepers into "Elf-locks", stealing small items or leading a traveler astray, are generally harmless. But far more dangerous behaviors were also attributed to fairies.

Any form of sudden death might stem from a fairy kidnapping, with the apparent corpse being a wooden stand-in with the appearance of the kidnapped person.[43]

Consumption (tuberculosis) was sometimes blamed on the fairies forcing young men and women to dance at revels every night, causing them to waste away from lack of rest.[44] Rowan trees are considered sacred to the fairies

I could not find any info on fairies answering prayers and performing the miraculous ie healing, casting out demons etc.

Bugeyedcreepy said:
You may think it fine in your position if you agree with their religious position but how different might you feel if the people in power were Islamic? Given extreme forms of Islam (read: ISIS and Taliban among many) consider Christianity to be Polytheism, and punishable by Death.

Wbat point are you trying to make?

Bugeyedcreepy said:
I guess American History isn't so innocent though, how long was it legal to kill Mormons on site because it was considered a Cult? That was a decision made on the faith based belief that Mormonism was Blasphemy of the highest order.

Im not american. This is a statement about the 'mormon war'. What does this have to do with me?

Bugeyedcreepy said:
but it doesn't even have to go that far - I see all too often parents who let their children die because their religion had them believing prayer would cure them of their easily treatable and normally trivial medical issue had they just popped along to their local Doctor.

These kids often die in writhing pain even though I'm sure their parents loved them every bit as much as they could, it's their Faith based belief in their religion that killed them. Evidenced medicine be damned, they had FAITH!

Ppl make all sorts of decisions based on what they know. The groups you may be referring to sound like cults.

My dad suffered through chemo and died in pain. Death can be suffering with evidenced medicine!

Please watch out. This line of thought is an appeal to emotion.

Bugeyedcreepy said:
I already have. I have friends in a number of other religions and they tell me Exactly the same thing you're telling me - literally, "You just gotta have Faith..."! So I guess you were wrong to assume I hadn't looked into this.

Buddhism teaches no action, no desire and no attachment. Islam teaches you to submit to allah ( u cannot have a relationship with God), hindu teaches reincarnation.

Christianity teaches salvation and atonement for sin (u can hab a relationship with God)

Atheists have faith in the thoughts of men who observe facts and descern them with the knowledge they have at that moment.

All roads do not lead to rome my friend.

But all roads need trust. You dont follow something unless you have a firm conviction that something is the case and trust what you hear or read first. Acceptance.

Bugeyedcreepy said:
Are they wrong? Should I ask them if You're wrong? What do you think they'll tell me?

This is my opinion. Therefore i think im right. I do not go down the street saying 'hey everyone i believe in lies'. It is my opnion therefore i am correct. Just like it is your opinion, therefore you are correct.

Ask them friend, you do not need my permission?

I do not know what they will say

Bugeyedcreepy said:
This is exactly why I'd never assume a religious position without evidence since Faith in a religious context is the worst way to come about the truth of something,

Ill refer to something you said.

"A 3 year old doesn't know any better let alone realise the correlation between not touching the stove because a parent said so, and an unburnt hand being a reward for not doing so"

You being a father. If a 3 yr old child was about to stick a knife into a power socket.

Would you let him learn from his experience or would you tell him not to do so - appeal.to authority?

Bugeyedcreepy said:
what if I wind up following the wrong religion and upsetting the true creator(s) of the universe?

My dear this is why you have ppl like me trying to get you on the right track!

Bugeyedcreepy said:
If there is an Omnipotent and Omnipresent Divine Creator of the universe that wants a relationship with me and needs my tythe, then surely that being would know how to get through to me, right?

It does not mean He isnt trying friend

Do you want Him to get through to u?

Cheers hey

MrAnderson9 · Sep 29, 2017

AV1611VET said:
And that chemical reaction responds according to blueprints.

This seems very basic to us.. believe it or not it's an incredibly deep concept that many people don't have the intellectual capacity to understand. I've learned the best possible way to help others become enlightened is by asking them to picture "nothing"... people that picture a false "nothing" that still has laws and principles typically fail to grasp the depth of thought we are at. Only a person that has the capacity to picture an absolute "nothing" can typically wrap their minds around all the things that have to exist in order for us to exist.

USincognito · Sep 29, 2017

MrAnderson9 said:
No offense but the concept is beyond your intellectual capabilities.

Heh. That's funny. So funny I'm not going to report it for flaming.

sfs · Sep 29, 2017

AV1611VET said:
He may be of the persuasion that Jesus is the Logos; i.e., logic personified (John 1:1).

That doesn't make all statement about Jesus logical.

_-iconoclast-_ · Sep 29, 2017

Jimmy D said:
Is this supposed to be news? I wouldn't particularly take issue with Ionnidis, even though he's probablyoverstating his case somewhat.

Hey my friend jimmy

I would call it a news article

i thought it was noteworthy information and I presented this article to see what you think.

I do not think all science is wrong by the way. Science is the observation of the natural.

Im trying to see your position and see how you react to things.

Jimmy D said:
On the other hand, according to his own "theory" his "theory" is probably wrong anyway. LOL at the irony. Or do you think he's correct because his ideas give you an excuse to say science is wrong.

Ill assume you are reffering to this below statement

"This theory is, exactly like all of the studies that Ioannidis investigates in his paper, a hypothesis based on some data. When there is new data his theory may prove to be robust, or he may too be disappointed and confused when new data shows that his findings were false."

You seem to be overlooking the substance of this article.

"What the data shows is business as usual: that scientists can be biased (not news), and that most scientific theories, in the end, are thrown on the garbage heap." - Dr Sylvia McLain.

What do you think about this above statement?

Jimmy D said:
I can see that you've got no rational argument against these findings apart from the magical creationist canards "supposition" and "science is sometimes wrong".

Please refer to the previous reply.

This remark seeks to demonize and critize those you reject or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.

Jimmy D said:
I'll tell you what, let us know your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, from the oldest fossils to the flora and fauna we see today and I'll weigh it up and see if it offers more explanatory power than the TOE.

I do not have an explanation for the diversity of life on earth - other than it was created, sculptured, sung, spoken and painted into existamce by our Glorious God. Very easy and laxed position. God does not change.

New data is always emerging and theories have to be adjusted. What you hold true today, may not hold true tomorrow or years from now.

It matters to you though. The only things i need to know is who iam and where im going.

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism, how do you account for all this diversity of life given we all share one ancestor?

Jimmy D said:
I can read about scientific findings myself and evaluate whether they make sense. The fact that the findings of so many areas of scientific research concur. The fact that there is no opposition to the idea of common descent within the scientific community.

So your rock is common descent. Interesting

This is a bandwagon argument, the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...sg=AFQjCNHs7ZaHDK3lJwsyAfv2B9vWBb7vLQ&ampcf=1

"He points out “disagreement is a core part of the scientific process” and should not be construed a weakness. Thus, Drury provides today’s idea: “Absolute certainty is confined to mathematical proof, and even there it is a bit dodgy.”

What are you hoping to achieve with this project?

“The ultimate aim is to understand better why there is disagreement in science, how experts can disagree on the same basic observational facts, but more importantly what implications this has for the public understanding of science and the feeding of science into policy."

Jimmy D said:
I don't think people who've spent their lives studying in the many fields that deal with the topic are stupid / dishonest.

"Ioannidis' theory is that most scientific studies are wrong as a result of bias and random error, based on "simulations that show for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true"

Jimmy D said:
The fact that those with a vested interest in challenging the Theory of Evolution (Creationist propaganda groups etc) have been shown to be downright wrong, resort to dishonest arguments, cannot follow the scientific method and can offer no scientic challenge or better explanation.

This remark seeks to demonize and critize those you reject or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.

Jimmy D said:
If you're going to copy and paste from Creationist websites please cite your sources

Ok

Jimmy D said:
Maybe 70 years ago that was correct, I wouldn't know because, like you, I've got no way of fact checking.

G. A. Kerkut seemed interested enough. Why would a evolutionist admit something that could harm their arguement?

Jimmy D said:
The information I posted regarding equidae fossils was accurate and up to date. I notice you dodged my question.

Could i claim uncertainty and ignorance like you did with my giraffe question?

Jimmy D said:
So I repeat....

Maybe you've got a more "logical" hypothesis as to why we see thousand of fossils that represent a gradual change from a little dog-like little creature to the horses we see today?

Common descent. Im suspicious - showing a cautious distrust. Interesting how you show a strong trust in common descent. I have no faith in evolution. You do.

Theories give a best guess at what is going on based on things we observe.

Common descent and the fossil record.

Common descent is a theory whixh trys to explain facts (fossils). This is mans explaination for what they see.

Ill refer you to my previous question before ie diversity and one ancestor.

I know you like your news up to date. This is real fresh

This article has found a new discovery that human ancestors may have existed in Crete at the same time as they evolved in Africa.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...gggMAA&usg=AFQjCNENKQyuPck5iNshQx53G5tDWxAK9A

How do you reconcile your position with this news?

Jimmy D said:
Anyway, have there been any discoveries since the 1950s that do show intermediate fossils between the two species?

Jimmy D said:
You tell me, you're the giraffe expert.

I dont know my dear.

I dont agree evolution is the answer to'how life came to be'. You are the one who likes to be up to date and the horse expert. Is there?

Jimmy D said:
Descent with modification would explain it would it not?

What modification?

Jimmy D said:
It's not supposed to be proof, but it's been observed, and what makes you think that the explanation is based on limited evidence?

hypothesize - supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence.

The men in the article even call it a hypothesis!!!

Jimmy D said:
I wonder if you've read Simpson's book? Why do find him to be a reliable source?

Jimmy D said:
Is that the sound of goal posts being moved? Who mentioned condylarths?

Of course i havent read his book. I do not even know who he is.

This man mentioned condylarths and this intro to wiki seems pretty full on.

George Gaylord Simpson (June 16, 1902 – October 6, 1984) was a US paleontologist. Simpson was perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, and a major participant in the modern synthesis, contributing Tempo and mode in evolution(1944)

Jimmy D said:
Do you know what else he wrote in the very same book?

Im in a state of suspense just waiting to know

Jimmy D said:
Little gems like “The story of the horse family provides one of the best means for studying the how and why of evolution."

You told me!!! Now i feel so much better.

(Trying to listen for goal posts being moved)

"the story of horse family"

"founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths"

Some condylarths evolved to fill the niche, while others remained insectivorous. This may explain, in part, the tremendous evolutionary radiation of the condylarths that we can observe throughout the Paleocene, resulting in the different groups of ungulates (or "hoofed mammals") that form the dominant herbivores in mostCenozoic animal communities on land, except on the island continent of Australia.

Among recent mammals, Paenungulata(hyraxes, elephants, and sea cows),Perissodactyla (horses, rhinoceroses, andtapirs), Artiodactyla (pigs, deer, antelope,cows, camels, hippos, and their relatives),Cetacea (whales), and Tubulidentata(aardvarks) are traditionally regarded as members of the Ungulata.[1][7]

It shows a link begween Condylarths and horses. (Is that goal posts moving or a ball going through)

Jimmy D said:
Maybe you can read about the research and point out the flaws in their methodolgies, I'm sure they'd be very grateful....

https://www.researchgate.net/public...olutionary_change_in_a_migratory_bird_species

To be honest i have no intention of doing that

Ive said what i wanted to say and now the ball is back to you friend.

Jimmy D said:
Selective pressure is any phenomena which alters the behavior and fitness of living organisms within a given environment. It is the driving force of evolution and natural selection, and it can be divided into two types of pressure: biotic or abiotic.

So selective pressure guided the evolution of the giraffe and solved the problem of blood.pressure in the spine, when lowering and raisong the giraffe neck?

This problem had a solution my dear!

Cheers hey

Lool forward to your reply

_-iconoclast-_ · Sep 29, 2017

USincognito said:
I think popular press news articles are not the best source for that sort of information.

Hey cog

Yeah. Who needs the news? I for one would like to get my information from infomercials.

USincognito said:
Really? 1960? 1951?

Dont be so surprised. Your eyes do not deceive you my dear

Higgs paper 1964.

1964 no good either?

AV1611VET · Sep 29, 2017

sfs said:
That doesn't make all statement about Jesus logical.

That's true.

But you did challenge him to support his beliefs with logic, did you not?

And this passage:

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

... would be referring to Jesus the Logos.

The Brown Brink · Sep 29, 2017

Camila Smith said:
iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

Remember the children's books that had transparent overlays in them...where you can lay one page of information over another page and blend the two, to create one page of information...?

You can do that with Christianity and evolution.

If you lay Christianity on top of evolution, you can see the world.

Although...you better have a strong spine...

Jesus ain't whistling Dixie.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Member

Senior Member

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

I live by faith in the Son of God.

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion

a post by Alan Smithee

Senior Member

I live by faith in the Son of God.

I live by faith in the Son of God.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads