• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Where is your evidence creationists?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by revo74, Dec 8, 2011.

  1. Huram Abi

    Huram Abi Guest

    +0

    Really? Name just one.
     
  2. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +647
    Agnostic
    Single
    She (not he) copied a quote mine. I would like to know if she has learned not to do so again.
     
  3. RickG

    RickG Senior Veteran Supporter

    +1,392
    Presbyterian
    Married
    I've called her hand on quote mines several times. All she does is ignore or deny it, and then changes the subject with another Gish Galloping wall of text.

    It is a dishonest tactic and something that should not be allowed in the forums, especially Christian forums.
     
  4. mdancin4theLord

    mdancin4theLord Well-Known Member

    923
    +31
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican

    Why cab...I am leading by example.....my methods are evolving. :clap:

    What is the first cause?

    And I also was wondering if the entire solar system and everything just all of a sudden came into being...BANG.....how did it happen that our earth got all the animal life and human life? No evolution on other planets? No ancestral organisms in outer space...just earth? Billions of stars and darkness out there and our planet so far is the only inhabited one? Wow that bang was organized. I want to know exactly how this happened and you scientists can I am sure provide the answers.

    What was that exact mechanism of evolution?

    Is evolution observable so that we can immediately see it?

    Can we return billions of years in the past to observe anything?

    I think what they say about evolution is true...there is no missing link....because they are MISSING.
     
  5. mdancin4theLord

    mdancin4theLord Well-Known Member

    923
    +31
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican

    Rick....what is your problem really. Come on....

    There is nothing against the rules about posting quotes. There is no way that I can post entire books on here....that go with the quotes. I have not posted false quotes. I am trying to present a case, whether you like it or not. You might not like the text I am posting but then you have two options. One....answer them the best you can. Or two, ignore my posts. Is that a hard choice for you?

    You talk about allowing things in Christian Forums.....if anything should be banned or not allowed it should be athiests and agnostics who come in just to mock and demean Christians for fun....for entertainment. Look how many people are discussing this topic. How many Christians, how many athiests?

    So don't talk to me about what should not be allowed here ON THIS CHRISTIAN FORUM.
     
  6. mdancin4theLord

    mdancin4theLord Well-Known Member

    923
    +31
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    I agree. I don't understand...in their minds how they can believe that out of a bang......everything started evolving....and only on earth, no where else? Why no life on other planets? And the thing that really stumps me is that mankind seems to have a universal morality. This evolved? While the egg, the eye and all other complexed systems were perfectly forming...so was our consciences? Wow. All our of nothing.....from nothing.

    And they say God is a far fetched idea...and creationism.
     
  7. mdancin4theLord

    mdancin4theLord Well-Known Member

    923
    +31
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican

    Not really....not so fast. The first cause would come before evolution wouldnt it? Why is it wrong to address the first cause which would have had a direct effect on evolution. Something had to created the energy or set up evolution. Or do you believe that something comes from nothing. Cause boy I have never witnessed that. I sit in my back yard during the monsoon season and can see the dust come up over the trees. It all of a sudden appears. But I know something caused it. It just does not appear in front of my very eyes. There is energy and factors that go into causing a monsoon. So that would have to be the case with evolution wouldnt it? What was the mechanism that caused it?

    This is about worldviews. One that rejects God...and one that believes in God.

    I am just asking what that first cause was.....and thus far no scientist here can address it. Why?




    Getting testy eh? I gave an explanation. And hey I am NOT A SCIENTIST. BUT WHO HERE HAS QUALIFICATIONS OR HAS BEEN PUBLISHED? I ask a simple darn question about the first cause.......and look......hostility from the reject God side. Why?


    And its not out to lunch to think that something came from nothing...that all this happened from an explosion and that no one here knows what the first cause was...come on.....no life anywhere else in the solar system......only on earth.

    Yea....go get your lunch
     
  8. USincognito

    USincognito Milk-Bones for Cerberus is a cool album name Supporter

    +13,571
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    What disconnect from reality must one suffer to effuse such smug arrogance inspite of being shown repeatedly that one is little more than a joke?

    From the closed "what proof" thread:

    Post 916
    Paranthropus as ancestors of gorilla, have been reached by at least two other biologists, independently: the author of the "Paranthropus aethiopicus" page of the "Online Biology Dictionary" and Richard Dawkins in his book "The Ancestor's Tale". According to this theory, chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Paranthropus robustus P. boisei or P. aethiopicus. These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us. In short, the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas are A. afarensis and Paranthropus, respectively.

    Post 918
    Mainstream views on Australopithecines evolution can be found in the "human evolution" page, but similar conclusions, suggesting Paranthropus as ancestors of gorilla, have been reached by at least two other biologists, independently: the author of the "Paranthropus aethiopicus" page of the "Online Biology Dictionary" and Richard Dawkins in his book "The Ancestor's Tale". According to this theory, chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Paranthropus robustus P. boisei or P. aethiopicus. These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us. In short, the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas are A. afarensis and Paranthropus, respectively.

    Post 920
    Richard Dawkins in his book "The Ancestor's Tale". According to this theory, chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Paranthropus robustus P. boisei or P. aethiopicus. These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us. In short, the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas are A. afarensis and Paranthropus, respectively.
    ----------------------------
    For anyone interested in following Astrid'd train wreck, here's the Wiki article she's repeatedly referencing.
    Homininae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Note that there's no references for the section she repeatedly posts to support her contention.

    In post 930 I explain that to her, along with noting the fact that I'm familiar with The Ancestor's Tale while she clearly is not.


    "The article does not say Australopithecines are chimps or the ancestors of chimps. The article is saying that two strains of hominids - gracile and robust evolved into the various species we find today and in the fossil record. The existance of robust hominids has been known for 50+ years and the question has been - were the robust species a separate lineage or did they evolve independantly from gracile species. The entry writes - without citation I'll note - that:

    ...conclusions, suggesting Paranthropus as ancestors of gorilla, have been reached by at least two other biologists, independently

    Paranthropus is an ancestor of modern gorillas. Of course there's no citation so this could be someone making stuff up. Now, if we look at the entry for Paranthropus itself, there is a citation for page 86 of The Ancestor's Tale.

    ""as usual their affinities, and the exact number of species, are hotly disputed. Names that have been attached to various of these creatures...are Australopithecus (or Paranthropus) robustus, Australopithecus (or Paranthropus or Zinjanthropus) boisei, and Australopithecus (or Paranthropus) aethiopicus."

    And if you go to the text itself, you find exactly the same thing, just a listing of robust Australopithecines paired with the Paranthropus genus name. There's no indication that they evolved into gorillas. Even worse for the Wiki entry and your bogus claim, page 86 is in the Rendezvous 0 section of the book that exclusively covers hominina, which are non-Chimpanzee homininis. Chimpanzees are included in Rendezvous 1, gorillas in Rendezvous 2.

    Anyone familiar with the book would realize that someone claiming Dawkins considers robust Australopithecines are the ancestors of gorillas or that gracile Australopithecines (guess what sport, Lucy is in the Rendezvous 0 section under the Ape Men chapter - Whoooops!) are the ancestors of chimpanzees not only is unfamiliar with him or the book, but doesn't know what the heck they're talking about."

    Now, keep this particular focus on The Ancstor's Tale in mind as I continue in subsequent posts.
     
  9. USincognito

    USincognito Milk-Bones for Cerberus is a cool album name Supporter

    +13,571
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    So Astrid's response begins...

    "It is unfortunate for you that the forum members can actually read

    These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us. In short, the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas are A. afarensis and Paranthropus, respectively.

    {link to the same Wiki article I'd just shown doesn't evidence her claim repeated 4 times now}

    Respectively means in order in case you do not know..ie chimps aka A.afarensis, gorillas aka Paranthropus

    There is no point replying to the rest of your post because you obviously have a challenge with comprehension and reading and wishing to deceive the forum."

    The irony of her Dunning-Krugerness get's all the better after this.

    I call her out in giant fuscia text in the original.


    "Now, as far as you making the same !$&%!! mistake you made the first time your reading comprehension failed you. And I'm going to put this in big bold font THERE IS NOT ONE CITATION FOR THAT SECTION OF THE ARTICLE. There is nothing. It's clearly some vandals opinion that hasn't been eliminated yet. And I just showed you very comprehensively how the section is LYING ABOUT WHAT DAWKINS CLAIMS IN THE ANCESTOR'S TALE.

    Don't believe me? Do a Google search for "Dawkins+Paranthropus". Take the Google books result. Then do a search through the text to see if he makes the claim that section of the article is lying about and you are repeating. Go ahead. Find where Dawkins makes the claim you have asserted 4 times now he makes in The Ancestor's Tale.

    If it's true you can ACTUALLY CITE THE BOOK AND NOT AN UNSOURCED SECTION OF A WIKIPEDIA ENTRY."

    I even try to do her homework for her.
    I'll even do the work for you so it's that much easier for you to enjoy your crow. Here's two screen caps of the only pages where Paranthropus is mentioned in The Ancestor's Tale. Show me where, it says anything about Paranthropus being a gorilla ancestor - as per the Wiki article section you posted.

    And if you want to try and avoid that topic by talking about Lucy/A. afarensis, the third screen cap is Dawkins' opinion on that species. Note where he says "...she is often mentioned because her species, Australopithecus afarensis, is a hot contender for a human ancestor." No where in that entire page does he say anything about A. afarensis being a chimpanzee ancestor, and as I noted already:

    And just to put a cherry on the fact that I know what I'm talking about, here's me - with Dawkins - [/u]holding my copy of The Ancestor's Tale[/u].
    [​IMG]
    And here's the three screen caps from Google books.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    So what was Astrid's response to this evidenc that I not only knew the content of The Ancestor's Tale (and that the Wiki entry was wrong) but had a picture, not only of myself with the book, but with the author of said book himself?

    See next post.
     
  10. USincognito

    USincognito Milk-Bones for Cerberus is a cool album name Supporter

    +13,571
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    I mean you see some crazy stuff on CF, but when someone shots a picture of themselves with a copy of a book standing next to an author and has accurately described the content of said book and noted why it makes the thrice posted Wikipedia entry out to be false, one might expect a concession.

    Well, when dealing with Creationists, never expect the expected.

    Post 936
    GO BUY THE BOOK

    And quoting the Wiki entry for the 4th time
    The mainstream view among paleontologists can be found in this page and in the main "human evolution" page, but similar conclusions were reached by at least two other biologists, independently: the author of the “Paranthropus aethiopicus” page of the Online Biology Dictionary and Richard Dawkins in his book The Ancestor's Tale "According to this theory, chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus Gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Australopithecus Robustus (Parnthropus) type species. These apes were once bipedal but then lost this ability when they were forced back into the semi-forest, presumably by those Australopithecines who eventually became us"; In short, ancestors of chimpanzees are Australopithecus afarensis and ancestors of gorillas are Paranthropus (see tree on Homininae).
    Australopithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In post 937 she continues:
    Wiki is not a creationist site. It is a good site to find a bunch of research to do with the topic. Afarensis is seen as a chimp ancestor and this is outlined in the book quoted......An Ancestors Tale. No Wiki do not give free copies of the book. You will have to buy one for yourself. An abstract does not deal with the entire book. You have to buy it. Even I know that.

    Here is a published paper on Afarenssis not being a human ancestor to back up Dawkins one of your leadling researchers.

    Of course the Wiki entry is bogus, as I demonstrated, and Dawkins does not claim that, as I demonstrated, but Astrid continues, unfettered by reality.

    In post 939 OllieFranz notes:
    Not only did he buy the book, he showed you a picture of himself holding the book and standing next to Dawkins, himself.

    Plus, he posted the actual pages of the book that mentioned A. Aferensis to show that your claim about what Dawkins wrote is wrong.

    So how does Astrid respond?[color]
    I'll go get the book from a library and read it for myself. A snapshot of a page or so means nothing..........USingognito will then have to suck eggs. If he is being deceiptful now would be the time to admit to it.....[/quote]

    So I call her out on The Ancestor's Tale. Her response?
    Post 949:
    USincognito you offer yourself as someone important. I have my doubts about that.

    You ignore facts, because unless I have missed it, you have not responded to other research I offered that is just a good as anything Dawkins has to say anyway.

    Further more I will get the book and if you are mistaken you will most certainly hear about it. Indeed it appears Wiki have quite alot of information about this book. If they have misrepresented I will certainly let them know. Better still, why don't you?

    The Ancestor's Tale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Wow, just wow. What a joke.
     
  11. RickG

    RickG Senior Veteran Supporter

    +1,392
    Presbyterian
    Married
    Sorry for the misunderstanding, I did not mean you, I meant Astridhere, and I am speaking about misrepresenting published science in legitimate peer review journals. Deliberately taking quotes out of context and representing them to mean something the author did not intend. That is dishonest. As for ignoring anyone's posts, I will not ignore any deliberate misrepresentation from either side of the issue regardless of anyone's intentions; and when I see it I will expose and condemn it.
     
  12. USincognito

    USincognito Milk-Bones for Cerberus is a cool album name Supporter

    +13,571
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Ah, so when backed into a corner a typical "handy dandy evolution refuter" Creationist tries to change the subject. Plus you ignored the answer I provided for you in the very post you quoted.

    So God is the first cause. Now what? What aruments do you have against the Big Bang, deep time and evolution that withstand scrutiny?

    Alright dancer. God was the first cause of the universe 13 billion years ago setting things in motion that led to neucleosynthesis and the earliest stars. Some of them went supernova creating heavy elements and spreading them amongst the cosmos. Some of the primordial hydrogen and heavier elements coalesced into a disk about 5 billion years ago leading to the birth of the sun and eventually the earth. About 3.5 billion years ago the first life appeared on earth and it has been evolving ever since.

    Now what? You want to discuss the evolution that has occured over the last 3.5 billion years or do you want to appeal to the God of the Gaps and stick with abiogenesis and the Big Bang. If the latter, you're not arguing against science, evolution, "Darwinism" or anything else. You're merely arguing against atheism and need to stick to philiosophy and metaphysics rather than jump into the scientific debate.

    First off, I didn't tell you what you can or cannot do and second, I will always tells you what you can or cannot do if I so choose. CF is still a free speech zone in that regard.

    What? :confused: I addressed every one of your points that actually concerned evolution and debunked them one by one. Though, to be honest, since you were just parrotting stuff you'd read and cut and pasted from Creationist sources, technically I wasn't "addressing you". And listen, this is from a long time member here - please don't try and play the expert card. There are a number of scientists - some working scientists - who post here and not one of them is a Creationist. The majority seem to be TEs (and that makes me happy).

    Apparently, that I have a better grasp on the Crevo debate and it's particulars than you do, but perhaps some of our resident scientists can weigh in and decide that for themselves.
     
  13. USincognito

    USincognito Milk-Bones for Cerberus is a cool album name Supporter

    +13,571
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Gosh, you sure came on strong for someone who apparently doesn't know bupkiss about what she's arguing against.

    Who says that other than Creationists? It's already been explained to you. The Big Bang wasn't a bang, nor was it something from nothing. The entire Universe was in a singularity that started expanding (sounds like Genesis 1 doesn't it). About 10 billion years later, the sun and it's accretion disk began to form the solar system out of hydrogen and heavier elements created in earlier supernovas. Where in this scenario do you find "sudden" and "BANG" when it comes to the solar system?

    What are you, a speciest? No live for bacteria, plants and fungi? Your salad wouldn't be as delicious if it only contained animal (and yeah, humans are animals) matter.

    Who knows? We've detected amino acids in space and found the building blocks of life seem to permiate the cosmos. There might be simple life on many planets througout the universe, but the possibility that complex and intelligent life can exist only on Earth is equally as likely as the possibility that it could fill the galaxy.

    The wise man Carl Sagan offered some possibilities. Perhaps we're the first. Perhaps we're the last. Perhaps Earth is the only planet that can support intelligent life. To him, and to me, the latter seems like an awful waste.

    Mutation and natural selection. Why would one try and engage in the debate over evolution if one does not understand the basics of it?

    Loaded question, and raises the spectre of "I won't believe in evolution until an iguana gives birth to a crow". There are examples of speciation that occur within human lifetimes, but if you will only accept something that actually would faslify evolution, then no, we can't help you (on several levels).

    Do you need a time machine to know that the Spartans held off the Persians at Thermopylea? Because we have more evidence that evolution has occured and of deep time than that that battle occured or what it's outcome was.

    Missing Link is an anachronistic 19th Century term that anyone serious about engaging in the Crevo debate should avoid. The proper term is transitional fossil and yes, there are literally thousands of them that have been unearthed over the last 160+ years.
     
  14. USincognito

    USincognito Milk-Bones for Cerberus is a cool album name Supporter

    +13,571
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Actually you have. The ones with elipses, out of context and with citations like "R. Johnson Professor of Knowledge" are false quotes. And numerous respondants have pointed out why each of the quote mines you posted are "false". You have chosen to ignore those responses and instead play the victim. Not very supportive of the "quotes" you cited.

    Oh, how I love when someone who has been a member of CF since July 2011 starts lecturing people about the content here. I've been around since Dec. 2003. I've been a site supporter since shortly after that. Are you a site supporter Dancin'? Have you put your money where you mouth is in the 6 months you've been here like I have for the 8 years I have?
     
  15. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    There is nothing I misrepresent. Evolutionary researchers agree with many things I say, the difference being they have another evolutionary 'story' and scenario instead of just sucking up the fact they truly have no idea, whereas creationists have creationist interpretations. The evidence for creation lies in much more than the fossil evidence and it is no worse than what you lot can present as flavour of the month.


    Not surprisingly, there is much disagreement among paleoanthropologists with respect to reconstructing phylogenetic relationships for the australoptihecines. Furthermore, the discovery of new fossil specimens that are unexpected often cause dramatic re-organizations of hominid phylogenies. In addition to this, some new fossils are so out of line with current phylogenies that they cannot be positioned anywhere sensibly on phylogenetic trees and are often left aside with question marks accompanying them (for example: Orrorin tugenensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Kenyanthropus platyops). Finally, paleoanthropologists are people with egos (often large ones) and, not surprisingly, often place their recently discovered fossil specimens at points on the trees which are thought to be the most crucial in the grand scheme of human evolution (being ancestral to the genus Homo for example). For all of these reasons, reconstructing hominid phylogenies is extremely problematic, but still a very necessary task if one wishes to comprehend the evolution of the australopithecines.
    Australopithecine Evolution



    "Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially, 'This fossil is an early hominid, so suck it up and accept it,'" Wood says. "Nature and Science could change this practice overnight if they wanted to."
    Anthropologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, responds that, at least for Ardi, comparative studies published in 2009 ruled out the possibility that she was an ape. White led the team that excavated and analyzed Ardi's 4.4-million-year-old partial skeleton.
    Ardi's remains show many similarities to ensuing hominids in East Africa, White adds. He lumps all proposed early hominids into an Ardipithecus genus that evolved into the Ardipithecus genus by 4.1 million years ago. In contrast, Wood and Harrison suspect that early hominids -- whatever their identities -- branched out in many different evolutionary directions.

    Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis : Discovery News

    Evolutionists can present all sorts of research to back contradictory assertions. Why do evos suppose that is?

    It matters not whom is right or whom is wrong in any evolutionary debate because another possibility is.....

    NONE OF THEM ARE RIGHT........
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2012
  16. mdancin4theLord

    mdancin4theLord Well-Known Member

    923
    +31
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Well gee....what difference does it make that you have your picture taken with Dawkins? I mean come on. You obviously idolize the guy and I am happy, thrilled that you indeed have a picture that you can display on your mantle.

    I am wondering if he knows what that first cause was? Did you ask him by any chance? He is a Jewish athiest so he makes the claim that God does not exist...just wondering in that book of his if he provides the evidence to the factual statement he makes.

    I see Dawkins as a sad sort of guy. A guy who makes a living taking pot shots at people he thinks are idiots who can't think for themselves. His is not just a comment or worldview about a God that he denies exists its about taking down the religious community...so he with gun in hand targets believers. Why? Why does this turn him on so much? In fact why does this turn most of you on?
    To lurk around a Christian forum....why? What do you get out of this just curious?

    For Dawkins this is not just a friendly discussion of ideals, philosophy or worldviews...this is a war that he a part of.........His vow to destroy Christianity.

    That is a lot......of hatred I tell ya. So you stood next to a person who hates, who is so closeminded that he obviously does not repspect someones right to beleive how they want to believe...to feel how they want to feel.....and to examine life and interpret it like they want to do.

    Professor Dawkins makes a festive vow to 'destroy Christianity' | Mail Online

    Dawkins asks Hitchens.......... "Do you ever worry that IF we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?"

    He uses the word......."if." So he obviously is not so sure of the claims he makes is he? It is a game to him...a war against humans that do not hate him but choose to believe another way.

    "So it's good to know, at last, where Prof Dawkins really stands - and, incidentally, it's not where the gracious, generous-spirited and libertarian Hitchens stands. Hitchens hates totalitarianism. And it's totalitarians who have tried and failed throughout history to 'destroy Christianity'. Dawkins now sees that as a measure of winning. Good luck with that, Richard. And happy Christmas.'

    Has science proved there is no spiritual realm that miracles do not and have not ever happened? Hey we have one athiest poster on there who says his flashlight went on and off when his wife walked by...that this proved his love.

    And we Christians are crazy.........yea right. And they say Christians speak with hatred..........what is Dawkins speech?
     
  17. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +647
    Agnostic
    Single
    Do you admit that your quote mine takes statements out of context and misrepresents them or not? If so, then that is deceptive. Deception is the devil's work. Do you disagree?

    We were invited here ON THIS CHRISTIAN FORUM. If you don't like us being here, you can go to the Christians Only section.


    You said evolution violates entropy. I didn't bring up entropy, YOU did. Can you back it up or not??


    The only ones that claim something came from nothing are you guys.. or do I have to explain what "creatio ex nihilo" means??
     
  18. Fastener

    Fastener Guest

    +0
    You could well be right but how come no one else in the world of science and business believes you?
    everything you say could be 110% right but no one believes you or backs you with one penny, how come?
    what does the rest of the world know that you don't? do oil companies ask creation scientists to help them?
    do any businesses in the world ask creation scientists to help them with ANYTHING?
    if we didn't know better we would think that creation scientists are only there to fool creationists.

    It's strange when you think how much the creation scientists of AiG have discovered over the years they have existed,
    by the way what have they discovered? what have they contributed to the knowledge of mankind?
     
  19. Incariol

    Incariol Newbie

    +223
    Christian
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Obviously... Do you feel this was some sort of coup?
     
  20. mdancin4theLord

    mdancin4theLord Well-Known Member

    923
    +31
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican

    Let me just get on my knees and throw my hands up to you incognito.......wow. So its money that makes all the difference eh? I am still fairly new here.....and if I find the site worthy I will gladly donate. I am still deciding...there is a lot I like and somethings I don't like.

    Is there a hierarchy here? I am less credible because I am a newer member so I should just shut up? I made an observation that I think makes sense and I have every right to make comment about it whether I have been here one day, one week or a year.

    I still wonder why athiests just love hanging around a site or threads debating a god they say does not exist....

    Let me know the ranking system here....ok, just so I know. LOL

    And it is none of your business who I give money too....or what I support.
     
Loading...