Home | Community | Message Board


FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

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!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Arguements for a young earth.
    #2245356 - 01/16/04 02:55 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

I found this here. Does anyone see anything wrong with any of them?

Quote:

? According to calculations by Bishop Usher in the early 1600s, the Earth is really only about 6,000 years old. Usher, a great scholar, knew when Nebuchadnezzar lived, and he worked his way backwards through the genealogies and came up with a creation date of 4004 BC. Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould stated that if Bishop Usher was right about the Bible being true, then the date would be correct.6




This is based on the premise that the bible is correct.


Quote:

? The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which evolutionists date by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.63





I thought fossils were carbondated. Because carbon has a predictable half life, specimen dating can be extrapolated based on the amount of carbon in a specimen.


Quote:

? Naturalists choose an "index fossil," one that is in a certain layer and date it by when they think it evolved - not by Carbon-14 dating, nor potassium-argon, nor by uranium-lead dating. They date the fossil by when they think it evolved. Then they date the rock by the fossil, and then they prove evolution by the date on the rock. This is circular reasoning.6

? They cling to these assumptions even though there is a lot of scientific evidence for a young Earth.





I have a feeling this isn't true, see above.




Quote:

? Human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, Earth's population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago, comparing very well with the number of people on Noah's Ark. Based on evolution's claim for the origin of man, the same ? percent growth calculation for the human race results in a huge present day population that can not be justified by the fossil record or current statistics.30




This assumes that humans began reproducing right at the earth's beginning. An evolutionist would object. Also, population growth can't be modeled with a linear equation, it's exponential.

Quote:

? Rivers pour tons of material every year into the Earth's oceans. Scientists know with a fair degree of accuracy the quantity of each element's influx as well as the current concentration of these elements in the oceans. By simple division, they can calculate the time it took to reach present levels, even accounting for sedimentation and dissipation. None of these elements give an age of the Earth even coming close to billion of years.30




Kind of a loaded premise. It doesn't allow for pangea to break apart, for ice ages to form glaciers to carve rivers, etc.



Quote:

? Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several "strata" of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them.30 At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.10





I don't understand why this is damning to evolutionists.

Quote:

? When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date many different things including oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by this method revealed them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating oil and coal using this method.30

? Laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. Modern laboratories can duplicate the formation of coal formation in a matter of days - or even hours. Furthermore, massive seams of coal in the Earth remain undiluted by influxes of clay and other impurities before they thicken.10






I'm not sure about this one, does anyone know differently?



Quote:

? The Biblical account of Noah's Flood's description of the fountains of the great deep breaking up strongly indicates volcanic activity in the pre-Flood basins. This would have provided several of the key factors needed for the production of coal, along with an explanation of how the process could have occurred at such a rapid pace.10




???




Quote:

? The pressure in modern day oil fields is too high for them to be very old. Current estimates indicate that the longest a rock layer could keep oil under pressure would be 100,000 years. Oil is simply not as old as evolutionists' claim.30




Perhaps the pressure has grown recently due to technonic movement?

Quote:

? It is well known that the interior of the Earth is very hot. For each mile you descend, the temperature increases by 118 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth is a thousand miles in diameter; the core is so hot that the rocks are molten. Yet as Earth passes through the extreme cold of outer space, it's losing its heat. Even with the heat it receives from the sun, Earth's net heat loss is 1027 calories per second. This means that if it started at 190 degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, Earth would have been frozen stone cold to the center in the first 40 million years. If it were four billion years old, it should have been a huge sphere of ice over 100 times by now.6




One of the mass extinctions is believed to have been caused by Earth being blasted by gamma rays. Could such events add heat to the earth?


Quote:

? Earth's spin is slowing down at a rate of one third of a second every year. Extrapolating this back billions of years, we obtain an unreasonable spinning speed for the Earth.30




Would comet bombardment give the Earth's rotation more momentum?


Quote:

? Earth's magnetic field has been measured since 1835. It is growing weaker and the rate at which it is growing weaker has been calculated. If we extrapolate backwards, even to 20,000 BC, the magnetic field would have been so strong Earth would have been like a star and nothing could have lived here. Extrapolating further back, it would have been so strong it would have crushed the surface of the Earth in on itself.6

? Evolutionists say that the magnetic field of the Earth has shifted from positive to negative at times - that's how it keeps going. But observations of the sun's magnetic field's changing from positive to negative show it loses more energy each time instead of gaining energy. Applying the same criteria to the magnetic field of the Earth, we see is that it drops the age of our planet to about six to eight thousand years.6






Does anyone know differently?



Quote:

? Like a giant vacuum cleaner, the sun sweeps up almost 100,000 tons of inflow per day. The sun's radiation pressure also pushes small, dust particles outward into space. This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. If the solar system is really billions of years old, then the solar system should have been swept clean by now. Unfortunately for evolutionists, tons of space dust remain in our solar system.30




Maybe the space dust is suspended in gravitational tug of wars between stellar objects?



Quote:

? When spiral galaxies make one full turn they leave behind distinctive pairs of arms because the interior stars move around faster than the outer stars. These galaxies are supposed to make one full turn every hundred million years meaning they should have a pair of arms for every 100 million years. If the Earth is five billion years old, galaxies should have so many arms they couldn't be counted. But astronomers haven't been able to find a galaxy with more than three pairs of arms, meaning they haven't been able to find one that's even half a billion years old.6




The math here makes me ignore this one. Every hundred million years produces an "arm." At five billion years, that would be 50. How is fifty so many that they couldn't be counted. Sounds pretty sketchy.


Quote:

? A star cluster contains hundreds or thousands of stars moving, as one author put it, "like a swarm of bees," held together by gravity. But in some clusters, the stars are moving so fast that they could not have held together for millions or billions of years. Star clusters tell us that the age of the universe should be measured in thousands of years.30




What? Do we completely understand gravity in complex systems?

Quote:

? When big stars run out of fuel, they explode. Some of these "super nova remnants" are visible from the Earth. According to astronomical theory, in galaxies of our size, approximately 7,250 super nova remnants should be visible. Using the creationist age of the galaxy, we should expect to find between 125 and 200 super nova remnants. The actual number of super nova remnants visible from the Earth is 205, which is very close to the creationist numbers.30




Every galaxy has a blackhole at its center. Not even light can escape black holes. Perhaps the super nova remnents are trapped there?


Feel free to contribute for or against these.


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245376 - 01/16/04 03:02 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Debunking creationism? You must be really bored. Why not try something challenging?


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2245391 - 01/16/04 03:09 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Debunking creationism? You must be really bored. Why not try something challenging? 




The more I study, the more I find that evolutionists and creationists say the same things about each other.  I'm being a true skeptic and entertaining both theories.  Remember, the evolution theory is pretty hard to accept at times, hold your hand up and wiggle your fingers...whoa :nut:


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245406 - 01/16/04 03:18 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

the evolution theory



You mean the fact of evolution? It is Darwin's idea of Natural Selection which is theory, not evolution itself.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245409 - 01/16/04 03:19 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2245413 - 01/16/04 03:20 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

However I do have an incontrovertible argument for a young earth and I will share it if anyone is interested.



Please do. I'd love to hear this.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2245414 - 01/16/04 03:22 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

I have some answers for a variety of those questions but as I do not "debate" the theory of evolution I decline to answer any of them. It only leads to trouble

However I do have an incontrovertible argument for a young earth and I will share it if anyone is interested.




I understand your hesitance, it would probably be like arguing John Elway is a pussy in a bar in Denver.

I'm interested your arguement for a young earth however.


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2245422 - 01/16/04 03:25 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/18/99
Posts: 24,121
Loc: my room
Last seen: 2 months, 11 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245423 - 01/16/04 03:25 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Read http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/
Chapter:
How Old is the Earth?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/18/99
Posts: 24,121
Loc: my room
Last seen: 2 months, 11 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245428 - 01/16/04 03:29 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245432 - 01/16/04 03:30 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2245435 - 01/16/04 03:33 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Ok, here goes:

How old is the Universe?

How old is the Earth according to evolutionists?

Therefore the earth is young relatively speaking.

It's a joke.

Sorry.





You're teasing me...out with the good stuff!!!


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: Anno]
    #2245436 - 01/16/04 03:33 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2245439 - 01/16/04 03:37 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Mr_Mushrooms said:
No, evolution is a theory, not a fact unless you are using a particular definition of "fact".  Jesus, I hate idiotic statements like that one.  :rolleyes:

What is a fact?



Ok, it is a fact in the sense that it is an observable phenomenon.  Maybe the creationists could be right about God creating the Earth with already aged fossils in order to test our faith, or maybe it's all just one big illusion, but as far as science is concerned it is a fact observed both in the fossil evidence and in laboratory settings.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245440 - 01/16/04 03:39 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245445 - 01/16/04 04:10 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

HAHA, funny stuff. really.
let me just address a few of them

Human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, Earth's population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago, comparing very well with the number of people on Noah's Ark.

this is completely ridiculous. they fail to take into account recent advances in farming and medicine, and they assume that there is a steady (0.5%) growth rate

Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several "strata" of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them.30 At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.10

if this is true, so what? there have been massive floods in the past.

Laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. Modern laboratories can duplicate the formation of coal formation in a matter of days - or even hours. Furthermore, massive seams of coal in the Earth remain undiluted by influxes of clay and other impurities before they thicken.10

again. so what? they could create diamonds in a lab too. are these people seriously contending that because labs "can duplicate the formation of coal formation in a matter of days" that that's how it happened in real life??

It is well known that the interior of the Earth is very hot. For each mile you descend, the temperature increases by 118 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth is a thousand miles in diameter; the core is so hot that the rocks are molten. Yet as Earth passes through the extreme cold of outer space, it's losing its heat. Even with the heat it receives from the sun, Earth's net heat loss is 1027 calories per second. This means that if it started at 190 degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, Earth would have been frozen stone cold to the center in the first 40 million years. If it were four billion years old, it should have been a huge sphere of ice over 100 times by now.6

failed to account for the decay of radioactive elements in the earth's core
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030505/030505-5.html
these creation "scientists" are really working with outdated info

Earth's spin is slowing down at a rate of one third of a second every year. Extrapolating this back billions of years, we obtain an unreasonable spinning speed for the Earth.30

it's true the earth is slowing down, but there's a perfectly good explanation for it - it's a combination of conservation of angular momentum and a tidally locked moon. and they can't extrapolate back for billions of years, the current rate of slowing. :rolleyes:

Earth's magnetic field has been measured since 1835. It is growing weaker and the rate at which it is growing weaker has been calculated. If we extrapolate backwards, even to 20,000 BC, the magnetic field would have been so strong Earth would have been like a star and nothing could have lived here. Extrapolating further back, it would have been so strong it would have crushed the surface of the Earth in on itself.6

hint: extrapolating "back" with dynamic systems like the magnetic field is a bad idea

Evolutionists say that the magnetic field of the Earth has shifted from positive to negative at times - that's how it keeps going.

no. no scientist thinks this is why the magnetic field keeps going. see my first link.

But observations of the sun's magnetic field's changing from positive to negative show it loses more energy each time instead of gaining energy. Applying the same criteria to the magnetic field of the Earth, we see is that it drops the age of our planet to about six to eight thousand years.6

maybe we shouldn't "apply the same criteria" here because the sun and earth are physically different. ??

Like a giant vacuum cleaner, the sun sweeps up almost 100,000 tons of inflow per day. The sun's radiation pressure also pushes small, dust particles outward into space. This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. If the solar system is really billions of years old, then the solar system should have been swept clean by now. Unfortunately for evolutionists, tons of space dust remain in our solar system.30

the solar system isn't a particularly dusty environment. there are some asteroids in stable orbits... but not too much dust. maybe they're talking about interstellar space? I don't know. btw, light can "pull" on an object - a phenomenon that was just recently confirmed by observation.

When spiral galaxies make one full turn they leave behind distinctive pairs of arms because the interior stars move around faster than the outer stars. These galaxies are supposed to make one full turn every hundred million years meaning they should have a pair of arms for every 100 million years. If the Earth is five billion years old, galaxies should have so many arms they couldn't be counted. But astronomers haven't been able to find a galaxy with more than three pairs of arms, meaning they haven't been able to find one that's even half a billion years old.6

this is an old misconception. spiral arms don't work that way, they are actually density waves
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr222/Galaxies/Spiral/spiral.html
this is what happens when you work with outdated information...

A star cluster contains hundreds or thousands of stars moving, as one author put it, "like a swarm of bees," held together by gravity. But in some clusters, the stars are moving so fast that they could not have held together for millions or billions of years. Star clusters tell us that the age of the universe should be measured in thousands of years.30

more incomplete/outdated data - many globular star clusters contain black holes at their center, which accounts for the longevity of the cluster (retention of member stars) as well as the speed of the stars in orbit.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/blackhole_cluster_020917.html

When big stars run out of fuel, they explode. Some of these "super nova remnants" are visible from the Earth. According to astronomical theory, in galaxies of our size, approximately 7,250 super nova remnants should be visible. Using the creationist age of the galaxy, we should expect to find between 125 and 200 super nova remnants. The actual number of super nova remnants visible from the Earth is 205, which is very close to the creationist numbers.30

no. not all supernova remnants would be visible from earth. the oldest ones would have long ago dissipated by now - it's heavy elements used in subsequent star formation. not to mention all the intervening dust and gas that blocks our view of most of our own galaxy.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 10 months, 7 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245781 - 01/16/04 11:32 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

"The more I study, the more I find that evolutionists and creationists say the same things about each other."

Most biologists don't get hot and heavy in this debate. The problem with creationist "science" is that it blatantly ignores all kinds of data, or uses flimsy rationalizations to discard it. Sometimes, they can be quite creative, but often they make things up, or use facts that are blatantly wrong.

Do you think that a single flood could have carved the Grand Canyon out of granite?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 10 months, 7 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2245792 - 01/16/04 11:35 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

"If evolutionists can botch biology as much as they do "

How much have they botched biology? Are you saying that you've got a better grasp on how life works and was formed on the planet than the scores of people who have devoted their lives to studying it?

(Remember, evolution in itself is not a field, geology and biology are, and both those fields offer evidence supporting evolution).


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,849
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 9 days, 9 hours
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: Phluck]
    #2245951 - 01/16/04 01:08 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Phluck said:
Do you think that a single flood could have carved the Grand Canyon out of granite?




Sounds more like the force of the current of a river constantly and slowly eroding the soil and rock it flows on for thousands and thousands of years, to me.  :lol:
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 10 months, 7 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #2245971 - 01/16/04 01:17 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Yeah, that would make a whole lot more sense.

Not if you're trying to justify some crackpot theory though.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The new galaxy scientists discovered
( 1 2 3 all )
2Experimental 3,178 48 02/19/04 11:48 AM
by fireworks_god
* Evolutionary changes
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
niteowl 8,696 133 12/28/10 05:53 PM
by falcon
* For Evolutionists?
( 1 2 3 all )
gettinjiggywithit 2,900 53 04/16/05 04:51 AM
by Ganesh2005
* The universe as an evolutionary experiment supernovasky 994 13 10/04/08 02:22 PM
by ExplosiveMango
* Evolutionary Spirituality
( 1 2 all )
Silversoul 2,243 31 01/19/07 08:10 PM
by Noveltyhead
* Galaxies? KairoAnnunaki 671 10 07/21/05 11:31 PM
by trendal
* The telescopic nature of the evolutionary paradigm
( 1 2 all )
exclusive58 3,428 26 02/16/06 06:39 PM
by Annom
* On the inadequacy of evolutionary theory PedM 1,767 16 05/04/07 02:37 PM
by MushroomTrip

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
2,216 topic views. 3 members, 12 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Shroom Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.143 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.