Why stevebee is wrong

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#41  Postby stevebee92653 » Oct 17, 2010 10:28 pm

CADman2300 wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:I highlight the word “design” because it is used so OFTEN in those holy peer reviewed papers you so revere.

We REFER to them but we don't "revere" them. Nobody is forcing us to do that.

If there was no design, why would these dedicated scientists use the word so often? It's almost as if they can't stay away from that word.

The word is being used in a purely metaphorical or figurative context. Why you mess that up is anyone's guess.

Don’t you find that a bit strange?

No, but you do.

And, no, evolution doesn’t make sense even WITH an intelligent designer. It’s just flat out wrong, and doesn’t match the evidence.

:yawn2: And exactly what "evidence" are you looking at? Are you looking at the same DNA as the rest of us? The same homology? The same morphology? The same fossil sequential order in the geological strata? The same vestiges and/or atavisms? These are ALL important, you can't just ignore any one of them.


Wrong. The word "design" is used to mean "design".
Ah, "evidence by list". Just throw a list at the questioner, and you have won!
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#42  Postby stevebee92653 » Oct 17, 2010 10:34 pm

Paul wrote:I find it hard to take seriously anyone who uses the word "invent" so often when trying to rubbish evolution

stevebee92653 wrote: Want REAL WORLD? NOTHING has NEVER been observed initiating inventing and assembling anything, nor in the steps of doing so, by any human who ever lived on the face of the earth. Not now, not ever. THAT is REAL WORLD.

stevebee92653 wrote:If these organisms “survive quite happily” then why did species go to the unimaginable lengths to invent, design, assemble, sustain bio-systems and organs through evolutionary processes?

stevebee92653 wrote: so they could invent, assemble, and figure out the dynamics of bio-systems?


Anyone who has truly studied evolution, whether they accept it or not, knows that at no point does anyone who accepts evolution assert that any species invented any adaptations.

It's wrong and it seems to me like a wilful misrepresentation of evolution, rather that rational discourse.


Ah. The reason you don't "assert" invention is because you can't explain it. Simple as that. I don't blame you either. It's your best strategy.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#43  Postby halucigenia » Oct 17, 2010 10:51 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:My gawd. How did you get into monkeys? You must be thinking of some other conversation. I have NEVER been in any monkey discussion. Maybe you need to reload. Any way you cut it, that is very different from not seeing multi's evolving from uni's. And if you like your excuse, fine. Eye of the beholder. Me? I don't see the evolution, that should be present, in any venue. You apparently don't either but you accept all excuses. Like punctuated equilibrium.
Sorry, but as I explained in my first post, the argument that we never currently see humans evolving from monkeys is the same argument as that of we never see multi celled organisms evolving from single celled organisms. I know you never actually argued about monkeys but it's the same absurd assertion.

The assertion is that evolution is refuted by not being able to observe directly in our lifetimes an historical occurrence that is proposed by evolutionary theory, like single cells to multi cells or monkeys to mankind or whatever. Those of us that actually understand what the theory of evolution proposes would not expect to be able to see such events within the span of the whole of the time that we have been studying evolutionary theory itself never mind within the span of a single human lifetime. We might, as I suggested in my first post, if we were very lucky, see some organism like slime moulds change their life cycle from one of mostly single celled to one of mostly multi celled but it would not be something that the theory would predict would have to happen.

I don't see how I can be any more plain in my demonstration of how you are wrong with this particular assertion but it's time to put up or shut up on this one.

Now, will you please either retract your assertion and agree that you were wrong or explain how the theory of evolution is dependent on the observation of single celled organisms evolving into multi celled organisms before our very eyes.
User avatar
halucigenia
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1224

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#44  Postby theropod » Oct 17, 2010 11:29 pm

At this point let me remind everyone of the Boraas et al work as cited below.



Evolutionary Ecology

ISSN 0269-7653 (Print) 1573-8477 (Online)
Issue Volume 12, Number 2 / February, 1998
DOI 10.1023/A:1006527528063
Pages 153-164

Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity

MARTIN E. Boraas, DIANNE B. Seale and JOSEPH E. Boxhorn

Abstract:
Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (‘flagellate’). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10–20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.


Now SteveB what is your alternative to the ToE? Failure to respond will tell us all we need know.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#45  Postby CADman2300 » Oct 17, 2010 11:37 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Wrong. The word "design" is used to mean "design".

And you conclude this how? You obviously aren't reading a single one of those papers in its entirety so why should I believe you when you assert that "design" means "artificial design" in a biological context?

Ah, "evidence by list". Just throw a list at the questioner, and you have won!

Those are all just aspects of biology that when all are used in corroboration with one-another they all lead to an inescapable conclusion: That life evolved to suit its environment and no designer or intelligent force was necessary.
So any silly dismissal of these truths is a dismissal of reality itself.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#46  Postby Shrunk » Oct 17, 2010 11:41 pm

theropod wrote: Now SteveB what is your alternative to the ToE? Failure to respond will tell us all we need know.


He has none. It's an imponderable mystery. Remember, this is a guy who also considers it an imponderable mystery that the human population didn't constantly double every 150 years for 200,000 years, at which point the combined mass of human tissue would have exceeded that of the known universe by a factor of over 10354.

(See Cali's calculations here.)
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#47  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Oct 18, 2010 12:04 am

Just because design means design doesn't mean it's referring to an intelligent designer that can't be shown to exist. My partner designs models. He's still a scientist.

Really, "ZOMG, I see the word 'design'" isn't an argument.
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: a certain type of girl
Posts: 12937
Age: 31
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#48  Postby stevebee92653 » Oct 18, 2010 3:04 am

theropod wrote:At this point let me remind everyone of the Boraas et al work as cited below.



Evolutionary Ecology

ISSN 0269-7653 (Print) 1573-8477 (Online)
Issue Volume 12, Number 2 / February, 1998
DOI 10.1023/A:1006527528063
Pages 153-164

Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity

MARTIN E. Boraas, DIANNE B. Seale and JOSEPH E. Boxhorn

Abstract:
Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (‘flagellate’). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10–20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.


Now SteveB what is your alternative to the ToE? Failure to respond will tell us all we need know.

RS


Tell Borass colonies don't count as multi's. Sorry. There are very specific characteristics of multi's that don't include colonies.
Re: my alternative. Are you asking for the real source of the designs of nature? You aren't smart enough to know the answer to your question. Neither am I. This is not a put down, in case this comment is screened. That is a fact for the entire human race. No person who ever lived has the ability to figure it out. Yet. Just as we are not close to figuring out the source and reasons for the Big Bang and the designs of the universe and it's building blocks and forces.
Many groups of people, mainly the religious, and evolutionauts, have fooled themselves into thinking they do have the answer.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#49  Postby Dogmatic Pyrrhonist » Oct 18, 2010 5:29 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
theropod wrote:At this point let me remind everyone of the Boraas et al work as cited below.



Evolutionary Ecology

ISSN 0269-7653 (Print) 1573-8477 (Online)
Issue Volume 12, Number 2 / February, 1998
DOI 10.1023/A:1006527528063
Pages 153-164

Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity

MARTIN E. Boraas, DIANNE B. Seale and JOSEPH E. Boxhorn

Abstract:
Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (‘flagellate’). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10–20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.


Now SteveB what is your alternative to the ToE? Failure to respond will tell us all we need know.

RS


Tell Borass colonies don't count as multi's. Sorry. There are very specific characteristics of multi's that don't include colonies.

No-one's saying a colony is a fully fledged multicellular life-form. It's the first step to creating on though. And considering the time frame available historically, the speed with which these colonies formed is indicative of further development. Or at the very least, indicative of very few hindrances in colonies.
stevebee92653 wrote:
Re: my alternative. Are you asking for the real source of the designs of nature? You aren't smart enough to know the answer to your question. Neither am I. This is not a put down, in case this comment is screened. That is a fact for the entire human race. No person who ever lived has the ability to figure it out. Yet. Just as we are not close to figuring out the source and reasons for the Big Bang and the designs of the universe and it's building blocks and forces.
Many groups of people, mainly the religious, and evolutionauts, have fooled themselves into thinking they do have the answer.

Science doesn't do "The Answer". Science does iteratively better answers than the last one. Currently evolution as an answer is ~150yrs old, with the current revision (including that genetics stuff and so on) being much younger. So far it's not 100% of the answer. But what we know of it is so very well evidenced, it's not going to go away with anything less than total existentialist BS or discovering we've all been living in a computer simulation all our lives.
But, short version is, you have no new scientific hypotheses, and nothing evidence based to overturn the established science, so you're not even wrong. You don't even get to argue.
Dogmatic Pyrrhonist
AKA https://plus.google.com/u/0/105518842266362138077/about (google has decided my name isn't a 'real' name)

Image
User avatar
Dogmatic Pyrrhonist
 
Posts: 712
Age: 47
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#50  Postby Rumraket » Oct 18, 2010 5:49 am

Are you asking for the real source of the designs of nature? You aren't smart enough to know the answer to your question. Neither am I. This is not a put down, in case this comment is screened. That is a fact for the entire human race. No person who ever lived has the ability to figure it out. Yet. Just as we are not close to figuring out the source and reasons for the Big Bang and the designs of the universe and it's building blocks and forces.
Many groups of people, mainly the religious, and evolutionauts, have fooled themselves into thinking they do have the answer.

Steve, you do realize that for you to claim we are not smart enough to know the answer, you would have to know the answer, right? But since you say we don't know the answer, how the fuck can you then claim we aren't smart enought to figure it out?

Haha, man that is so dumb.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13146
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#51  Postby halucigenia » Oct 18, 2010 6:40 am

stevebee92653 wrote:Tell Borass colonies don't count as multi's. Sorry. There are very specific characteristics of multi's that don't include colonies.
So what would count? Presumably single celled organisms organising themselves into a multi celled body that is composed of different structures like a locomotive part, a stalk part and a reproductive body part would count? Now, where have I heard about this happening before our very eyes? :ask:
User avatar
halucigenia
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1224

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#52  Postby Paul » Oct 18, 2010 6:55 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
Paul wrote:I find it hard to take seriously anyone who uses the word "invent" so often when trying to rubbish evolution

stevebee92653 wrote: Want REAL WORLD? NOTHING has NEVER been observed initiating inventing and assembling anything, nor in the steps of doing so, by any human who ever lived on the face of the earth. Not now, not ever. THAT is REAL WORLD.

stevebee92653 wrote:If these organisms “survive quite happily” then why did species go to the unimaginable lengths to invent, design, assemble, sustain bio-systems and organs through evolutionary processes?

stevebee92653 wrote: so they could invent, assemble, and figure out the dynamics of bio-systems?


Anyone who has truly studied evolution, whether they accept it or not, knows that at no point does anyone who accepts evolution assert that any species invented any adaptations.

It's wrong and it seems to me like a wilful misrepresentation of evolution, rather that rational discourse.


Ah. The reason you don't "assert" invention is because you can't explain it. Simple as that. I don't blame you either. It's your best strategy.


Huh? The reason evolution doesn't assert "invention" is that there is no evidence or even reason to suspect "invention".
That's a pathetic strawman argument, and I now have even more reason not to take anything you write seriously.

By the way, I don't have a strategy, I'm not even an expert on evolution. I haven't formally studied any biology since 1974.
I'm more of an interested observer in these threads. When it comes to the detail of evolution, DNA, genetics etc. I leave it to the experts.

I'm probably the sort of person you should be targeting with your claims. However the bullshit in your posts always sticks out like a gigantic sore thumb. When I see things so obviously wrong and unsupported as some of the stuff you argue, then it doesn't encourage me to give anything you say any credence.
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 61
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#53  Postby CJ » Oct 18, 2010 7:16 am

Rumraket wrote:
Are you asking for the real source of the designs of nature? You aren't smart enough to know the answer to your question. Neither am I. This is not a put down, in case this comment is screened. That is a fact for the entire human race. No person who ever lived has the ability to figure it out. Yet. Just as we are not close to figuring out the source and reasons for the Big Bang and the designs of the universe and it's building blocks and forces.
Many groups of people, mainly the religious, and evolutionauts, have fooled themselves into thinking they do have the answer.

Steve, you do realize that for you to claim we are not smart enough to know the answer, you would have to know the answer, right? But since you say we don't know the answer, how the fuck can you then claim we aren't smart enought to figure it out?

Haha, man that is so dumb.


I don't fully agree with this. Darwin went through a phase between realising that species were not created by 'god' before he figured out natural selection. We know there are flaws in the standard model as there still is no resolution of quantum gravity. One can understand that superstition is not the underlying force in nature but still not be able to fully explain an alternative, its how we learn. Realising something is wrong is one possible first step to discovering what is right. It is also possible to discover a better explanation of observed reality and to add understanding, Einstein would be an example of that. His ideas augmented Newton's thinking rather than replacing them.

Steve's attitude is however arrogant as he is making assertions he cannot possible back up, he has no idea of how smart or otherwise the people are who post here. However we can determine some things about Steve from the nature of his posts here, that is his behaviour here is a very rude and bad mannered. Why is this? I don't know. Steve, why do you behave in such a mean spirited and nasty manner here?
What star sign are you? Please tick you star sign in a tiny bit of ongoing research. :)
User avatar
CJ
 
Name: Chris(topher)
Posts: 2642
Age: 59
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#54  Postby Rumraket » Oct 18, 2010 7:42 am

I don't fully agree with this. Darwin went through a phase between realising that species were not created by 'god' before he figured out natural selection.

But Steve is not just saying "we don't really/fully know the answer yet". He's claiming we aren't smart enough to know. That would only be possible to claim if you knew, A) How smart we are, and B) The actual answer to the problem (Or at the least some general idea about it, because then you'd be able to gauge how smart you would need to be to solve it).
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13146
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#55  Postby Made of Stars » Oct 18, 2010 7:49 am

Rumraket wrote:SteveBee is religious but simply wants to avoid that argument by pretending he is not.

No, it's worse than that: He's an engineer.

The engineer caste seem to have inordinate difficulty understanding that not everything has a Great Engineer behind it. It's a bit of a blind-spot, driven by some underlying fear of unemployment. :think:

Just a theory hypothesis. :grin:
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#56  Postby Bud's Brain » Oct 18, 2010 7:54 am

I don't agree with the comments re rudeness. Steve is by no means the worst. Take a look at Cali or Hack's posts when they're pissed off and in full spate. Robust discussion gets heated, people get rude. You get to say your piece as nicely or not as you see fit, keeping it non personal as per FUA.

Cali, Hack - I'm just using you guys as an example - I'm not suggesting that it's your default style. Nor does my post refer to the content of Steve's post - he rudely inferred that we're stupid, and was called on it.

It's my own insignificant opinion that many users could take the confrontational tone of their posts down a notch, to the improvement of discussion.

*cringes and waits for RPG to hit*
So many Christians, so few lions.
User avatar
Bud's Brain
 
Posts: 360
Age: 46
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#57  Postby CJ » Oct 18, 2010 7:56 am

Made of Stars wrote:
Rumraket wrote:SteveBee is religious but simply wants to avoid that argument by pretending he is not.

No, it's worse than that: He's an engineer.

The engineer caste seem to have inordinate difficulty understanding that not everything has a Great Engineer behind it. It's a bit of a blind-spot, driven by some underlying fear of unemployment. :think:

Just a theory hypothesis. :grin:


I'm basically an engineer by education and I have no problem with the idea of evolution and natural selection leading to 'fit for purpose' organisms. :roll:
What star sign are you? Please tick you star sign in a tiny bit of ongoing research. :)
User avatar
CJ
 
Name: Chris(topher)
Posts: 2642
Age: 59
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#58  Postby CJ » Oct 18, 2010 8:06 am

Bud's Brain wrote:I don't agree with the comments re rudeness. Steve is by no means the worst. Take a look at Cali or Hack's posts when they're pissed off and in full spate. Robust discussion gets heated, people get rude. You get to say your piece as nicely or not as you see fit, keeping it non personal as per FUA.

Cali, Hack - I'm just using you guys as an example - I'm not suggesting that it's your default style. Nor does my post refer to the content of Steve's post - he rudely inferred that we're stupid, and was called on it.

It's my own insignificant opinion that many users could take the confrontational tone of their posts down a notch, to the improvement of discussion.

*cringes and waits for RPG to hit*


Cali and Hacks behaviour does not excuse Steve's behaviour, as long as their behaviour is within the rules that's acceptable. However, ADparker rarely, if ever, resorts to an overly aggressive style, Theropod and Just a Theory let their arguments do the slaughtering and don't give their interlocutors any scope for aggressive response. I find Cali and Hack interesting and informative but I do get a little tired of digging the core of their arguments out of their creative 'rule safe' invective, which is a great shame as their knowledge is such that they do not need the invective, not by a long way. But that's their style, so be it, I'm not the sole arbiter of acceptable behaviour.

I agree wholeheartedly that the confrontational attitude should be toned down a bit. I also think that people like Steve who appear to be here simply to piss people off and add nothing to the furtherance of mutual understanding should be sanctioned and potentially banned if they do not engage in discussion.

Steve is responsible for his behaviour. I want to know why he feels he can be rude and derogatory to the general membership here, what does he think excuses his rude behaviour?
Last edited by CJ on Oct 18, 2010 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
What star sign are you? Please tick you star sign in a tiny bit of ongoing research. :)
User avatar
CJ
 
Name: Chris(topher)
Posts: 2642
Age: 59
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#59  Postby Paul » Oct 18, 2010 8:10 am

Maybe he wants us to concentrate on the style of his arguments rather than their (lack of) substance? :dunno:
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 61
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#60  Postby Bud's Brain » Oct 18, 2010 8:16 am

CJ wrote:
Bud's Brain wrote:I don't agree with the comments re rudeness. Steve is by no means the worst. Take a look at Cali or Hack's posts when they're pissed off and in full spate. Robust discussion gets heated, people get rude. You get to say your piece as nicely or not as you see fit, keeping it non personal as per FUA.

Cali, Hack - I'm just using you guys as an example - I'm not suggesting that it's your default style. Nor does my post refer to the content of Steve's post - he rudely inferred that we're stupid, and was called on it.

It's my own insignificant opinion that many users could take the confrontational tone of their posts down a notch, to the improvement of discussion.

*cringes and waits for RPG to hit*


Cali and Hacks behaviour does not excuse Steve's behaviour, as long as their behaviour is within the rules that's acceptable. However, ADparker rarely, if ever, resorts to an overly aggressive style, Theropod and Just a Theory let their arguments do the slaughtering and don't give their interlocutors any scope for aggressive response. I find Cali and Hack interesting and informative but I do get a little tired of digging the core of their arguments out of their creative 'rule safe' invective, which is a great shame as their knowledge is such that they do not need the invective, not by a long way. But that's their style, so be it, I'm not the sole arbiter of acceptable behaviour.

I agree wholeheartedly that the confrontational attitude should be toned down a bit. I also think that people like Steve who appear to be here simply to piss people off and add nothing to the furtherance of mutual understanding should be sanctioned and potentially banned if they do not engage in discussion.

Steve is responsible for his behaviour. I want to know why he feels he can be rude and derogatory to the general membership here, what does he think excuses his rude behaviour?


Tim? :lol:

I'm just stirring now. I have no beef with you comments.
So many Christians, so few lions.
User avatar
Bud's Brain
 
Posts: 360
Age: 46
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest