It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creation, where is the evidence? I see none.

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
if the universe is infinite then odds of life mean nothing, as it will eventually happen because it is 'infinite'. however slim you make the odds, we can still be that 'slim chance' that has happened because of the fact the universe is infinite, which means life will happen for certain. you could make it 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000... yet life will still happen in an infinite environment.

the odds of winning the lottery are prety slim..but someone's gotta win it. using these 'odds' sees to be a popular theory amung christians to try and prove their religion or disprove science. just like the odds that we're actually here, or the odds of messianic prophecies coming true etc. well i explained about the odds of us being here, and the messianic prophecies are not 'proven' to have come true.




posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   
That given the odds, the same thing would happen again?> Sure it would.
because space is infinite and life just happens to appear out of a blackvoid with all of the perfect conditions and a themed faith that goes along with it.

If anything Id pull for an intervening insertion of life or a manipulation.
But from the black....no.

If life can form from the arc of electricity and a bio substrate, then show me one mercury vapor lamp with something living in it. Or any electric arc lamp at all.

Peace



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
then show me one mercury vapor lamp with something living in it. Or any electric arc lamp at all.


how in the world can i show you that? you're asking for proof i cannot give. you seem to be asking for some sort of demonstration??



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
The "odds" are irrelevant for multiple reasons - infinity is definitely a big one, but I have this analogy for "life odds" -

If you take a photograph of a crowded Times Square at noon hour one day, and then again a week later, the odds that you will have photographed the exact same people in the exact same positions are going to be very slim. This doesn't mean that there won't be people in various positions in the second photograph. They'll just be different people.

This analogy applies to the evolved world that we see around us, not the existence of life period. We could say the same thing about the odds that humans would evolve into what we are today as we could say about zipdots if we had developed into highly evolved zipdots. Nygdan's analogy is also good here - he said something along the lines of, "it's like throwing up a deck of cards and then when they land, saying, 'the odds of the cards landing like that are incredible.'" Yeah, to duplicate exactly, but obviously the odds are pretty good that the cards are gonna land some way the first time they're thrown down.

The odds of life existing at all are unknown, and I don't care what you have read that says otherwise. We simply don't know enough about the possibilities of life existing in different atmospheres to complete the mathematical probabilities for life's existence because we haven't found any life in strange and alien atmospheres yet.

Zip



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Thanks for proving my point.

Consider the following.

1: Life in the state we know it. 1 to alot. Like over a billion or trillion or whavever.

2: With electricity, and carbon based substrates, have we yet to arc something to life on our own? At all? Even a simple microbe?

3: Mayan faith and the acknowlegement of a God from the sky. Visually seen.

4: A faith, worldwide in various different forms, all ackowledging a higher power. Seen or unseen.

What is the probability of man having all the factors in place the first go round, if ever at all. Id say 0.

Man, is like a child. He thinks he has the answers, and yet he is still a child of the universe.

In the end. The probabability of creation based on the the supportive doctrines and unknowns leads me to believe creation. On a 50/50 system, it only takes 1% to push it over the edge. The creationists have more then 1% in that arena. In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth. Thats enough for me.

Peace

[edit on 20-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
if there were a god i wouldn't be able to bring myself to adore him or look up to him, he created an imperfect race, he created an imperfect world of death and selt-destruction, yet somehow this all comes across to religious people as love and affection?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
if there were a god i wouldn't be able to bring myself to adore him or look up to him, he created an imperfect race, he created an imperfect world of death and selt-destruction, yet somehow this all comes across to religious people as love and affection?


I am sorry you feel this way. He is not asking you to adore him. In the end, all he asks is that he lives with all of us.

The world in terms of its environment and whether or not it is perfect is up for debate. The world, is a beautiful place.

As for Death and self destruction, well, the death is caused by man. I am, nor is anyone else, aware or knowledgable in the precepts needed for life, death and eternal life. That is a mystery.

Self destruction, well, self destruction is SELF destruction. If one looks back in scripture, is was the story of Able and Caine when one brother killed the other in a fit of jealousy that upset god.

So dont blame God. Blame man. It is mans thinking that he is another mans keeper. Man was given free will. Man has used it and killed millions.

Peace

[edit on 20-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I think you missed the point of my post.

The "odds of life as we know it," whatever the hell THAT means, is irrelevant. We exist, so "odds of us existing" don't matter. Why dwell on it? It's meaningless. Here, I'll give you the odds of life existing in the universe at one time or another: One Hundred Percent.

Zip



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
The world, is a beautiful place.

As for Death and self destruction, well, the death is caused by man.


the world is only a beautiful place on the ouside. nature is one huge struggle of survival. death is all around us whether we like it or not. this concept or the world being beautiful is usually misinterpreted as meaning 'there has to be a creator'. supposedly god intended everything to be vegetarian, however many animals are not...so what's the deal with that.

death is often caused by man because man has the wrong reasons for doing so. i.e. 'the crusades', at the time the people doing the killing thought they were doing 'right' within the words of the bible, yet we look back upon this as barbaric, inhumane and wrong. as for killing each other i can only explain that using other animals. just goes to show we are not too distant from other animals and we ourselves are merely that.

we may be able to split the atom, discover dna, but it doesn't stop us being as primitive as sticking a knife through another's cheast.


Urn

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
keybored... for the record,i quite enjoyed reading your posts so far, and quite respect your opinions and beliefs. that being said, i'm not trying to single you out personaly or anything, but you bring up a common argument used by creationists, that simply doesn't hold water (which a few posters have already touched on)...


Originally posted by keyboredour world (that is so finely tuned to sustain our meager lives)


no, i don't agree...it is WE who are so finley tuned to be sustained by our WORLDS meager conditions, not the other way around...

here's another way to look at it... since a puddle of water fits so perfectly in it's little divet in the ground, does that mean that a god created that divet, and ever so gently placed that water in that divet, so as to make sure that not a single drop was spilled?.....no, the divet is a random occurance, and rain happens all the time....thus, that random divet WILL contain a puddle of water at some point in time...

yet another way to look at it is, if you were to throw a hand full of rice onto the ground, what are the odds that each individual grain would land where they happened to land?....answer: odds are completely irrelavent, they landed where they landed and thats it...if one feels the need to calculate the odds of such an event, then so be it...but what would be the point?.....that the puddle of water, or the grain of rice can feel special about itself? or that either is able to justify its own existance?



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
however slim you make the odds, you could make it 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000...


So you're telling me there's a chance?


ed to fix BB code, quote

[edit on 23-7-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
that life lives versus no life at all is a message nogotieattieated.
That live versus no life, is the lifeforce of the universe regardless. It is the perpetual message without resistance regardless. Without question, without arguement. Mankind was meant to be....no matter what.. For god saw, that man was kind. And that man, loved all, and that man searched for truth, even when truth was clouded with greed. And that should tell, that the universe regardless, will tell its negotiation, no matter what the lorded bias. It is written, so it shall be done.

Peace

[edit on 24-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
For god saw, that man was kind. And that man, loved all.
[edit on 24-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]


man is kind? man loves all? wake up hifi and smell the cheese. if man is your concept of kindness and love then i think you need to totally rethink your philosophies.

humans are not kind, we also do not love all.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Zipdot

Sorry it took so long to respond to your post, i've been very busy lately and wanted to take the time to properly respond...hopefully i've done so.

Good questions, i had many of them myself. Although with the knowledge you seem to have on religion and science i'm sure you've heard the arguments against, and i assume subsequently rejected them, never-the-less tho.


Zipdot
In Genesis I, the Earth is created before light and stars, for instance. Science tells us that light itself predates the Earth and that many stars are much older than the Earth.


I believe your problem here is that in Genesis 1:1 the Bible says:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

And then in Genesis 1:3 the Bible says:
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Now obviously you can't have Earth existing before you have light(stars). This is a semantical argument and is largely, IMO, based on the troubles of translating the original text. I'll try and explain what i mean here. God created the heaven and the Earth on the first day(remember i'm an old-earther day=era/long period of time).

Here's a link to some testimonials, from prominent creationists and other notable Christians, on how the word "Yom" in the context of Genesis is mistakenly translated into a 24-hour day: www.reasons.org...
Here's a snip from that link:

The Sixth “Day” Is Longer Than Twenty-Four Hours

It would also appear that the sixth “day” of creation was considerably longer than a solar day. Consider everything that happened during this one “day.”

First, God created all the many hundreds (or thousands) of land animals (Gen. 1:24-25).

Second, God “formed” man of the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7). This Hebrew word (yatsar) means “to mold” or “form,” which implies time. Yatsar is used specifically of the work of a potter (cf. Jer. 18:2f.).

Third, God said, “I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18, emphasis added). This indicates a time subsequent to the time of the announcement.




Remember this description of creation has to make sense to a man living thousands of years ago, who has no knowledge of the universe, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, mathematics, etc.....the bible would be millions of pages long if GOD had to fully explain in detail all that is His creation. So if a day is millions/billions of years long(the "days" are not believed to be equal amounts of time) and on day 1 God created the heaven(stars, galaxies, etc...) and then? the Earth that makes sense to me. All of these things can happen on "day"1.

Or perhaps i can try that another way......the universe is believed to be about 13.7 billion years old. The Earth is believed to be about 4.6 billion years old. Which means, by my logic, that "day"1 lasted about 9.1 billion years.(this is not agreed upon in the creationist comunity, young or old Earth, but gives you an idea of where i'm coming from).

The Bible says in Genesis 2:1-2 1"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them".2"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

Leaving me with the impression that "day"6 ended after the creation of man. I believe that to be between 10 and 20 thousand years ago (just yesterday relatively speaking), correct me if i'm wrong here but evolution theory has modern man(same as you and i) around 100k years ago so on the billions of years scale they are not so different.

Ok so that leaves me with about 4.6 billion years(13.7-9.1) for "days" 2 thru 6. So basically "day"1 is when GOD created the physical universe (space/time, matter and energy) which of course includes the stars and planets. If God had only created the earth Genesis 1:1 would have said, "In the beginning God created the earth."

Here's a relevant quote:

From: www.believersweb.org...
The purpose of creation is a physical, and practical one, thus our perception of time should concern that time which concerns us, as human beings. Nevertheless, the first six days of creation obviously were of much importance in and of themselves. Rabbi Schwab translates the first passage of the Bible as such: “Out of absolute nothingness the entire Universe and the Earth were called into existence.” The distinguishment that is made between the Universe and the Earth, is to be found in any literal translation, which acknowledges that the word Shamayim (most often understood to mean sky) refers to the entire Universe. The message that is being conveyed here, is that there is something essentially distinctive that separates the creation of the Universe, from the creation of the Earth.
A great read if you want an old-Earth perspective on creation. Highly recommend you read this one in full.



Zipdot
.... Genesis 1:5 divides a day into "evening" and "morning" when there is no sun to mark the division or the difference.


I'm not sure why you think that "..there is no sun...", the heaven(that's the 'stuff' that formed the first stars) is created first ie, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." and Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. So i guess my question is why do you feel that there is no Sun in Gen.1:5?

As for light coming after creation event(Big Bang) as in Gen1:1 heaven created, but light was created in Gen1:3. The Big Bang was not very big and there was no bang, also there wasn't any light.

from: www.big-bang-theory.com...
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. ....


So light(visable atleast) came after the creation event(big bang) fits both science and creationism.

If GOD says it's gonnan take faith to believe and He will not lie then it's gonna take faith and therefore it's unprovable. So science not only says it cannot prove GOD exists but my faith tells me the same....but if i'm to believe that the Bible is GOD's word, which i do, then it has to be true and therefore science cannot prove it false(yeah my head hurts too).

GOD says in Job 12:7-11
7 "But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish of the sea inform you.
9 Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the LORD has done this?
10 In his hand is the life of every creature
and the breath of all mankind.
11 Does not the ear test words
as the tongue tastes food?


So that's what Creationism is to me(science/observation will/should not contradict His word), and i can accept that in its purest form it's unscientific, 'cause in the end science cannot prove GOD spoke these things into existence...but it also cannot prove that it's just some sort of random happy accident, IMO. And we most certainly can be mistaken in our interpretation of Scripture as much as any scientist can be mistaken in his/her interpretation of the data.

Here's a link that goes into greater detail on your questions(certainly better than i can do):godandscience.org... use the search feature, all of your questions are addressed. Specifically regarding light before stars or Earth before the Sun, here's a link: www.godandscience.org....

Due to the circumstantial and subjective nature of the questions and answers i should probably quit here and direct you to some "experts" on such things(linquistics, history, etc...), perhaps you'll allow for the possiblility that it's possible that GOD exists and the Bible is His word. That's all i would ask from you, keep your heart and mind open. It's my humble opinion that GOD could care less whether or not you believe in evolution, young Earth, old Earth, etc....just know/have faith that GOD loves you, GOD has a plan for you/all. Follow his commandments(certainly we can agree the world would be a better place if we did, no?). Follow the teachings of Jesus(again if we all did as Jesus did, would not the world be a better place)?

After all our science and our creationism are probably tragically flawed and lacking. Do you think 1000 years from now science will look back and laugh at our "understanding" of the nature, size, age of the universe and life? But it's my contention that a future creationist will be able to 'plug-in' the Bible to the new data just as we do today and just as they did when they thought the Earth was the center of the Universe and flat.



Zipdot
From the perspective of evolutionary contradiction, the Bible tells us that insects and reptiles came after whales and birds. Plants were developed before there was a light source to power the process of photosynthesis - evolution says that this is backwards.


Here's a great link that addresses this question and many others: Contradictions and False Teachings in the Bible? hits on all the "favorites" like, flat Earth, rabbits chewing cud, Sun revolving around the Earth, etc.....please give it a read. And plants before light has already been addressed...hopefully




Zipdot
I'm gonna pause for now, because it's getting late, but I think it's pretty clear that the Bible and science are not the best of friends, with or without regard to evolution and abiogenesis.


Well......you say tomato, i say toe-ma-toe.*
Round and round we go...eh. I know/accept that none of this is proof of creation, in a truely scientific sense, for the non-believer but i hope i've been helpful. And just one last link pertaining to the topic at hand, scientific proof of creation i'd put forth-Biblical Creationary Model for the Universe and Life on Earth

by Rich Deem
A common complaint of atheists is that creationists attack standard models of evolution, but provide no viable alternate model. The purpose of this page is to provide just that - a creationary, scientific model for the universe and life within it. The writings of the Bible provide enough information to form a thorough and complete creationary model for the reality of the universe and human existence. This model has predictive value and can be tested against the known physical characteristics of the universe and life on Earth.




*P.S. i don't say "toe-ma-toe", and can't say i've ever met anyone who does. But you catch my drift i'm sure.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Here's you Proof: Evolution's Beginning point is Physically Impossible!

A scientist working since the '90's has proven in a lab that the beginning point for evolution that Darwinsts claim is Physically impossible. There is No way to create the protiens and the complex amino acids that are needed to build a cell (the basic unit of life). Repeated experiments have failed to produse a living cell. Analysis has lead to the conclusion, that it is inpossible the the most basic components of life to have come into existance on their own or by chance!

Since then, others have repeated his tests with the same results!

Analysis: The fact that it is impossible for these protiens to have come into existance from a random event, only leaves one possible answer: They have to have been design and created with a spicific purpose! If it was design and created with a spicific purpose, that means someone (the Creator/God) has to have made them. If it has been scientifically proven that it is impossible to create the most basic components of life from a random set of chemical reactions, one must serously question all of the other asumptions that evolutionist make.

Bottom Line: Cutting Edge Modern Science now refutes Darwin's Theory of Evoution! You wanted EVIDENCE, well here it is!!

Good Bye Dawin! You can take your theory back now, It's dead!


Tim



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Here's you Proof: Evolution's Beginning point is Physically Impossible!

A scientist working since the '90's has proven in a lab that the beginning point for evolution that Darwinsts claim is Physically impossible. There is No way to create the protiens and the complex amino acids that are needed to build a cell (the basic unit of life). Repeated experiments have failed to produse a living cell. Analysis has lead to the conclusion, that it is inpossible the the most basic components of life to have come into existance on their own or by chance!

So this guy was able to replicate the exact atmosphere [and enviroment] required to generate life? No.. as far as I can gather.. they have 'guessed' and speculated about what type of atmosphere would have existed.. and made the conclusions from experiments reliant on this possibly inaccurate guess work. Please tell me.. how can this be presented as scienific 'fact' when the atmosphere their whole argument depends upon has not been proven absolute fact? Are you able to post the same conclusions from a secular scientist [ulliminates bias]?

[edit on 26-7-2005 by riley]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Bottom line is you produced a pile of crap from a biased and unscientific source and have no notion of the concept "proof". For example, it is stated that "with no ozone shield, life would also be impossible". This is only true for the formation of life at the surface, unprotected from UV radiation, not for the formation of life underneath just a tiny layer of clay or sand needed to protect from UV or the formation of life under water. It is unscientific broad generalizations and distortions of science that the creation crowd thrives on.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Here's you Proof: Evolution's Beginning point is Physically Impossible!

A scientist working since the '90's has proven in a lab that the beginning point for evolution that Darwinsts claim is Physically impossible. There is No way to create the protiens and the complex amino acids that are needed to build a cell (the basic unit of life). Repeated experiments have failed to produse a living cell. Analysis has lead to the conclusion, that it is inpossible the the most basic components of life to have come into existance on their own or by chance!

Since then, others have repeated his tests with the same results!

Analysis: The fact that it is impossible for these protiens to have come into existance from a random event, only leaves one possible answer: They have to have been design and created with a spicific purpose! If it was design and created with a spicific purpose, that means someone (the Creator/God) has to have made them. If it has been scientifically proven that it is impossible to create the most basic components of life from a random set of chemical reactions, one must serously question all of the other asumptions that evolutionist make.

Bottom Line: Cutting Edge Modern Science now refutes Darwin's Theory of Evoution! You wanted EVIDENCE, well here it is!!

Good Bye Dawin! You can take your theory back now, It's dead!


Tim


so because a scientist cannot recreate something in a lab means its now not true?? that's perhaps the most absurd thing ever and science doesn't even work like that...you don't try one experiment and if it doesn't work say oh it must be impossible.

also the site you linked to ''www.godrules.org''.... yeah i wonder why that says evolution isn't true...wouldn't be a biased opinion would it???

[edit on 26-7-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
so because a scientist cannot recreate something in a lab means its now not true?? that's perhaps the most absurd thing ever and science doesn't even work like that...you don't try one experiment and if it doesn't work say oh it must be impossible.

also the site you linked to ''www.godrules.org''.... yeah i wonder why that says evolution isn't true...wouldn't be a biased opinion would it???
[edit on 26-7-2005 by shaunybaby]



The definition of Scientific Proof, is that another scientist should be able to duplicate you work from your notes. Proof means that you can recreate the resault. Accoring to this definition, Neither Evolution, nor Creation is really a fact.

Oh, BTW: Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory! Nothing More, It's is still a theory, if you like it or not!

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Defines a Theory as: A hypothesis Assumed for the sake of arument or investigation, or an unproven assumption (it is on Page 1209 if you wish to look it up!)


Even well known and accepted theories are not difinitive. Case in point: Gravity. We know a lot about gravity. Generlly, we talk about it as fact, because everything science has leared since the days of Newton support his conclusions. However, no serious phisicist, worth his college degree would claime that Gravity is poven, because we still are not really sure how or why it works! ( PS: Newton is a lot older than Darwin, and there is much more solid evidence to support his Theory of Gravity!)

Bottom Line: Evolution is Still a theory, because noone has really poven it to be true!

Since it is a matter of FACT that Evolution is NOT proven either, I'm entitled to ask you the same question: The statments saying "Evolution has to be the right answer". . . Now this Couldn't possibly be a bias conclusion, based on only the facts that you like? Could it?

Before you Tell me how science works and how it doesn't work, I suggest that you read up on scientific theory and standards of proof. (BTW: All the so called "Evidence" for the evolution camp contains a very basic Logical Fallacy: You CAN'T use the premise of your argument to prove your conclusion!

Yet every evolutionist keeps on trying to do just that!


In another 2000 years Evolution will be one of thoese things that serious scientist laugh about, just like the old "Flat Earth" from the middle ages.

Tim



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Oh, BTW: Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory! Nothing More, It's is still a theory, if you like it or not!

In another 2000 years Evolution will be one of thoese things that serious scientist laugh about, just like the old "Flat Earth" from the middle ages.

Tim


learn some respect and show yourself with a bit of decorum, right now you sound like an over-excited spoilt child.

i know darwin's ''theory'' is a theory. hence the words ''darwin's theory''. however, its no different to the creationist's theory of god created the universe and everything that lives within it. they are both theories that are likely to never be 100% agreed upon which one is right.

''in 2000 years we'll laugh at evolution?''... you mean just like we laugh at the concept of the ancient greek gods or beliefs that the earth was held up by an elephant or on atlas' shoulder? you talk about the flat earth like it was a blunder by science...i'm not sure you can't really blame the flat earth believe entirely on science.

if darwin's theory was thought to be just an imaginative theory of a genius then it would have been disproved by now. if anything there has never been more research in to darwin's idea. life 'just coming in to existence from nothing'... you seem to think that concept is absurd. yet, we are to believe that, with no evidence, a man and woman called adam and eve just 'came in to existence', with no 'real' explanation other than god spoke them in to existence.


Originally posted by ghost
b]PS: Newton is a lot older than Darwin, and there is much more solid evidence to support his Theory of Gravity!)


what is that meant to prove? obviously there has been way more time to research in to newton's theory, hence why there would be more facts supporting it. darwin, being a younger theory, has not yet had enough time to be proven beyond doubt. however, it has had enough time to be disproven, yet it has not been.


[edit on 26-7-2005 by shaunybaby]




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join