Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Next >
Invisibleawesomebastard
Lost
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/07
Posts: 4,891
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10062138 - 03/28/09 08:11 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Interesting I suppose, but it seems to imply that we dont have fossil records to support the theory of evolution, when, in fact we do.


--------------------
"Absolute certainty is a privilege of uneducated minds and fanatics." ~ C.J. Keyser



Mr. Cypher said: "I just tell the girls how sexy I am and their panties melt."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: awesomebastard]
    #10062585 - 03/28/09 09:19 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Actually, we have only about.. one half way species. the bird lizard. even that is under question. although we should not neccessarily expect to have fossils from all stages of an evolutionary cycle (especially considering the times of highest competition and evolutionary push would be times when carcasses were torn apart and eaten, instead of being buried under mud), the fact that we DO NOT have any evidence of a creature that had a 'semi developed' feature, and we know that fully developed features cannot just occur on an animal within a generation, because the precise nature of the mutation makes it as likely as winning a Galactic Lottery.

So there is not evidence to evolution as a means of developing new species. There is only evidence as a means of change in general characteristics of a species. there is also evidence AGAINST bible's account of creationism. But no evidence FOR the theory of evolution


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10063794 - 03/29/09 01:20 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

>the fact that we DO NOT have any evidence of a creature that had a 'semi developed' feature

What? We have plenty of those. In fact many are still living. Have you ever seen an amphibian's eye? They are semi-developed compared to those of higher vertebrates like humans.

Or consider the quills of a porcupine. Porcupines are rodents, and the quills are modified hairs, with extra keratin to make them hard and sharp. This means that the fur of other rodents is semi-developed compared to the porcupine's quills.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10063935 - 03/29/09 01:54 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

I see your point but I think that this is taking a different notion of the word 'semi developed'.

What is needed is evidence of a specimin 'between' two other specimins. Assumedly, the mutations occur without higher order planning and thus any change between one specimin and its offspring must be in very small changes, one gene at a time, essentially. So between any two specimins there exist creatures who posses enough of the original code to be able to spread their genes through the population (ie be sexually compatible) but enough new code to give an advantage. This means that at each stage of development, the small mutations must confer advantage, or alternatively one small mutation must confer a very great advantage.

Although we know that, eg with the porcupine the quills that originally gave the porcupine advantage were not as thick or sharp as the ones they have today, but were just sharp enough to keep predators that much more at bay. Or perhaps the benefit was merely that some form of flea had a harder time navigating thicker bristles. whatever the case, there are many ways we can imagine that thicker spinier hair gradually became advantageous to certain rodents.

With things such as blood circulation systems in fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, it is very hard (or even impossible) to imagine how 'mid way' stages between different circulation systems could occur through small genetic changes.

Since we cannot get much evidence about the circulatory systems of ancient animals, we probably wont get much evidence concerning this matter, ie some example in reality that can confirm that a certain phenomenon is possible. That is all that evidence is. It gives us indications of how possible something is by giving an example of what indeed IS possible.

Eg if John was at home or in fact anywhere other than at the scene of the crime, then it would not be possible (within reason) for his blood to be at the scene of the crime.
Evidence: Johns blood at scene of the crime
Thus we can prove, through only the information that it 'is possible that john was at the scene of the crime' that john indeed was at the scene of the crime, because this 'possibility' correlates below an acceptable amount with any other possibility than john being at the scene of the crime.

i hope that makes sense.

In this case, although no one has turned up evidence showing that it is possible for a human to be found inside the skeleton of a far ancient dinosaur (which evolution's possibilities do not correlate to),
there are lots of things that we postulate to have occured, whereby there is no evidence available to show that such things are possible.

ITs a largely evidence - poor area of biology whereby each new piece of evidence raises many more questions than it answers. And not in a cliche 'discovering the universe' way. I mean that each new found species tends to display features which are not present in other species and thus must be accounted for in a unique way by evolutionary theory. The evidence that we find rarely ever 'confirms' more things about evolutionary theory than it 'raises for confirmation'.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10063972 - 03/29/09 02:06 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

I really don't know enough about prehistoric animals to be able to provide examples off the top of my head, but consider the crocodile. Prehistoric crocodiles had long legs. Over time they evolved shorter stumpy legs, to better conserve energy and lurk in the muddy shallows. But we can still dig up fossils of ancient crocodiles with long legs.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10063980 - 03/29/09 02:09 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Length of leg is different to a structural difference in organisation. To be honest, there may be evidence that I am not aware of so go ahead and find some half-way species?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10064013 - 03/29/09 02:23 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

That looks like a beastly predator!


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10064027 - 03/29/09 02:29 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

No problems. Here's a list of fossils showing intermediate steps between fish and amphibians.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html

Quote:

  1.  Most fish have anterior and posterior external nostrils. In tetrapods, the posterior nostril is replaced by the choana, an internal nostril opening into the roof of the mouth. Kenichthys, a 395-million-year-old fossil from China, is exactly intermediate between the two, having nostrils at the margin of the upper jaw (Zhu and Ahlberg 2004).

  2. A fossil shows eight bony fingers in the front fin of a lobed fish, offering evidence that fingers developed before land-going tetrapods (Daeschler and Shubin 1998).

  3. A Devonian humerus has features showing that it belonged to an aquatic tetrapod that could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk (Shubin et al. 2004).

  4. Acanthostega, a Devonian fossil, about 60 cm long, probably lived in rivers (Coates 1996). It had polydactyl limbs with no wrists or ankles (Coates and Clack 1990). It was predominantly, if not exclusively, aquatic: It had fishlike internal gills (Coates and Clack 1991), and its limbs and spine could not support much weight. It also had a stapes and a lateral sensory system like a fish.

  5. Ichthyostega, a tetrapod from Devonian streams, was about 1.5 m long and probably amphibious. It had seven digits on its rear legs (its hands are unknown). Its limbs and spine were more robust than those of Acanthostega, and its rib cage was massive. It had fishlike spines on its tail, but these were fewer and smaller than Acanthostega's. Its skull had several primitive fishlike features, but it probably did not have internal gills (Murphy 2002).

  6. Tulerpeton, from estuarine deposits roughly the same age as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, had six digits on its front limbs and seven on its rear limbs. Its shoulders were more robust than Acanthostega, suggesting it was somewhat less aquatic, and its skull appears to be closer to later Carboniferous amphibians than to Acanthostega or Ichthyostega.




And the transition from reptiles to mammals:
Quote:

The transition from reptile to mammal has an excellent record. The following fossils are just a sampling. In particular, these fossils document the transition of one type of jaw joint into another. Reptiles have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw. Mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. These species show transitional jaw-ear arrangements (Hunt 1997; White 2002b). The sequence shows transitional stages in other features, too, such as skull, vertebrae, ribs, and toes.

  1. Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, about 270 million years ago (Mya)). Lower jaw is made of multiple bones; the jaw hinge is fully reptilian. No eardrum.
  2. Biarmosuchia (late Permian). One of the earliest therapsids. Jaw hinge is more mammalian. Upper jaw is fixed. Hindlimbs are more upright.
  3. Procynosuchus (latest Permian). A primitive cynodont, a group of mammal-like therapsids. Most of the lower jaw bones are grouped in a small complex near the jaw hinge.
  4. Thrinaxodon (early Triassic). A more advanced cynodont. An eardrum has developed in the lower jaw, allowing it to hear airborne sound. Its quadrate and articular jaw bones could vibrate freely, allowing them to function for sound transmission while still functioning as jaw bones. All four legs are fully upright.
  5. Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, about 235 Mya). It has two jaw joints: mammalian and reptilian (White 2002a).
  6. Diarthrognathus (early Jurassic, 209 Mya). An advanced cynodont. It still has a double jaw joint, but the reptilian joint functions almost entirely for hearing.
  7. Morganucodon (early Jurassic, about 220 Mya). It still has a remnant of the reptilian jaw joint (Kermack et al. 1981).
  8. Hadrocodium (early Jurassic). Its middle ear bones have moved from the jaw to the cranium (Luo et al. 2001; White 2002b).




And land-going mammals to whales:
Quote:

The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is quite robust. See Babinski (2003) or Zimmer (1998) for pictures of some of these.

  1. Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).
  2. Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).
  3. Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).
  4. Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.
  5. Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).
  6. an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).


The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).




I really should have visited talkorigins.org earlier :awesome:


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10064045 - 03/29/09 02:37 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

You are using facts. :mad2: Now do it 'philosophically'...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Redrawing]
    #10064519 - 03/29/09 06:45 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Redrawing said:
... Intelligent design is not an appeal to religion (the argument scientists have used to keep 'ID' out of school curriculum in the United States), it is an umbrella term for any number of potential or existing theories that attempt to account for the intuition that the universe MAY NOT have come about through pure, blind, random, accidental luck.

So instead of trying to account for the gaps in fossil record, or explain why the evolutionary model doesn't always fit ontological observations about biological systems, evolutionary theorists build straw men all day and knock 'em down, without ever feeling the need to assert any evidence for their own position.





I don't know what the argument "appeal to religion" means, but are you claiming its not a supernatural argument?  There is no way it isn't.

Intelligent design may be taught in school, who cares.  The problem is lieing to children and calling it a scientific theory or an acceptable scientific hypothesis, it is neither.  It is pure philosophy or guessing, and has no place in science.  I am of the opinion we shouldn't lie to children in school, especially on something like this.


Your argument seems to nicely demonstrate the huge misconceptions in teh public debate, especially amongst the proponents of ID.  They think they are arguing for or against god creating life, which they aren't as zouden clarified and is obvious from even a currsory understanding of evolutionary theory, for or against god, or for or against god creating the universe.  Your comments on whether god created the universe have nothing at all to do with evolution or intelligent design.  I'm really sick of people on both sides of the issue (usually the public) thinking the debate has anything to do with teaching god exists.  Yuck, that isn't science and these issues are irrelevant to that issue.


What is silly is the public that apparently doesn't understand even the most basic concepts of science and thinks intelligent design is a scientific theory if it could be correct, could explain observations, or is believed by many people, when neither of these are relevant.  The ignorance is unacceptable when coupled with a desire to lie to children for political and philosophical reasons.


School is for teaching.  First we must not lie.

Really though, the ignorance is huge on both sides of the public debate...  Doesn't speak well for the public's understanding of science... at all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10066150 - 03/29/09 12:50 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

There are many problems with fossil interpretation but to remain true to the topic of the thread, let me focus on one of science's biggest problems: objectivity.

Lack of objectivity and confirmation bias ruin otherwise good science.  Here's an old example I like to use.


Koko, the "talking" Gorilla.


Skeptical Inquirer article

Time magazine dubbed Koko's internet chat session a "Dada exercise" noting that Penny Patterson as interpreter used "some pretty impressive logic to expand her simian friend's limited communication skills." A partial transcript from the session is revealing:

Question: Koko are you going to have a baby in the future?

Koko signs: Pink
Patterson explains: We had earlier discussion about colors today.

Question: Do you like to chat with people?

Koko signs: Fine nipple.
Patterson explains: Nipple rhymes with people, she doesn't sign people per se, she was trying to do a "sounds like..."

Question: Does she have hair? Or is it like fur?

Koko signs: Fine.
Patterson explains: She has fine hair.

Question: Koko, do you feel love from the humans who have raised you?

Koko signs: Lips, apple give me.
Patterson explains: People give her her favorite foods.

----------------------------------------

Oh yes, Lips apple give me. Koko's quite the conversationalist. Patterson, as a scientist, is talking out her ass.  :rolleyes:

:lol:

Rhetorical Question:  100,000 years from now paleontologists "discover" two skeletons, a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard in the same strata.  What conclusions would they reach?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10067713 - 03/29/09 04:09 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

>Oh yes, Lips apple give me. Koko's quite the conversationalist. Patterson, as a scientist, is talking out her ass.

This is, perhaps, the worst argument you've ever come up with. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response, sorry.

>100,000 years from now paleontologists "discover" two skeletons, a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard in the same strata.  What conclusions would they reach?

That they were different breeds of dogs. Next question?


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10067754 - 03/29/09 04:16 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

And you're certain of that?  I hesitate to bring up the marsupial dog in Australia.

Patterson's failure to objectivity is a great example of confirmation bias.  No comment is necessary.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10067823 - 03/29/09 04:22 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Right, and they teach about confirmation bias to first year science students. Are you really trying to use the fact that mistakes are made as some sort of argument against evolution being a scientific theory? I just can't fathom how you think that logic is sound.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10067885 - 03/29/09 04:29 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

When that is all the ammunition one has... :shrug:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10067888 - 03/29/09 04:30 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Penny Patterson learned about confirmation in her first year of science education?  What went wrong?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10067892 - 03/29/09 04:30 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
When that is all the ammunition one has... :shrug:




And you know this how?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10067923 - 03/29/09 04:35 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Penny Patterson learned about confirmation in her first year of science education?  What went wrong?



I dunno, why don't you ask her?


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10067940 - 03/29/09 04:37 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Because real arguments have been made and in return all I see is hand-waving. What are you waiting for? Bring out the big guns.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10067975 - 03/29/09 04:41 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

But the point is made.  Objectivity isn't always apparent.  Kuhn, the philosopher Ruse attacks, makes much of this in his book.  That's one reason I am excited to read it.

Quote:

Paradigm shift (sometimes known as extraordinary science or revolutionary science) is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.

It has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share.” (The Essential Tension, 1997). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, “a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself.” (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in Humanities can choose to adopt a 19th century theory of poetics, for instance, or interpret economic behaviour from a Marxist perspective.




It is possible for an entire field of science to have confirmation bias, even though they have been trained against it.  Penny is just an easy target.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Next >

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* No Evolution threads allowed.
( 1 2 all )
sir tripsalot 3,476 29 10/04/02 11:50 PM
by Anonymous
* The Idea of Evolution is BS
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
World Spirit 18,870 165 07/21/02 09:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Post deleted by Anno Anonymous 1,229 12 03/18/04 03:30 PM
by silversoul7
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous 4,518 64 01/30/03 06:45 AM
by Teragon
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 8,959 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Evolution Of Humans
( 1 2 all )
superfine 1,992 23 04/21/03 05:11 PM
by pattern
* What is a "theory"? Anonymous 647 5 01/15/04 07:22 AM
by anarchyhollow
* Creationism / Evolution
( 1 2 all )
angryshroom 2,497 23 11/11/03 06:29 AM
by StrangeDays

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
13,870 topic views. 0 members, 12 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.