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 Theory VS Evolution Theory... who is right?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   


Jesus will still love you when you come to terms with that.


Jesus can't love anyone anymore because he's dead since 2000 years.


well since there was a big flood that would explain why the continents are shifting and moving away from eachother. and why there are many layers of strata with polystrata fossils. it would also explain why claims are found on moutain tops. and in deserts. it would explain the oil and the coal seems.
it explains a lot of things.


How many times will we have to explain to you how mountains form?

[edit on 4-7-2005 by DarkSide]




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Expert999, I am a skeptic first and foremost, and not on any side. You should be a bit more skeptical too, and believe what sounds more plausible


Originally posted by expert999
do you know that there was only one continent? or.. do you know that the moon was once part of the earth? no you dont... you believe thats what happened... but you dont know.

Just as you believe creation, you don't know.


Originally posted by expert999
actually pangea doesnt work. you have to shrink africa 35-40% in order to make it fit with south america.

I couldn't find where your links prove Africa would not have fit. Here is a deatiled description of how pangea is thought to have broken up.
pubs.usgs.gov...



well if there was a flood about 4400 years ago. that would explain why that desert is so young. if the earth is billions of years old, why dont we have a older desert somewhere? why dont we have an older coral reef somewhere? the oldest reef is less than 4400 years old.

What method of dating the age of the Earth do you use?.



well since there was a big flood that would explain why the continents are shifting and moving away from eachother. and why there are many layers of strata with polystrata fossils. it would also explain why claims are found on moutain tops. and in deserts. it would explain the oil and the coal seems.
it explains a lot of things.


The continents are moving, as in my previous link, because of tectonic plates. Actually there alot of problems with a global flood adressed here:
www.creationism.ws...
and more on the countless problems with the ark and Noah:
www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
999 - in reference to your standard creationist website "conservation of angular momentum" argument, I have previously pointed you to a website that showed why there is no reason to believe that that law has any bearing on the motion of galaxies and planets as a result of the Big Bang.

Here is the link again. Please stop bringing this up.

Here's a page from answersingenesis.com that lists arguments that creationists think should not be used to defend creationism.

Zip



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Bible is wrong, and has been proven as such.

According to it the Exodus happened, according to reality it didn't. No Hebrew Slaves, no plagues, no 10 Commandments, none of it.

According to the bible world flood happened. According to the real world it didn't happen.

According to the bible snakes talk, reality? Nope, snakes don't talk.

According to the bible disease/mass deaths were god. Science says virus/bacteria.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:25 AM
link   


This member removed an administrative edit to his post, for which he received a red-flag warning.

This member had copied-and-pasted an entire article from a proven dubious website, the Kent Hovind Dr. Dino site. An edit to his post indicated removal of the material. Since this member re-applied the copy-and-paste after my warning, and after removing it a first time, his entire post was removed.

This notice will remain so that ATS members can gauge the earnestness and honesty of expert999 in his posts. Removal of this administrative notice will result in a posting ban.




[edit on 5-7-2005 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
if you are open minded you will read all of this post.
since I was challenged into joining this thread. I have a few questions.


but before I ask them let me educate you on a few things
II Peter 3:3 says "knowing this first, there will come in the last days scoffers walking after their own lusts, saying where is the promise of his coming? for since the father fell asleep ... ... ...
I believe in the Bible... if you read the bible and understand it thoroughly, and you do your research on evolution, you will find that they are opposites. one of them is wrong. anyways...


To believe that, is to have faith in a religion. To believe science, you just need to see the facts.



there are SIX different meanings to the word Evolution...

1. Cosmic Evolution- The origin of time space and matter. (Big Bang), there is no proof for this theory, but it is stated that it is a fact and it happens every 100 billion years.

2. Chemical Evolution- All 92 elements plus the synthetic ones evolve somehow. Energy is needed for fusion to occur. Fusion does occur in stars, but you cannot fuse past iron. but there is a chicken and the egg problem. you need stars for the energy, but you need the chemicals to make up the stars.

3. Stellar Evolution- Stars and planets evolving. no one has ever seen a star form, nor have they witnessed a planet form.

4. Organic Evolution- Life evolving from non-living material. this was proven wrong a while ago. life begats life. and it was even proved in the lab.

5. Macro Evolution- Evolving from one KIND of animal to a different KIND of animal. example: from a cat to a dog.

6. Micro Evolution- Variation within the KIND of animal.

you need the first three in order to get the last three. you cant just skip the first three and end up with the last three.


Evolution does not state anything about origins of the universe, life, or any other happenings in the universe other than with life.

First of all - Dogs to cats does not, and can not work. Macro evolution is not that. I've stated various links explaining what it means. For the last time, when discussing science, use scientific words, not biblical interpretations.


now it is a fact that there are variations within different KINDS of animals. but you will never get Macro Evolution. I dont know what exactly people mean when they say speciation, but you can crossbreed whatever you want. but you will always get the same KIND you started with maybe a different species but the same KIND. you will never get a tomatoe to grow on your cornstalk. and you will never produce a non-dog from a dog.


You don't know what I mean by speciation? Then that proves you don't look at all the links provided. I've provided links (in bold red) directly linked to Speciation.

Once again, that is not macro evolution. I've already explained it. On that note, you still haven't answered my questions on what your definitions are of the things I stated.


the first FIVE are religious. no one has ever had scientific proof for any of these.

How does a big bang occur and somehow go against "the law of conservation of angular momentum"? the law states, that if a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment, the pieces that break off will be spinning in the same direction as the... ... ... the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago. (by the way, that would have been a long long time ago).


Bloody hell, get your facts straight please.

"In physics, angular momentum intuitively measures how much the linear momentum is directed around a certain point called the origin; the moment of momentum. Since angular momentum depends upon the origin of choice, one must be careful when discussing angular momentum to specify the origin and not to combine angular momenta about different origins."

From here.



another quote from Discover Magizine 2002, the article was titled "where did everything come from?"
it read "the universe bursted in to something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. as it got bigger it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. how is that possible?"
my theory, its not.


No, your opinion is it isn't. Please read this.


Alan Guth quoted in Scientific America on page 128 from 1996 "the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. its then temping to go on one step further ans speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing."

it also goes against the first law of thermal dynamics
"matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed"

it also goes against the 2nd law of thermal dynamics that states
"everything tends toward disorder"


First of all, if the Big Bang came from a dimensionless singularity, how can you say what happens in a dimension no-one can ever hope to comprehend?

Your ignorance is astounding. The second law of Thermodynamics is this:
"In physics, the second law of thermodynamics, in its many forms, is a statement about the quality and direction of energy flow, and it is closely related to the concept of entropy."
Source


life cannot be generated from non-living material. no one has ever made life from non-living material. there was a scientist that did make a virus, but there was ... ... ...
Earnie Haeckel claimed during his confession "that spontaneous generation must be true, not because it has been proven in the laboratory, but because othewise...it would be necessary to believe in a creator"
if you look in the lowest layes of the geologic collumn, even the lowest layers are claimed to having oxygen in those layers.


I want sources for:
Life not being able to be made from non-living materials
An artificially produced biological virus
Darwin thinking a cell is a sack of jelly
The quote about there having been a creator

I want to know whether you retrieved this information, or made it up on hearsay.


miller and urey tried to make life in the lab. they didnt tell you that they excluded oxygen, excluding oxygen prevents their product from oxidizing. their results actually turned out to be ... ... ...the bonding could happen but the product would oxydize with oxygen, without oxygen there would be no ozone to block enough UV light.


Once again, source please. That also doesn't have anything to do with evolution, seeing that evolution does not make any guesses to how life started. Show me a source suggesting otherwise.


the earths magnetic field has lost 6% within the past 150 years. indicating that the earth is less than 25,000 years old. go back 25-30 thousand even with a reversed magnetic field. and the heat generated from the magnetic field would have destroyed life on earth. if you look at the pangea theory,... ... ...was. the continents are not lilly pads floating around in the bath tub. they are connected by the crust. now just because the continents are shifting doesnt mean they have always been shifting. check out Walt Browns hydroplate theory.


Once again, state your source. Don't make rabid statements without proof. I want proof of a magnetic field polarity reversal causing heat from inside the earth to rise to the surface somehow and killing all life.


The earth is spinning abotu 1,000 MPH at the equator but it is also slowing down at the rate of 1/1000 of a second every day. which means that used to be going faster.... ... ...(as far as we know). but the big bang theory says that the earth is billions of years old. now thats a problem. if you go back too far, the coriolis effect would cause the winds to be over 5,000 miles per hour because of the earths fast rotation.


Once again, state your sources. If you want to be credible, at least provide evidence. Preferably from a source anyone can use, like the Internet.


the sehara desert expands through a process called desertification. but its been calculated that the sehara desert is less than 4000 years old. REFERENCE is from HBJ ... ... ... the earth is billions of years old, how come there isnt a desert older than 4000 years old? why isnt there one that is 10,000 years old? the evolution theory has many flaws and is based off of many assumptions.


First of all, evolution does not state anything about that. Not at all. Geological sciences do.


the so-called magnetic reversals at the mid-atlantic ridge are flase. there are no magnetic reversals. there are areas of stronger and weaker magnetic strength, but no where will a north-seeking compass point south. there is only areas of stronger and weaker magnetism.


Sources? (I should really just make a program asking for sources.)


Annual Ice rings are not a indication of one ring per year. research the "lost squadron" that got lost in WWII and crash landed in greenland.
in 1990 they found them using radar. the airplanes were down there for 48 years. they were 263 feet below the surface. but while melting through the ice, hundreds of ice rings were melted through. a guy names Bob Cardin was on the team that dilled down to the aircraft. check out www.thelostsquadron.com


I checked out that website. Unfortunately, I never found any references to ice rings.


the oldest reef in the world in located in australia, its called the great barrier reef. they estimated that the reef is less then 4000 years old. this was based off of a 20 year observation.


Yes. And that has to do with anything...?


the oldest languages are known to be less than 6,000 years old. the chinese calandar starts back around at the end of noahs flood instead of like our calander where we start about 2000 years ago when Jesus was here.


Perhaps that's because that's when the earliest recorded writing was found to be around that age?
Source


Fossils do not count for evidence for evolution. if you want to think they do, you think that all you want. but they dont count. they cant. what can you conclude from observing a fossil? it died... thats about it. what else can you observe?


Once again, your ignorance is astounding. You can observe bone structures, how it may have lived, what it might have eaten, what it might be related to.


they used to teach the humans and the chimp are very similar in DNA. well the difference between the two is a difference of 1.6 percent. but if you click on this link. you will find that there is no way for humans to evolve from the chimp or the chimp from the human. its states "Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, ... ... ...have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." but Dr. Barney Maddox is probably a crack addict or something. evolutionists will probably find some reason to discredit him.
here is a link to that page Dr Maddox is on
www.trueauthority.com...


And they still do. It is similar. What about the other 98.4%? Plus chimpanzees aren't of the genus Homo, so of course it's going to be different.


the geologic collumn was thought up in 1830, long before radiometric dating was ever invented. how this happened, it was thought up. Charles Lyell made up the whole thing. see... ... ...ons of years old and each layer was a different age. how he knows is anyones guess. the layers of strata are dated by the fossils they find in that layer. and the fossils are dated by which layer of strata they come from. this is called circular reasoning.


Sources?


grand canyon did not form by the colorado river. the colorado river is what is draining through what we call grand canyon. its more probable that grand canyon formed during the flood with LOTS of water and LITTLE time.
the scientists say that the canyon on mars that is much bigger than grand canyon, and there is no water on mars as far as we know. there is a bunch of frozen CO2(dry ice)


Lots of water and little time is implausible. Rocks take time to weather. A huge canyon will not form if it was quickly immersed in water. If anything, it'll remain basically the same because no weathering could take place.


Forget it. I'm not continuing to argue your points unless you back up your argument with proper facts and sources most people can access.

And until you answer my three questions I posed to you, and until you realise what exactly macro evolution is, which I've linked you to multiple times.

Just a side note, I cut out large portions from quotes and replaced them with ellipses to reduce the size of this post.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
they used to teach the humans and the chimp are very similar in DNA. well the difference between the two is a difference of 1.6 percent. but if you click on this link. you will find that there is no way for humans to evolve from the chimp or the chimp from the human.

If you are going to argue against something.. it would be alot more convincing if you actually TRIED to understand it what it is y9ou are arguning against. Obviously.. despite being told repetitively.. chimps neither come from human beings or vice verser.. they share a common ancestor.

its states "Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change." another thing to think about is what darwin said... on the same site, there is a quote from his book that states. "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." but Dr. Barney Maddox is probably a crack addict or something. evolutionists will probably find some reason to discredit him.

As has been pointed out already.. Darwins quote has been changed/falsified.. so it's not only Maddox's credibilty that is put into question.. but your entire source as they have no problems deliberately misquoting him for their own agenda.. in which case they'd have no trouble changing other facts to suit.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   


If you are going to argue against something.. it would be alot more convincing if you actually TRIED to understand it what it is y9ou are arguning against. Obviously.. despite being told repetitively.. chimps neither come from human beings or vice verser.. they share a common ancestor.


can you prove that they have a common ancestar?

and honda accord and honda Civic have look a lot alike, and have many interchangable parts, that does not mean they both have a common ancestar of a skateboard.

and if you want to know why I get onto man coming from chimps, why do ytou think they are trying to push the LUCI issue? its considered a missing link...
the point I am trying to get accross to everyone, is that Evolution and Creation are both religious and you have to have FAITH that either happened. im my opinion you have to have more faith to believe that we all came from a swirling dot 20 billion years ago.

so whenever society gets a grip and realizes that evolution is not a part of science and is not a fact whatsoever, they will realize that its time to get a new theory. because the whole evolution theory is based on lies.
the only scientific part of evolution is micro evolution and that isd the tool that is used to get people to believe in the whole theory.

seems like you are en evolutionist charlie... are you a darwinist? because if his words that I quoted were not true... then why did he put them in his dumb book?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999



If you are going to argue against something.. it would be alot more convincing if you actually TRIED to understand it what it is y9ou are arguning against. Obviously.. despite being told repetitively.. chimps neither come from human beings or vice verser.. they share a common ancestor.


can you prove that they have a common ancestar?

It's already been proven a FACT with DNA.. we are closely related.. a common ancestor is what created this fact.


and honda accord and honda Civic have look a lot alike, and have many interchangable parts, that does not mean they both have a common ancestar of a skateboard.

They are not organisms.


and if you want to know why I get onto man coming from chimps, why do ytou think they are trying to push the LUCI issue? its considered a missing link...

Not relevent. Chimps are a type of modern primate.. so are humans.. unless chimps are time travellers it's a ridiculous thing to keep repeating.

the point I am trying to get accross to everyone, is that Evolution and Creation are both religious and you have to have FAITH that either happened. im my opinion you have to have more faith to believe that we all came from a swirling dot 20 billion years ago.

There is scientific evidence to back up these scientific facts.. no faith required.. it is knowledge not assumptions.

so whenever society gets a grip and realizes that evolution is not a part of science and is not a fact whatsoever, they will realize that its time to get a new theory. because the whole evolution theory is based on lies.
the only scientific part of evolution is micro evolution and that isd the tool that is used to get people to believe in the whole theory.

You have been given proof of evolution over and over and over and over again.. you troll creationalist sites gathering/slealing arguments from other creationalists.. then you troll here again with these new points in hand.. people successfully argue against them.. at which point you'll post up a new set of arguments [stolen from creationalists sites with no scientific credibility] completely ignoring their rebuttles. It's getting annoying and counterproductive.. you believe in the bible.. fine. Go hang out at creationalist sites where people will agree with you blindly instead of wasting people's time.. at least you'll actually resepect what others have to say then.

seems like you are en evolutionist charlie... are you a darwinist? because if his words that I quoted were not true... then why did he put them in his dumb book?

You've already been given the correct unedited version of that piece by someone else- funny how those edits left out entire sentences of that one paragraph.. Darwin did not post them on that site.. and as it's been rewritten [to make him look 'dumb'/foolish] they are not his true words.

[edit on 5-7-2005 by riley]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999



If you are going to argue against something.. it would be alot more convincing if you actually TRIED to understand it what it is y9ou are arguning against. Obviously.. despite being told repetitively.. chimps neither come from human beings or vice verser.. they share a common ancestor.


can you prove that they have a common ancestar?


Yes, we can. It requires a bit of understanding of genetics.


and honda accord and honda Civic have look a lot alike, and have many interchangable parts, that does not mean they both have a common ancestar of a skateboard.


You picked a WONDERFUL example of evolution, for you see, the two Hondas DO have a common ancestor in an older Honda model!

And Hondas evolved from earlier Japanese auto designs. And that the Japanese car makers learned their craft from a common source.

And that the original source for the auto industry was the fittest auto in that niche ("survival of the fittest" -- the principle of Darwinian evolution.)

And that the auto evolved from carriages.

...etc, etc...

Wonderful example. Yes, I know you intended it for a counterexample, but it's actually a perfect example of evolution and survival of the fittest.



and if you want to know why I get onto man coming from chimps,

Because you have no idea what science says.

The only one who believe that evolution says "man came from chimps" are Creationists. NObody else thinks that!


why do ytou think they are trying to push the LUCI issue? its considered a missing link...

You mean Lucy, the Australopithecene? She's not considered a "missing link"; she's considered an example of the primitive people that lived back then.


the point I am trying to get accross to everyone, is that Evolution and Creation are both religious and you have to have FAITH that either happened. im my opinion you have to have more faith to believe that we all came from a swirling dot 20 billion years ago.


You don't understand the basic difference between a religion and a science. And the different types of sciences.

* Religion has ONE FINAL ANSWER for everything. They have one set of rules. You can't change those.
* Science has the beginnings of answers. EVERY answer in science is open to change.
* Religion can't do specific predictions (it can do stuff like "someday THIS deity will come and throw a thunderbolt at THAT temple.)
* Science does very specific predictions (such as "a rock on Pluto will fall at exactly THIS speed.")


so whenever society gets a grip and realizes that evolution is not a part of science and is not a fact whatsoever,

Our science will have gone down the tubes and we'll be in another Dark Ages. Maybe you liked the concept -- no technology, ruled by overlords, religion controling everything from what you wore and ate to who you married and who could legally own you and diseases being caused by demons.

I don't like it.



they will realize that its time to get a new theory. because the whole evolution theory is based on lies.
the only scientific part of evolution is micro evolution and that isd the tool that is used to get people to believe in the whole theory.

Actually, microevolution IS evolution.

The Creationists couldn't refute it, so they finally accepted it. They then tried to hedge and say "well, you can't get a long series of microevolutions to produce one huge change."

When scientists said, "oh? Why not?" they went yelping back to the defense that "The Earth Is only 6,000 years old!!!"... in spite of the fact that we have written records older than 4,000 BC.


seems like you are en evolutionist charlie... are you a darwinist? because if his words that I quoted were not true... then why did he put them in his dumb book?

I think you need to address the points and stop with the name calling.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   


can you prove that they have a common ancestar?


If evolution is lies, explain to me how ants appeared about 100 millions years ago? it is evident that they evolved from primitive wasps.

In the early 1990's,a piece of fossilised amber was found at a construction site.It contained a worker ant,which shared striking features with wasps.The amber is dated to about 90-100 millions years ago. It's the oldest ant ever found,and the species was called Sphecomyrma freyi,a bit of a missing link in between wasps and ants.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Thats interesting actually.. the queens are always winged.. and they have the same social structure as bees and wasps.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Thats interesting actually.. the queens are always winged.. and they have the same social structure as bees and wasps.


Yes,and workers are sexually immature females.Workers and queens come from the same eggs,it's just a difference of feeding after that,during the larval stage,which will determine if it will be a futur queen of worker.

Males come from unfertilised eggs.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
seems like you are en evolutionist charlie... are you a darwinist? because if his words that I quoted were not true... then why did he put them in his dumb book?


Yes I am a Darwinist, I think that's just common sense though. A definition of social darwinism will help me explain.



A theory arising in the late nineteenth century that the laws of evolution, which Charles Darwin had observed in nature, also apply to society. Social Darwinists argued that social progress resulted from conflicts in which the fittest or best adapted individuals, or entire societies, would prevail. It gave rise to the slogan “survival of the fittest.”

www.answers.com...

The stronger and smarter will do better than the weaker and dumber. Thnink about it at any point in time or different areas of soiety. People with the most appealing traits will do the best in life.

I don't know what words you quoted perhaps you could repeat them. You also did not answer my question.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I am kinda late to this topic but to answer the question posed by the OP I think this article in the Fredricksburg Free-Lance Star sums up the best way to describe the situation of Evolution-Creationism



In fact, neither creationism nor evolution is a scientific theory in the strictest sense of the term. The true basis of science is repeatable events, which should precede, or necessarily follow, the formation of theories.

In this case, we are dealing with singular events that had no witnesses. Given the scientific limitations in this debate, any claim made by either theory must be substantiated by existing evidence, not predictions and conjecture.


Link

The fact of the matter is people from both sides of the debate don't have the whole truth yet like to act like they do. Both side claim that there side requires the least amount of faith and can make logical arguments to support their claim however, the fact remains, neither side truley knows.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
and honda accord and honda Civic have look a lot alike, and have many interchangable parts, that does not mean they both have a common ancestar of a skateboard.


The LUA - Last Universal Ancestor of all vehicles with wheels is the wheel much like the LUA of all life forms is some kind of "(prokaryotic) cell structure, [with] DNA, the modern genetic code and mRNA, tRNA and ribosome mediated transcription."

Check out my abiogenesis thread for more info.

Zip



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
you still never answered experts questions.

how is Dr Hovind full of lies? and how do you explain what "Expert" had to say?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   


First of all - Dogs to cats does not, and can not work. Macro evolution is not that. I've stated various links explaining what it means. For the last time, when discussing science, use scientific words, not biblical interpretations.


actually Expert is right

those are not biblical interptetations, those are scientific words.
Macro would be changing from one KIND of animal to another.
MICRO evolution would be just a variation within the KIND of animal that is in fact limited.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Member Rufio999 is actually member expert999.

expert999 received a posting ban for repeatedly going against the direction of administration to stop copying-and-pasting entire web pages, then removing administration edits of his posts.

Rather than accept the temporary posting page of a few days, he registered a new account and continued his tactics.

Both accounts are now banned. Unfortunately, he's shown he can't be trusted.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Member Rufio999 is actually member expert999.

expert999 received a posting ban for repeatedly going against the direction of administration to stop copying-and-pasting entire web pages, then removing administration edits of his posts.

Rather than accept the temporary posting page of a few days, he registered a new account and continued his tactics.

Both accounts are now banned. Unfortunately, he's shown he can't be trusted.


Here, Here


Banning of Expert999= Denying Ignorance
`
Did he really not see how obvious the 999 was?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join