• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Creationism will only destroy science

Status
Not open for further replies.

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Shane Roach said:
So, what's the problem then with the scientific community acknowledging that the speed of acceleration near the earth's surface or that metal will heat and glow if you run electrical current through a thin filament of it is more reliable knowledge than the ultimate origins of life the universe, and everything I always am left wondering...?

Some knowledge is harder to study than others. Nothing wrong with that. There are easy to study parts of evolution (measuring gene frequency change rate in current populations) and harder parts of evolution (discovering the origin of wheat plants) just like there is easy parts to study of gravity (measuring acceleration of a ball) to hard parts of study of gravity (including relativity so that our GPS satellites work correctly).
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
random_guy said:
I think the problem is that atheists and some Creationists, while enemies, are actually helping each other's causes. Militant atheists that say science disproves God and the Bible and Creationists that say science proves God and the Bible allows science, God, and the Bible to conflict. This makes is so that science can be used to attack God and the Bible. However, science does not say whether the supernatural does or does not exist. It makes no claims about the supernatural what so ever.

Science is nothing more than a tool to study our natural world. I think if more atheists and Creationists realize this, there would be more people accepting of science (and hopefully religion). Science doesn't exclude God from setting everything in motion, nor does it exclude Him from giving us souls. It can not exclude or include Him because that's not the role of science.

More to the point, science does not exclude God from having made the world 8000 years ago and leaving it looking the way it does to mess with your head and fulfill the scripture:

1 Cor 1:27-29
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
KJV


I don't have a problem with the IDEA that there might be no God, and that there are these alternative explanations, but God is God no matter what, and active interference with the world through history would qualify in my book as something that science would not be able to detect or allow for.

My belief in God is based every bit as much on observation and experience as anything else in my life. I trust God, and because I have studied and experimented with it so much, I have also grown to trust the Bible to an exetent that often leaves people referring to me as a fundmanetalist. I then run to the fundamentalists and am told I do not quite qualify, but that is neither here nor there.

I do not pretend to know for sure exactly how the world began, or life was set on it, but I do know that those who are Christians need to pay close attention to the interaction between the Genesis creation story and the concept of sin, because if you play too fast and loose with Genesis, the entire concept of salvation can be lost in translation.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Melethiel said:
That has not been my observation. However, I have not seen the distinction that you are trying to make either. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your distinction, but you refused to clarify...
[/size][/color][/font]

I feel the same way. I think the wheat example was an excellent example of the scientific method applied to evolution. I guess his problem is with historical sciences, you have to have assumptions (based off of evidence). Also, I just want to say I commend you for having an interest in science at such a young age. I wish there were more people like you in America. We wouldn't be having this debate, then.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
random_guy said:
Some knowledge is harder to study than others. Nothing wrong with that. There are easy to study parts of evolution (measuring gene frequency change rate in current populations) and harder parts of evolution (discovering the origin of wheat plants) just like there is easy parts to study of gravity (measuring acceleration of a ball) to hard parts of study of gravity (including relativity so that our GPS satellites work correctly).

Yes, well you've fallen back on things that are all experimentally verifiable again, have you not?

Sad... Oh well. I am satisfied that the actual problem is indeed one of a refusal to acknowledge basic points of epistemology, as no one yet has been able or willing to deal with the question I asked head on.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
random_guy said:
I feel the same way. I think the wheat example was an excellent example of the scientific method applied to evolution. I guess his problem is with historical sciences, you have to have assumptions (based off of evidence). Also, I just want to say I commend you for having an interest in science at such a young age. I wish there were more people like you in America. We wouldn't be having this debate, then.

Oh well, gee. I guess all my calculus and two semesters of lab physics leaves me out of the cool kids club then. *snaps fingers*
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Shane Roach said:
Yes, well you've fallen back on things that are all experimentally verifiable again, have you not?

Sad... Oh well. I am satisfied that the actual problem is indeed one of a refusal to acknowledge basic points of epistemology, as no one yet has been able or willing to deal with the question I asked head on.

I didn't say all things are experimentally verifiable anywhere in that quote, did I? I just said some things are harder to study than others. I've already said that the wheat origins had assumptions based off of evidence, but it may be wrong. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
 
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,287
940
35
Ohio
✟99,593.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Shane Roach said:
Oh well, gee. I guess all my calculus and two semesters of lab physics leaves me out of the cool kids club then. *snaps fingers*
Calculus isn't science, it's Friday morning boredom. :p At least it was when I took it...
 
Upvote 0

wtopneuma

Active Member
Jun 27, 2006
229
11
✟15,405.00
Faith
Baptist
Liberalscience said:
Charles Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution in 1859. In his theory Darwin noted that there were biological variations among individuals of a species. At the time Darwin didn’t know what caused these variations, since that time we have learned that that such variations were caused by mutations, or physical changes in a gene or chromosome. Darwin noted that within a situation which presented limited resources and a continued growth of a species’ populous, there would emerge competition for resources, and in this competition, members of the species with useful mutations would be more likely to survive and reproduce than those without.



This may seem like common sense to us now, it’s fairly obvious that, lets say, a cheetah which is faster then all the other cheetahs will be more likely to catch its pray, and by catching this pray, it will further its life span and be more likely to reproduce and pass on its genes.



The mutations that cause this variation can be split up into 3 groups; useful, neutral and harmful. Most mutations are neutral, with useful and harmful mutations often being dictated by there surroundings.



This is simple stuff.



Darwin’s theory of evolution caused a major stir when it introduced in England in 1859. Opponents of the theory included many religious groups. At the time, a large number of people throughout the English-speaking world believed that the word of noted church theologian Bishop Ussher, who had determined through rigorous study of the bible that the exact date of the creation of the Earth was October 22, 4004 B.C. By Usshers calculations our world was approximately 6,000 years old. Needless to say Darwin’s theory was in direct conflict with the bishops date, as his evolution could only take place on grand scales of millions of years. The inevitable happened and within a short period a war of the words began between those who believed Darwin, and those that didn’t.



Lets take America as a model, mostly because the evolution/creationism debate has received the most press there. Up to the 1960’s the creationism belief was the most predominant one, with practically no biology textbooks even mentioning evolution. The best example of this predominant belief structure being the famous Scopes trial, where a teacher was prosecuted for teaching evolution in the classroom. However, the space race changed all this, in the early 1960’s the American government believed that the Soviets were beating America in the space race because of better schooling in science and technology. A long, hard look was taken at textbooks, and biology instruction was changed to firmly embrace evolution.



As the government continued to bar religion in classrooms Evangelical Christians switched tactics. For years they had objected to teaching evolution because they considered it a scientific religion, a part of secular humanism that stood directly opposed to organised faith. Instead of attacking science, the fundamentalists became part of it. A number of theologians and scientists started promoting a concept they called creation science, in which they challenged the basic principles of evolution as being unproven and improvable. The “creation scientists” offered their own version of how life began on earth using the old testament as their only source book. In the debates that followed, Fundamentalists argued that the evidence that they presented proved that evolution was false. They asked that teachers only be able to present Darwin’s theory of evolution only if it was clearly labelled a ‘theory’, and nothing more. More importantly they demanded that if evolution was to be taught in schools, their viewpoint, creationism should be taught as well.



Despite the fact that creationism was largely ridiculed and rejected throughout most of the western world, American began to adopt it again, and it was embraced by a large section of the American Population.



The American battle between creationism and evolution came to a boil in the late 1990’s when the state school board of Kansas rewrote the science education policy. Students would no longer be tested on their knowledge of evolution, and as subjects that weren’t tested weren’t taught, Evolution dropped out of sight in Kansas. As you can imagine this led to a storm of protest across the country, people throughout the state complained that Kansas had become the laughing stock of the country. As Kansas received flak from collage professors to late-night comedians, the Evangelical Christians, who had pushed for the change, accused everyone of attacking their beliefs. Creationists claimed that liberal politicians and big media players were out to quash viewpoints different from their own. Viewpoints, that creationists claimed were obviously true to anyone with common sense.



Thankfully the voting public made their view known, Kansas had its evolution bad rescinded. However none of the old arguments were settled and neither side backed down.



Everything stands or falls with Darwin’s theory. If god created everything at one time and god created everything in his own image man is already perfect as god intended. Mutations in humans would demonstrate that man wasn’t perfect when he was created. Moreover, the notion of humanity evolving upward into an even greater species suggests that one species can evolve into another, a claim that creationists say is absolutely impossible.



The main thrust of creationism is an attack on the theory of evolution. If the theory is not true, the creationists declare, then any conclusions drawn from it are equally tainted. Proving evolution not true would be a cataclysmic event in the history of modern science and technology. Much of our understanding of the physical and biological world relies on concepts derived from the theory of evolution. Creationists argue that because it would cause so much disruption, scientists are willing to go to any lengths to falsify data to prove evolution.



Unfortunately for the creationists, though they have found evidence of fake fossils and other deceitful activities by a small number of people aiming to make fast cash, they’ve yet to find a single hard fact that proves Darwin wrong. Despite all of their trying, the protestors are forced to use hyperbole, oftentimes inaccurate and misleading information, and arguments based on “obvious” material to make their case. Creationist rely too much on ‘facts’ they claim are obvious – but cant be proved.



Theory is a word that generates much debate when brought up with evolution. Other theories, like the theory of general relativity, the laws governing electricity and the 3 laws of thermodynamics have been proven so many times that no one doubts them. Evolution is a theory that has been proven time and time again. A vast majority of the worlds scientists believe it is true, as do most religious leaders and theologians. In 1996, the pope released a formal statement to the “Pontifical Academy of Science” stating that “Fresh knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more then just a hypothesis”.



Any other theory with such overwhelming support would be considered true in an instant. Only the theory of evolution, which according to fundamentalists contradicts the unalterable truth of the Bible, has faced so many challenged for 140 years.



“Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of out fastest-growing controversial minorities”, proclaim numerous internet sites. Not mentioned anywhere on these sites is the Gallup pole that shows that 95% of scientists in the U.S. believe that evolution is fact. Surveys taken from scientific groups around the world place the number of scientists believing in evolution at 99%.



Creation scientists not only believe that god created the world in 4004 B.C, but, by implication, that he created the entire universe at the same instant, locating distant galaxies millions of light years away from earth so that they would correspond with modern relative theory and astronomy. Millions of years of fossil remains are described as residue from one big flood taking place only several thousands of years ago, while carbon dating is dismissed as totally false and inaccurate. In other words, the accept only the data that fit their conclusions and dismiss any information that contradicts their belief.



In the 140 years since the theory of evolution was proposed, no real challenge to its validity has been proven. The theory of evolution fits with every other scientific discovery we’ve made about the universe. Consider this evidence.



Darwin predicted that the ancestors of trilobites would be found in pre-Silurian age rocks. His predictions turned out to be true, as they were later found.



In 1859, Darwin said the total lack of Precambrian age fossils was unexplainable and that the lack could be a strong argument against his theory. However, such fossils were discovered in 1953. They had been around all along, just too small to be seen by microscope.



Evolutions predicted that animals on far islands will be related to animals on the closest mainland; that the older and more the distant the island, the more distant the relationship. This has been shown numerous times to be true.



And finally I shall finish on the biggest nail in the coffin. When detailed results of the Human Genome Project were announced at the 2001 meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, data tied human organisms to earlier forms of life, going back as far as primitive bacteria.

These fundamental lies of creationism will only serve to destroy the scientific community. Feel free to argue, please fight back at PM me for contact info.
I suggest you check in Darwin's origin of the species. You will find that Darwin himself put a condition on his theory. Darwin and other scientist only knew that the cell contained a nucleus, which was a foggy view at best. darwin basically says that if the cell is complex in structure, then my theory cannot be right. Science has discovered that the cell is very complex and that evolution is not possible under those conditions. The only science which will be discredited is from bad science which tries to prove their theories right instead of letting science determine what theories are right.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Science has discovered that the cell is very complex

complex-yes
irreducible to simpler components-no.
that is the big point.

Behe contends that the complexity of living organisms is irreductible, yet every example in his book has been shown to be not only reducible to much simpler components but that each of this components has clear antecedents in other existing systems within those same organisms.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟24,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Shane Roach said:
Seriously... who doesn't view science as science?
Well, you seem not to. You somehow want science generated through the application of the Scientific Method to not be like science generated through the application of the Scientific Method.:scratch:

It is not that we are not answering you, it is that your question simply doesn't make sense in the real world.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟24,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Shane Roach said:
The problem I have with this is that somewhere between assuming this is the way it happened, and assuming that aliens did it, there are a load of possibilities, many of which might be more plausible but which would not be known yet because of a lack of information.

This particular example doesn't lend itself well to my point, but the point remains...
Well, it looks like you are talking about Abiogenesis instead of Evolution. That could be one reason why your claim simply doesn't make sense to anybody else. But that would also indicate that you don't even know what evolution is, before trying to claim it is not valid science. A very dubious position.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
steen said:
Well, it looks like you are talking about Abiogenesis instead of Evolution. That could be one reason why your claim simply doesn't make sense to anybody else. But that would also indicate that you don't even know what evolution is, before trying to claim it is not valid science. A very dubious position.

I haven't claimed evolution is not science, and I am not talking about abiogenesis, and you appear not to like to read.

And believe me, it is amazing how quickly people suddenly understand me when they are not dedicated to trying to uphold the idea that evolution is as relaible a set of ideas as the concepts behind the light bulb. It is AMAZING to watch how easily people understand things when they are not trying to defend the indefensible.
 
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
476
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟86,155.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Shane Roach said:
More to the point, science does not exclude God from having made the world 8000 years ago and leaving it looking the way it does to mess with your head and fulfill the scripture:

1 Cor 1:27-29
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
KJV
This passage (in context) is about the Cross, not scientific endeavour. I'm always astounded as I come across more and more misuse of scripture by Creationists.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟24,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Shane Roach said:
Yes, I know that they do. I also know that the reason they do is because they watch many supporters of evolution pile assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption, and then pass off the end result as if it were exactly as reliable as the technology behind the light bulb, and that simply happens to not be true.
Ah, do they now, are are they just so incredibly ignorant about the subject that they THINK they are seeing that?

People want to educate their kids about God and other views of life that frankly have nothing to do with science,
Ok, and they are free to do so outside of science class, of course. Nothing stops them from doing so themselves or sending the kids to Sunday school or a private school where this is taught.

and they see a godless view of life being taught in schools,
Their silly and erroneous view is not our problem.

and they want nothing more than an honorable mention of an alternative view, which incidentally would be a teachable moment regarding what science can and can not deal with,
Ah, so we should have the honorable mentioning of "but perhaps goddidit when teaching gravity. And acceleration. And potential and kinetic energy. That sound like a grand plan, doesn't it?

You obviously have no clue AT ALL about what science is, when you want "honorable mentioning" for "alternative view." Science class is about evidence. If you want something taught there, provide the scientific evidence for it first.

No? Then go play with that in Sunday school instead and leave science in the science class.


and instead we are faced with a tiny minority that have somehow gotten it legislated from the bench that such a conversation is somehow unconstitutional.
Well, it wouldn't be science. To discuss it is science class as if it somehow is valid in the scientific context would be to lie to the kids. Are you now saying that we also should lie to kids? Are you really that uneducated about science?

Well.... if you understood the concept behind the relative reliability of ideas,
That is what the Scientific Method takes care off. Do you at all have a clue about that subject?

and you understood that people are spiritual creatures, and thus they do not see a worldview that claims that there is no spirit nor any possibility of spiritual intervention in history as RELIABLE,
And what worldview would that be? I hope you are not going to outright lie and claim that science does that, are you?

then you would begin to more fully understand your enemy, so to speak, and at least be able to talk TO them instead of at them.
Huh? In science class, science is taught. I have no "enemy" in creationism. They want to have their beliefs, that's fine. As long as they don't mess science up.

You are slightly too rational to truly make my point,
Ah, so without emotional histrionics, we have no creationism?

but I will simply refer back to the fellow who calls himself the "lie detector" for my example of a person who creates more problems than he solves with his brand of "education".
:wave:

I am not educating. I am confronting and challenging creationists false claims. If creationists would cease their false claims about science, then there would be no problem.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟24,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Shane Roach said:
I haven't claimed evolution is not science, and I am not talking about abiogenesis, and you appear not to like to read.
So what was that stupid stuff about origin that you were talking about earlier?

Do you even KNOW what Evolution is?
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Shane Roach said:
I haven't claimed evolution is not science, and I am not talking about abiogenesis, and you appear not to like to read.

And believe me, it is amazing how quickly people suddenly understand me when they are not dedicated to trying to uphold the idea that evolution is as relaible a set of ideas as the concepts behind the light bulb. It is AMAZING to watch how easily people understand things when they are not trying to defend the indefensible.

Maybe you just have an easy answer....

It's simple to grasp that "God did it" and leave it at that. In all honesty I was taught that as a youngster and still believe it today. Except I believe he did it a different way than just poof and WE ARE HERE.

So as a kid, I got to understand ...YAY!!!!! That God did it and don't worry about the rest. Well, those that have fun figuring stuff out and putting the numbers together ruined it for me. They showed me how God really did it. They called it Evolution and backed it up with a mountain of evidence YECs dance around thinking we don't, or can't notice.

I accepted the POOF! bit at about the age of 5, it was fun. :)

Go try and teach Evolution to a 5 year old, it ain't gonna happen. It takes some brains and patience. Then you see how beautifully easy it is. :)

God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

theoddamerican

Active Member
Jul 23, 2006
180
2
In a box that is under a rock, swallowed by a fish
✟15,315.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
No, you are wrong. How can you be so ignorant of evolution and yet claim that it is wrong? The staggering level of dishonesty needed for such behavior as you are showing is disturbing. The deliberate bearing false witness that you are displaying is disgusting.
the funny thing is, is I used the definition from the dictionary. So maby you should take it up with wikpedia
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,554
308
51
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟29,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Shane Roach said:
Yes, I know that they do. I also know that the reason they do is because they watch many supporters of evolution pile assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption, and then pass off the end result as if it were exactly as reliable as the technology behind the light bulb, and that simply happens to not be true.

The TofE is far more credable than a literal Genesis.

Tell me this, why would God create the earth to look a different age and contain opposite evidance of how He created it?

People want to educate their kids about God

I for one do. That is why we talk about Him at home and why we attend church. If I wanted them to learn about Him from school (and I don't) they would be in a private school of my choosing.

Tell me this, would you like your children to be learning Deism, Toaism, Islam, Hindu, or Budhist at school? How would you like a Mormon or JW teacher to give their own faiths an honorable mention to your child? A Wiccan?

This is why I fully 100% support seperation of church and state.

and other views of life that frankly have nothing to do with science,

This is what philosephy and literature classes are there to teach. They do bring up non-biased spiritual concepts. (and all the other subjects that aren't science related teach children on non scientific topics ;) )

and they see a godless view of life being taught in schools,

My children have been taught of many cultural and religious practices from around the world in regular public school. It was all presented in an appropriate and neutral manner.

Evolution only has to come accross as "godless" or "atheist" if that's how it is presented. Science does not comment on god or religion. That's not its function.

and they want nothing more than an honorable mention of an alternative view, which incidentally would be a teachable moment regarding what science can and can not deal with,

So, how many alternative views would you like to see presented? How many religious origin stories exist in the world? How many of them are more appropriate to classes other than science?

and instead we are faced with a tiny minority that have somehow gotten it legislated from the bench that such a conversation is somehow unconstitutional.

My children attended school in a district that is entirely ran by Mormons for many years. If these laws were not in effect, my kids could have come home asking me why I don't agree that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.

Well.... if you understood the concept behind the relative reliability of ideas, and you understood that people are spiritual creatures, and thus they do not see a worldview that claims that there is no spirit nor any possibility of spiritual intervention in history as RELIABLE,

Everything has a time and a place. Science class is not the time or the place for an origins debate. Evolution does not even teach origins.

then you would begin to more fully understand your enemy, so to speak, and at least be able to talk TO them instead of at them.

What enemy? Are you speaking of people or demons? Because I don't speak to demons or Satan and they are my enemy. People who are lost I am called to love by the One who died for them, Jesus Christ.

but I will simply refer back to the fellow who calls himself the "lie detector" for my example of a person who creates more problems than he solves with his brand of "education".

Perhaps Steen can certainly be direct at times, but look how his profession has been insulted? Comparing the TofE with whether the moon is made of cheese?

Your "brand" of "education" would convince me to leave the country if it were voted into legislature, since it would be a total abandonment of the constitution of the United States of America.
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,554
308
51
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟29,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
theoddamerican said:
Evolution is truly a silly story and supported only on lies.

It is very difficult to have patience with you.

Evolution is not a story, and the scientific body of evidence that supports it is a lot more honest that so called "creation science."

It is very difficult to read your posts. I'd highly recommend you look into figuring out how you might insert some spaces into them, not to mention maybe running the dialouge through a spell check.

Frankly, considering your grasp of grammar, it is not surprising that you have no grasp of science. Your total inability to consider theology that does not match yours also shows a severe lack of willingness to even attempt to participate in these discussions.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
nicolezoeydafney said:
spell check please!!!!

He has been asked several times to use the space bar, paragraph etc.

We have been informed that he is not able to do so.

I for one have better things to do then parse such a difficult to read posting. either ignore it or cut and paste into a text editor and correct it yourself so that it is marginally readable. He appears either unable or unwilling to do so himself.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.