|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
But you cannot say that it is a moral absolute for anything to matter unless you believe in moral absolutes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. You're late to the party. Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago. If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in. Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../evolution-watching-speciation-occu...“Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day. For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.”
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
"Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn’t that evolution?
Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. They’ve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a fact—period!
Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesn’t even come close.
Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (genons) with new information for new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.
Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as “a change in gene frequency,” then the fly example “proves evolution”—but it also “proves creation,” since varying the amounts of already-existing genes is what creation is all about.
If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. As you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. Of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our scientific observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others) (Figure 22).
Evolutionists are often asked what they mean by “species,” and creationists are often asked what they mean by “kind.” Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,” and evolutionists also use the interbreeding criterion. However, scientists recognize certain bower birds as distinct species even though they interbreed, and they can’t use the interbreeding criterion at all with asexual forms. So, both creationists and evolutionists are divided into “lumpers” and “splitters.” “Splitters,” for example, classify cats into 28 species; “lumpers” (creationist or evolutionist) classify them into only one!
Why should we be able to classify plants and animals into created kinds or species at all? The late Stephen Gould,1 famed evolutionist and acrimonious anti-creationist, wrote that biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living world into distinct and discrete species. “But,” said Gould, “how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?” For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries. Darwin also recognized the problem. He finally ended by denying the reality of species. As Gould pointed out, Darwin was quite good at classifying the species whose ultimate reality he denied. And, said Gould, Darwin could take no comfort in fossils, since he was also successful in classifying them into distinct species. He used the same criteria we use to classify plants and animals today.
In one of the most brilliantly and perceptively developed themes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton2 shows how leaders in the science of classification, after a century of trying vainly to accommodate evolution, are returning to, and fleshing out, the creationist typological concepts of the pre-Darwinian era. Indeed, the study of biological classification was founded by Karl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) on the basis of his conscious and explicit biblical belief that living things were created to multiply after kind, and that these created kinds could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations in the Creator’s mind. If evolution were true, says Denton, classification of living things ought to reflect a sequential pattern, like the classification of wind speeds, with arbitrary divisions along a continuum (e.g., the classification of hurricanes into categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 along a wind speed gradient). In sharp contrast, living things fit into distinctly bounded hierarchical categories, with each member “equi-representative” of the group, and “equidistant” from members of other defined groups.
“Actually,” concluded Gould, “the existence of distinct species was quite consistent with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian era” (emphasis added). I would simply like to add that the evidence is also quite consistent with the creationist tenets of the present post-neo-Darwinian era. In Darwin’s time, as well as the present, “creation” seems to be the more logical inference from our observations."
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/15/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
Re: Dawkins video....whales
Lots of bafflegab and a nice drawing. Reminds me of the semi-famous depiction of the “evolution” of the horse..... small ones, big ones, three toes, two toes.... but all were horses. Some guy made fun of it by using the same format but used dogs in the illustration.
But, as ever, let me ask a couple of questions..... you say “we” have the fossils.... ok, show me. Seems we had a great leap from a small land animal to a whale like creature. Let’s see the “more transitional fossils.”
Further, pls provide info or reference to the “having the DNA.”
Small land mammal to whale? DNA trail? I would like to see that.
Pls, if the only evidence is a similarity between hippo and whale DNA is all you have, just say it. There seems to be much similarity chicken hemoglobin and human hemoglobin. That is not proof of common ancestry.
. The information is out there, all you have to do is look for it, but since it goes against your religious beliefs, you simply ignore it. Right back at you! The information is out there, but you ignore it as it goes against .... your.... religious?” beliefs. Several issues with the much ballyhooed news about transitional forms has been brought up and made clear, but you can only respond with some worn out drivel about going against religious beliefs. How about some facts..... maybe some truth? Most of the evolutionists on this site seem to believe that “micro-evolution” is proof of macro evolution. Not so..... They have bought into the falsehood and..... like I said, prefer the shallow water of ignorance rather than the deeper waters of intellectual challenge.
Last edited by TF49; 08/15/19. Reason: iPad smarter than I a,
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. You're late to the party. Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago. If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in. Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../evolution-watching-speciation-occu...“Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day. For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.” Simple genetic variation within a genotype. More examples of genetic variation passed off and sold to the masses as proof of evolution...of the macro type.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Most of the evolutionists on this site seem to believe that “micro-evolution” is proof of macro evolution. Not so..... They have bought into the falsehood and..... like I said, prefer the shallow water of ignorance (arguing from micro evolution and extrapolating to macro evolution) rather than the deeper waters of intellectual challenge (demonstrating the scientific viability of macro evolution). Added a little wording for more clarity 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,492
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,492 |
Why can't any of you guys DEFINE "micro-evolution" vs. "macro-evolution?"
If individuals of a species start to live in separate environments, keep the same types of bones but different shapes of them, and keep much of the same behavior--tool making, tribalism, war with other tribes, sexual dimorphism (males larger than females), but one type develops anatomy better suited to living in trees while the other type develops long hind legs and the ability to throw things accurately, is that micro or macro? Because that describes humans vs. chmpnzees. We think the separation happened 6,000,000 years ago. We think the two species cannot interbreed (at least I hope).
What about two species of hominids that any skilled anatomist can tell are different with the glance at a single bone, due to size of teeth, shape of skull, size of bones and muscle attachments, and brain size (the other one had larger brains than us)? That's us and Neanderthals, split about 300,000 years ago and (surpise!) lately proven capable of interbreding with us. That's us and Neanderthals. Is that micro or macro? Incidentally they had white skins and red hair. We had blck hair.
What about the split between Negroes and all other Homo sapiens races that occurred about 70,000 years ago? Differences include length of the (protruding) lower face, bone density, various bone structures and IQ. Obviously capable of interbreeding and without any firm line between races. Micro or macro?
What about the evolutionary changes we KNOW occurred in Europeans during the last 10,000 years? Micro or macro? Examples include (a) our brains are about 10% smaller, (b) our bones are less dense, (c) skin color--Europeans were originally black, (d) we evolved the ability for adults to digest dairy products, (e) certain groups adapted capillary structures to aid living at high altitudes, etc.
I don't think "micro" or "macro" even exist. Evolution obviously happens. The longer two groups are separate, the greater the differences become.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,830
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,830 |
But you cannot say that it is a moral absolute for anything to matter unless you believe in moral absolutes. Oh, I believe in moral absolutes. Never break a promise, absolutely. Marriage is sacrosanct, absolutely. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Not because breaking such rules is a sin. But because breaking them is not conducive to harmonious relations. It does not require devine inspiration for a group of intelligent humans to determine rules which allow society to function smoothly. But I will admit, adding the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell, does take some of the work out of enforcing those rules upon people not intelligent enough to figure out for themselves that rules should be followed.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 942
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 942 |
Re: Dawkins video....whales
Lots of bafflegab and a nice drawing. Reminds me of the semi-famous depiction of the “evolution” of the horse..... small ones, big ones, three toes, two toes.... but all were horses. Some guy made fun of it by using the same format but used dogs in the illustration.
But, as ever, let me ask a couple of questions..... you say “we” have the fossils.... ok, show me. Seems we had a great leap from a small land animal to a whale like creature. Let’s see the “more transitional fossils.”
Further, pls provide info or reference to the “having the DNA.”
Small land mammal to whale? DNA trail? I would like to see that.
Pls, if the only evidence is a similarity between hippo and whale DNA is all you have, just say it. There seems to be much similarity chicken hemoglobin and human hemoglobin. That is not proof of common ancestry.
. The information is out there, all you have to do is look for it, but since it goes against your religious beliefs, you simply ignore it. Right back at you! The information is out there, but you ignore it as it goes against .... your.... religious?” beliefs. Several issues with the much ballyhooed news about transitional forms has been brought up and made clear, but you can only respond with some worn out drivel about going against religious beliefs. How about some facts..... maybe some truth? Most of the evolutionists on this site seem to believe that “micro-evolution” is proof of macro evolution. Not so..... They have bought into the falsehood and..... like I said, prefer the shallow water of ignorance rather than the deeper waters of intellectual challenge. You’re the one that is throwing in the ballyhoo comparing the birds-dinosaur link to a flat earth. There is a scientific consensus that birds are part of the dinosaur family. There is no scientific consensus that the earth is flat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
Re: Dawkins video....whales
Lots of bafflegab and a nice drawing. Reminds me of the semi-famous depiction of the “evolution” of the horse..... small ones, big ones, three toes, two toes.... but all were horses. Some guy made fun of it by using the same format but used dogs in the illustration.
But, as ever, let me ask a couple of questions..... you say “we” have the fossils.... ok, show me. Seems we had a great leap from a small land animal to a whale like creature. Let’s see the “more transitional fossils.”
Further, pls provide info or reference to the “having the DNA.”
Small land mammal to whale? DNA trail? I would like to see that.
Pls, if the only evidence is a similarity between hippo and whale DNA is all you have, just say it. There seems to be much similarity chicken hemoglobin and human hemoglobin. That is not proof of common ancestry.
. The information is out there, all you have to do is look for it, but since it goes against your religious beliefs, you simply ignore it. Right back at you! The information is out there, but you ignore it as it goes against .... your.... religious?” beliefs. Several issues with the much ballyhooed news about transitional forms has been brought up and made clear, but you can only respond with some worn out drivel about going against religious beliefs. How about some facts..... maybe some truth? Most of the evolutionists on this site seem to believe that “micro-evolution” is proof of macro evolution. Not so..... They have bought into the falsehood and..... like I said, prefer the shallow water of ignorance rather than the deeper waters of intellectual challenge. You’re the one that is throwing in the ballyhoo comparing the birds-dinosaur link to a flat earth. There is a scientific consensus that birds are part of the dinosaur family. There is no scientific consensus that the earth is flat. Ok, this has got to be let go of.....there is no platform for further discussion here.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,993
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,993 |
Ok, this has got to be let go of.....there is no platform for further discussion here.
LOL!!
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
If we assume that God does not exist then nothing in this thread matters. In fact neither you nor I matter, neither does anything else in the universe. Might be wise to have an open mind.
Why in the world would you say such a thing? The happiness of my spouse and family very much matters. My reputation as honest and trustworthy very much matters. My kids and grandchildren growing up to be happy and productive matters. The nation and world we leave behind for our grandchildren and great grandchildren to live in very much matters. These things matter all the more, because that is all there is to matter. Why? It would make no difference. Why not do whatever makes you happy and when life gets hard, poof, you cease to exist. In other words what's the point of living, particularly when things get unpleasant. This "philosophy" seems to be playig out in the news lately.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,531
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,531 |
I believe in intelligent design. I believe in God. I believe in the Bible. But unlike a lot of Christians and Jews I also believe in evolution. Some people have a very naive view of things. They read the Bible and they automatically assume everything they read happened just like they imagine. We have to remember that the books in the Bible have been interpreted several times into several languages. It's hard to read it literally. Some of the events have been scientifically proven to have happened. Maybe not quite how we interpret it as we read it in the Bible but proven, well as proven as you can 2-3 thousand years later.
I believe evolution is how much of the events in the Bible came to pass. I believe it was by God's design. I believe evolution is a tool God uses. If you believe in intelligent design you should have no problem believing in evolution. evolution is right up there with intelligent design. It goes hand in hand with intelligent design. Call it intelligent change if you will. People get hung up on details, details they don't understand.
Last edited by Filaman; 08/15/19.
What goes up must come down, what goes around comes around, there's no free lunch. Trump's comin' back, get over it!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,531
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,531 |
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black? Okay, answering the questions from a theist point of view. Because that's how God made it; case closed. Absofreakinglutely!
What goes up must come down, what goes around comes around, there's no free lunch. Trump's comin' back, get over it!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,478
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,478 |
But you cannot say that it is a moral absolute for anything to matter unless you believe in moral absolutes. the only absolute --- is their are no absolutes every argument here is a construct of humans with its failability , interjections, partial conclusions, an amazing 77 pages. anything here about molecular evolution, common metabolic pathways across large patches of yet another human construct --time. the question still remains ----- How did it all get started? you either believe in mind before matter, or matter before mind.
Most people don't have what it takes to get old
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,830
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,830 |
If we assume that God does not exist then nothing in this thread matters. In fact neither you nor I matter, neither does anything else in the universe. Might be wise to have an open mind.
Why in the world would you say such a thing? The happiness of my spouse and family very much matters. My reputation as honest and trustworthy very much matters. My kids and grandchildren growing up to be happy and productive matters. The nation and world we leave behind for our grandchildren and great grandchildren to live in very much matters. These things matter all the more, because that is all there is to matter. Why? It would make no difference. Why not do whatever makes you happy and when life gets hard, poof, you cease to exist. In other words what's the point of living, particularly when things get unpleasant. This "philosophy" seems to be playig out in the news lately. Well I suppose, if one does not have the innate moral character to do what is right. I have had just such conversations with several staunch "Christians" who stated: "If I did not think I would go to hell, I would be out there screwing anything with a skirt." And then guess what, one of the jackasses is in the middle of a nasty divorce because he was caught cheating on his wife. Christians have no corner on the market when it comes to morality. Nor do non Christians have a corner on immorality. The only difference is that Christians often think they have a "get out of jail free card" tucked in their wallet. All they have to do is repent. Me, I know that if I wrong someone, they are wronged forever. I expect no forgiveness. We do what we need to do to minimize harm to our loved ones, and to our society in general.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,829
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,829 |
I believe in intelligent design. I believe in God. I believe in the Bible. But unlike a lot of Christians and Jews I also believe in evolution. Some people have a very naive view of things. They read the Bible and they automatically assume everything they read happened just like they imagine. We have to remember that the books in the Bible have been interpreted several times into several languages. It's hard to read it literally. Some of the events have been scientifically proven to have happened. Maybe not quite how we interpret it as we read it in the Bible but proven, well as proven as you can 2-3 thousand years later.
I believe evolution is how much of the events in the Bible came to pass. I believe it was by God's design. I believe evolution is a tool God uses. If you believe in intelligent design you should have no problem believing in evolution. evolution is right up there with intelligent design. It goes hand in hand with intelligent design. Call it intelligent change if you will. People get hung up on details, details they don't understand. You are certainly displaying ignorance of the Bible's translation. You need to take a few minutes in the library, or just read the introducing pages of a New American standard Bible or any of the modern Bibles. You also need to consider the order mentioned in God's Word for events of creation and the events for evolution. They are not even close to compatible.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,829
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,829 |
the only absolute --- is their are no absolutes Are you absolutely certain?!
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,956
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,956 |
cogent stuff Etoh. But what about "absolute" zero? Oh wait, another human construct.  Geno PS, 60+ pages on my machine and it's still not settled.
Last edited by Valsdad; 08/15/19.
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,620
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,620 |
or bipolar analysis as the other thread would illustrate Something is being illustrated, but not what you think or believe. Again, basic logic in the form of a contradiction....one of many. If love keeps no record of wrongs and God is Love, God does not keep a record of wrongs. God punishes generations for the transgressions of their forebears, God is not only keeping a record of wrongs but passing them onto the innocent. ''Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''- 1 Corinthians 13;5-7 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.'' Matthew 5:43
Then the contradiction;
I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me'' - Exodus 20:55 so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nothing; (Deut 28:63) "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV) Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV) "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38) Undeniable contradictions, Thunderstruck.
|
|
|
|
|
568 members (10gaugemag, 1lessdog, 1234, 10gaugeman, 007FJ, 160user, 68 invisible),
2,344
guests, and
1,242
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,657
Posts18,455,621
Members73,909
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
