Alien Loves Predator Forum Index
         
FAQFAQ    SearchSearch    RegisterRegister    ProfileProfile    Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages    Log inLog in 
A subject for another time
    page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Alien Loves Predator Forum Index -> General B.S.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sal



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 4628
Location: home and such

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spideygirl wrote:
or even middle easterners.



God forbid.

that was actually brilliant. i guess Spidey didn't intend it this way, but the way it did turn out... was just brilliant.
_________________
i have no time for anal love
Simon_Says wrote:
Sal, you're my favourite member again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Munan
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 3232
Location: Living on my own

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spideygirl wrote:
I've never EVER seen anyone make a racist remark about blacks, hispanics, asians, or even middle easterners. And if anyone did I personally wouldn't stand for it not only because I'm a mulatto, but as a person in general. But for someone to let an idle threat just come to thought and let it be known...It's just...>.< its just...its like you're hoping for someone to say something derogatory about african-americans.


And just for the record: It's against forum-rule number five.
_________________
The Justified Ancient of Mu Mu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tinkerjeep



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blaster wrote:
Tinkerjeep wrote:
This contradicts the Biblical account of creation, from which the origin of the universe, world, stars, plants, animals, and humans are directly created by God in 6 days and the animals/plants/humans are all together and reproduce their own kind. Do I need to actually Quote the Bible? Cuz I'm sure with some searching I could find exactly the passages that are directly contradicted by Darwin's theory and evolutionary science as a whole.

So are you proposing that the only valid Christian viewpoint is that of the fundamentalist? I should certainly hope not, as not all Christians (and certainly no reasonable ones) fit that category.


Am I missing something here? I am comparing the written doctrines (NOT BELIEFS) of two seperate accounts of how the universe, the world and all life began. Period. Whether you or I or anyone else believes it is NOT THE POINT! The actual works state what they state. Belief and personal interpretaion is irrelevant as it pertains to this debate.


Blaster wrote:
Tinkerjeep wrote:
Going by Darwin's own words in that short quote, he states that new life forms are evolving. Where is the evidence? If we evolved from primates and lizards evolved from birds and amphibians evolved from fish, and fish evolved from protozoa, etc....why are all of those life forms still here? Why aren't those genetic templates selected by Nature to become extict after producing the next generation of mutations as his theory suggests? And...Why aren't Apes evolving into men today?

Your understanding of evolution is heavily flawed. Various species are like the branches of a tree. Simply because a subset of a given species becomes subject to different evolutionary pressures and subsequently changes, it does not mean that the rest of that species will die off. Dfferent species are adapted to different circumstances. As the conditions of the earth are varied, so are the sundry forms of life. A species only becomes extinct if it has a significant disadvantage relative to whatever environment it currently inhabits.


Whether I misunderstand or not the point is - Darwin paid lip service to the notion of their being a creator, no more, no less. His doctrine discounts the ancient account stated in the Bible. The two doctrines cannot logically coincide in truth, since they do contradict each other in the areas of time needed for the emergence/creation of species, the origin of all species, and the time elapsed between the existance of various species, specifically simple life forms and mankind, which Evolution teaches us where spread apart from eachother by very many years. If you can draw out a logical timeline incorporating the two seperate doctrines, then I'd love to see it. Whip it out, bud.


Blaster wrote:
Tinkerjeep wrote:
And don't even fucking mention black people as a missing link, cuz if I could find you, I'd bitch slap you for that.

Holy shit, man! That was out of left field. I think you did a poor job of anticipating our arguments, and I am finding myself hard-pressed to resist reading too much into that comment. For the record, human beings are genetically more similar to one another than are various breeds of dogs. Nobody here would bring up such a ridiculous point.


Perhaps I overstated that, but I have heard this ludicrous theory discussed and it ties in heavily with the belief that Africa was the scene where life began and hence human evolution approached the point of ape becoming man. The belief that Black Africans are the missing link has been tacked onto this idea by some, which I find personally idiotic. If no one here believes this, then good, we agree. Let's drop it.

Blaster wrote:
Regarding missing link skeletons:
Yes, the fossil record is incomplete. (...personal attacks...) Do you really expect such an extensive collection of fossils to exist today?


You mean like the fossil skeletons of all the other prehistoric animals we have cluttering up museums? Sure, a few intact cavemen would be nice.

With all the various species of animal in the world today, why aren't there any of these "cavemen" running around? We have apes, we have men...but nothing in between. Why? Should become exteinct because they are unneeded in nature? What about the platypus? It certainly looks like evidence of evolution...eccept it never evolves into anything and each generation of platypus is the same as the last...hm. What about the snakes observed with a pelvis bone? Surely they are evidence of evolution. But in all the many years of evolution from snake to lizard - which was supposed to happen millions of years before apes evolved into man and so that cycle should be well over - how come the snake with the pelvis hasn't completely evolved into a snake with no pelvis? Is it lagging millions of years behind all the other snakes? It should be extinct by now...like the neandrathal, et al. Right?
_________________
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Complex_Number_States
banned


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 639
Location: Flyover Country, USA

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:37 pm    Post subject: Couple of things Reply with quote

Evolution discusses what happened after the origin of life. Darwin's book is titled The Origin of Species. The origin of life, biogenesis, is a whole other issue that is completely unrelated.

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

Intelligent Design, when not co-opted by anti-evolution types, neither supports nor contradicts evolution. As a matter of fact, when the universe is examined on a fundamental level of constants and sub-atomics and atomic interactions, Intelligent Designs does not seem unlikely at all. See the book Calculating God by Rober J. Sawyer. Yeah, it's fiction, but the aliens in the book make quite an argument for a designer, using actual physics, and envisioning a god who is not anyone's personal savior.

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

And finally, we need to examine what "fittest" means, in the context of Survival of the Fittest.

Person A is of below-average intelligence, can't hold a job, is deep in debt, and just can't ever manage to lose those extra ten pounds. His head is a lopsided, and his eyes don't ever point in the same direction.

Person B is a multiple Nobel Prize winner, in Economics, Physics, and Medicine. He has won the Olympic Decathlon, garnering the title "Worlds Greatest Athlete". He is a multi-billionaire, having marketed an idea that makes life safer and easier for everyone in the world, regardless of their social or financial status. And he is extremely good-looking. No matter the primary topic, no news story about him, in print or on video, can avoid mentioning his handsome face, and the joy all experience when gazing upon it.

Now, which of these two is more "fit"? Most people would automatically say Person B, because the concept of "fit" in the context of Survival of the Fittest is somewhat obscure, especially given personal preferences and prejudices. But, actually, there is no useful information here for determining fitness in a Darwinian sense. None of the characteristics mentioned relate to Darwin's definition of "fitness" at all. We need a very different kind of information to make a determination of Darwinian Fitness.

Person A has three offspring who live to have children of their own. Person B's single offspring dies in a boating accident before having any children. And that's it. That's the only charactic that determines one's "fitness" for survival.

By that measure, Person A is by far the more "fit" member of the species homo sapien. In fact, since his genes are removed from the gene pool, Person B is completely unfit.

It doesn't matter what a person accomplishes in life, or what his potential is, or even how many people a person manages to kill. The only thing that matters is how far through the population a person can distribute his genetic legacy. That is the only thing that matters to the species.

Thus, Social Darwinism is little more than an excuse to be rich while others are poor, or for the strong to take advantage of the weak.



Oh my, how I do go on. Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Complex_Number_States
banned


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 639
Location: Flyover Country, USA

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tinkerjeep wrote:
[Darwin's] doctrine discounts the ancient account stated in the Bible. The two doctrines cannot logically coincide in truth, since they do contradict each other in the areas of time needed for the emergence/creation of species, the origin of all species, and the time elapsed between the existance of various species, specifically simple life forms and mankind, which Evolution teaches us where spread apart from eachother by very many years. If you can draw out a logical timeline incorporating the two seperate doctrines, then I'd love to see it. Whip it out, bud.


All you have to do is to change what "days" means in the very first passages of the Old Testament from "24 hours" to "some unspecified long number of years" and Darwin and Genesis don't really contradict each other in any meaningful way. After all, Darwin doesn't really address creation anyway. He addressed what happened afterwards.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alternate Spideygal



Gender: Gender:Female
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 3222
Location: Any where a friendly neighborhood Spider would be.

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brilliant how Sal? I hope you know I'm half Gyanese (My father was born in Georgetown, Gyana). I'm not middle-eastern or even South East Asian. I'm West Indian. Even though I don't look it; I do take offense when people disrespect other peoples culture/religion, yadda yadda. I even have family whose Muslim. It just irked me for Tinkerjeep to actually put in that way. Like it wasn't called for...>.>
_________________

Married to Azrael.
Queen of Innuendo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Blaster
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 2544
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding the first half of Tinkerjeep's last post: Believers of the Bible have been reinterpreting the work since there was a Bible. Of course a literal account of creation is incompatible with the theory of evolution. However, it is wrong to equate such an interpretation with the totality of Christian dogma. If you wish to argue from a fundamentalist standpoint, please make such a thing obvious (well, at least explicit) from the beginning. Do not presume to represent the beliefs of all Christians.

Any issues brought up by the second half of Tinkerjeep's post can be resolved by re-reading my paragraph that began with the "tree branch" analogy.
_________________
Context is everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Tinkerjeep



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blaster wrote:
Regarding the first half of Tinkerjeep's last post: Believers of the Bible have been reinterpreting the work since there was a Bible. Of course a literal account of creation is incompatible with the theory of evolution.


Well there we go. Personal preferences and misinterpretations aside...they do not agree. I've been trying to say this for what, 3 days now?

"Tree branch" hunh? That's your broad answer...your Nuke-em-all response? That covers all my questions? Like where all the missing branches went and why there are obsolete ones hanging around. Like If man evolved from Ape why are they not still doing it? I mean you completely ignored that question didn't you? The whole evolution thing is inconsistent.



Spideygirl - I think you are taking this "rascism" thing the wrong way. I never said I believe or agree with the statement. In fact I strongly disagree, hence the threat that I would bitch slap the person who said it as an argument for a missing link. If you want to be pissed off because I over stated something or mentioned a "rascist" remark or belief, that's your right, but its getting upset at the wrong guy for the wrong reason.

Complex#s - as for the "fittest" argument...you have a good point, but I think it needs refinement. And here is where: The worth of someone is not gauged by their ability to produce offspring with no other concerns...Ever dealt with Horse breeders, Dog breeders, Classist assholes? The point of the whole "fittest" thing as it relates to progeny is simply this- You must be of genetically superior strock in order to insure the future generations will be "fit" as well...thourough-breds and pure-bloods and all that shit. These people and their archaic classist beliefs ruled Europe for centuries. They inbred themselves to promote the family lineage...to the point of producing mentally and physically handicapped offspring. Its like cloning...you magnify the genetic errors and weaknesses if you don't bring in some divirsity. But in the classis, "pure-blood" world - The "fittest" are "papered". Apply this to your example...the guy who is slightly unfit will no doubt produce genetic failures a few generations down the line if he breeds with a similarly genetic inferior person. On the other hand... the one with the brains and the brawn needs to breed in order to maintain the fitness of the human race.


I think the key is balance. Which goes against the tenants of "survival of the fittest". Some diversity to bring varied strengths into the genetic pool from other races is a genetic advantage. Personally, I think "half-breeds" are kind of cool in all kinds of things, dogs, horses, vehicles and especially humans.

And one more thing, boys and girls...If Evolution was actually started by God and he caused it all to roll on...why don't the scientists that espouse Evolution every day mention God as "The Creator" as Darwin didt? Why is it that every kid I talk to that has gone through junior high high school, AND college science classes in the last 30 years says that Evolution happened and they have no idea how God links to anything scientific...He's just a guy they heard of in Church that tells them what they can't do. But he doesn't exist in science class. I dated a gal that was 8 years younger than me and she grew up in a Christian home, but she went to regular school and took regular science classes. She told me they never once mention God in those classes. My ex-wife said the same thing - the teachers and books were sans reference to Darwin's "Creator". So If Darwin spoke of "the Creator" why not the teachers and books that are based on his doctrine? Maybe because they all know that there is no God and saying there is one would be hypocritical? I don't know...you tell me. It just seems like another contradiction of doctrines and/or principles.
_________________
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.


Last edited by Tinkerjeep on Sun May 14, 2006 1:06 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blaster
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 2544
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Specious.
_________________
Context is everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Tinkerjeep



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, was that for me- "specious"? Regarding what?

I was editting my post because I didn't think
I had stated things as clearly as I could have. Has something changed?
_________________
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blaster
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 2544
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you were merely trying to point out this entire time that evolution is irreconcilable with a literal interpretation of the Bible, then so be it. But that was not your initial argument. Several minor shifts have occured since this matter began.

Meh.
_________________
Context is everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Tinkerjeep



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm making an argument one point at a time...that was the first of several.
The Bible and Evolution do not agree with each other therefore they cannot both be right.

The modern world teaches evolution is right.
If so, where is the evidence?
(I'm working on this one now)
You were about to explain to me the theory of "the tree branch" and how the laws of real evolutiom works in a world where it surpasses the limits imposed by the law of entropy....unlike the evolution everyone I know was taught in school, that doesn't work at all when looked at under the cold hard light of observable fact.

I'll get to your Fundamentalist Christian bashing and how it relates to what the Bible says and how people like to selectively apply laws to the way they chose to live their lives, though this doesn't render the laws they ignore to become nonexistant or different.
_________________
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blaster
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 2544
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very well.

I already explained the tree branch concept. Here is the salient point: just because a segment of a species moves away from the rest of a species, in the process differentiating and eventually becoming a separate species, it does not mean that the other members of the original group die. They will continue to live, adapted to their original environment, until circumstances dictate otherwise.

Please do not bring entropy into the picture. The laws of thermodynamics state that the total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease though any natural, spontaneous process. The earth is NOT a closed system. We constantly receive energy (via solar rays) that enables us to live, grow, etc.

And as far as evidence goes, how much would be enough for you? I get the feeling that no amount would be sufficient.

Yes, people do practice salad bar religion nowadays. You can maintian a cohesive argument supporting the notion that this is wrong. But what else would you have them do? How do laws written in ancient times apply to the modern world? How about the laws that contradict the other laws?
_________________
Context is everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Sal



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 4628
Location: home and such

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spideygirl wrote:
Brilliant how Sal? I hope you know I'm half Gyanese (My father was born in Georgetown, Gyana). I'm not middle-eastern or even South East Asian. I'm West Indian. Even though I don't look it; I do take offense when people disrespect other peoples culture/religion, yadda yadda. I even have family whose Muslim. It just irked me for Tinkerjeep to actually put in that way. Like it wasn't called for...>.>


the "even" part was amusing. unintentionally, i'm sure of it, you undermined the flow of your own rhetorics with it. but i know that was a slip of keyboard, let's not make an issue of it.
_________________
i have no time for anal love
Simon_Says wrote:
Sal, you're my favourite member again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Darkfox



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Note: after finishing my message, um, I think I have a little bit underrated myself in my writer skill, but hope you'll read it Very Happy

Alright people, I think I have something to say to this creation/evolution subject.
I'm currently studying at the university, my specialization is biology/geography. Geography aside, although we have had several courses in the planetary geology, which might touch this subject as well. But never mind, now I think I am quite proficient with the biology things, including the theory of evolution. They never taught us anything about creationism or about things like that, although the theory of evolution does not have responses on everything. I remember the professor who presented the courses of bothany to us, was always very, let's say, concerned about something. We were speaking about microscopic algae, and every lesson presenting some of them, he muttered to himself: "Hmm, and then there is this part of its structure, and we don't know why it is there." or "These cells join in colonies, every single one of them knows its place, it's incredibly complicated, why do they do it? And how?" or "We don't know why such a thing looks like that, it doesn't make sense, in the place it inhabits he could look just like a ball and it would be ok shape for it, but see how he looks, just like a star. Why did evolution create such a thing? It's a mystery." And we are speaking about one of the most simple organisms on the planet.

Okay, the problem goes like this:
1. Either there is some power which created this world on a purpose, or there is just a blind power, a set of random events.
2. The second possibility means that we are all damn lucky we are even alive. If this power behind all doesn't care for us, the life does have no sense. Mankind is lucky just to exist and have such a high intelligence as it has (or has it?). You can kill everyone you want just because you don't like him, when all the people finally realize it, there will come a quick end.
3. Or there is some power which cares. Some power which has carefully planned each step and prepared first the ground to live upon. Then the conditions. Then it set down the plants to produce oxygen and to be food for the animals. Then it created the animals. Is it all still ok? Yeah, this power carefully checked each step and after each step, it could tell that it is good. Ok, as far everything goes as it should. And now... is everything ready? Okay, now this power creates the last thing, the only one that it cannot control, because it doesn't want to: it creates the MAN. In the end, after everything is ready, this power releases a creature which has its own free will to do and mind which is able to think constructively. The MAN.
4. The power was very careful, it started from the most primitive organisms to more and more complicated: just to always see if it works, then continued. By the way, the power even created some apes before, similar to the upcoming human, just to see how the anathomy would work (with all things like the fingers able to pick up, and so on).
5. Then this power released human on the world, to enjoy the world in all its aspects, to cover all the Earth and use it freely. But where is that power? Did it finish its work and then just disappear? That would mean it doesn't care for the work it created. Generally, artisans care for things they create. And the power which created this world did really do a lot of work, is that right? So, if it wouldn't abandon its work, where is it? It surely must have revealed itself to the world. Where do we have evidence of some power, which is single, and created the whole universe? Whoops, what a surprise, it's in the Bible. Here this power reveals itself to us, we see it as God, through His word, the words He has spoken to people in the past.
6. And what more? How do we know that this word is not just made-up by some desert-travelling tribes? God went even further, He came to this world in the person of Jesus Christ. But I think it's enough for now, I have nothing more to tell you but read it, and you'll see for yourselves...

And also there was the question how does some thousand years old script work in current world. Know what? This is easy, just as I stated above, the truth is just the truth and it is the truth all the time, now or 4000 years ago. So about God. And the laws? If you read what I wrote above, God created this world to let the people do what they want on it, to enjoy all the things God created here. So how do, for example, the Ten Commandments fit into this? As we can see, in the world everything doesn't work very well. How comes? Did God do anything wrong? No, he prepared everything he could to the best. The problem is, the humans misused their freedom. What kind of bullshit is that, you say, we have the freedom and we can do all we want, is that right? Well, you can. But God never meant the people to do nonsenses. God never wanted people to kill each other. Why shouldn't we kill each other? It's obvious, no one of us wants to die. But there are more subtle things, things whose results we can't see right now. I'll give an example: if you tell an owner of a factory that he shouldn't let too much gases out in the atmosphere, he might ask you why, because he doesn't see the results right now. After the greenhouse effect comes, he'll see, but better'd be if he didn't do it at all. Mankind misused their freedom, so God had to give them some "User's manual for the world". After all, he created it, so he probably knows what he is doing. And when they don't use it, it turns out how you can see.

Comments and/or questions welcome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Complex_Number_States
banned


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 639
Location: Flyover Country, USA

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tinkerjeep wrote:
Complex#s - as for the "fittest" argument...you have a good point, but I think it needs refinement. And here is where: The worth of someone is not gauged by their ability to produce offspring with no other concerns...Ever dealt with Horse breeders, Dog breeders, Classist assholes? The point of the whole "fittest" thing as it relates to progeny is simply this- You must be of genetically superior strock in order to insure the future generations will be "fit" as well...thourough-breds and pure-bloods and all that shit. These people and their archaic classist beliefs ruled Europe for centuries. They inbred themselves to promote the family lineage...to the point of producing mentally and physically handicapped offspring. Its like cloning...you magnify the genetic errors and weaknesses if you don't bring in some divirsity. But in the classis, "pure-blood" world - The "fittest" are "papered". Apply this to your example...the guy who is slightly unfit will no doubt produce genetic failures a few generations down the line if he breeds with a similarly genetic inferior person. On the other hand... the one with the brains and the brawn needs to breed in order to maintain the fitness of the human race.


So sorry, but you are taking my words out of context. I am not talking at all about the "worth" of any person. I am not talking about horse breeders or dog breeders or inbreeders. I am talking about the meaning of the term "fittest" within the context of Darwin's theory of evolution. That is all.

You are actually proving my point by adding lots of irrelevancies to the "fittest" argument. The only relevant concept to evolution is, how many viable offspring do you produce. You refer to the successful breeder as "slightly unfit". That means you still don't get it. All evolution cares about is who passes on their genes. Not how those genes express themselves phenotypically.

Please don't misinterpret this as representing my personl views. I am just trying to clarify the discussion. Until there is agreement on the meaning of the terms, nothing constructive can occur. And any discussion of Darwin's theories requires the above definition of "fittest". There is no room for variation on this.

And damnit, Darwinism does not contradict Genesis. The apparent contradictions come from two sources:

First, Genesis describes the origins of life, while Darwinism describes the origin of species. These are totally separate questions. Evolution is not Biogenesis. It does not pretend to be.

Second, we do not have to interpret a "day" in Genesis to be one single revolution of our planet. Do we know what a "day" meant to God? If you look at the scientific theories of how the earth came to be like it is, and the order of how things happen in Genesis, there are a lot of parallels. Certainly many more parallels than there are inconsistancies.

I am not espousing my own beliefs here. I am not coming down on the side of evolution versus no evolution, nor am I coming down on the side of Genesis as fact versus Genesis as myth. I am trying to make this a useful, productive discussion. Well, I am trying to be a teacher. Very Happy
_________________


What if the 4th dimension became lava? You could map our physical location with the coordinates: X, Y, Z, and ARRRRG SO HOT, IT'S SO HOT
- Chloeee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blaster
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 2544
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding Darkfox's post:
Certainly there are questions that remain in life. But I find it more humble to say "we don't know" than to chalk everything up to the invisible man in the sky.

Secondly, morality can exist without God. See "secular humanism."

Hm, let's take a look at this "User's manual for the world" of which you speak. (I, lamentably, cannot claim authorship of the following gem).


In Genesis 3:16 god punishes all women, innocent or not, with painful childbirth and subjugation to men.

In Genesis 7:4 god has a bad day at the office, thus decides to drown innocent babies, and animals both wild and domestic.

In Exodus 4:11 god boasts about making people handicapped.

In Exodus 4:23 god resorts to hostage taking and terrorism in order to get his own way. He does this via threatening a baby. Soon, he is slaughtering little babies all across Egypt.

In Exodus 9:19-20 god slaughters Egyptian cattle. Sometimes, cow tipping just isn't enough.

In Exodus 9:29-30 god kills off innocent babies, and whatever cows he missed earlier.

In Exodus 20:17 god tells us not to free another's slaves. Abolitionists beware!!

In Exodus 32:27-28 god tells the sons to slaughter their neighbors: 3,000 men are slain.

In Leviticus 19:20-22 god demands that raping a slave woman is punishable by scourging the victim. The rapist is to be forgiven.

In Leviticus 25:44-46 god tells his followers to make slaves of their neighbors.

In Leviticus 27:3-7 god helpfully provides a pricing guide. According to this guide, as a male between the ages of 20 and 60 years (the most expensive category), I am worth approximately US$25. How much are you worth to god?

In Numbers 14:18 god's idea of justice is explained: little children are to be punished for their great-great grandparents transgressions.

In Numbers 31:1-54 god tells his followers to commit genocide, "sparing" only the virgin girls, who are to be raped. Even god gets some "unspared" virgins.

In Numbers 33:4 god kills of another batch of Egyptian babies. Abortion is a sin because...?

In Deuteronomy 2:33-36 god demands genocide again. No mention of virgin girls this time, unless these children are raped to death...

In Deuteronomy 7:2 god demands more genocide from his followers.

In Deuteronomy 13:12-16 god demands new and improved genocide, now including cattle. Oh, wait, we've had that before. Damn cows.

In Deuteronomy 32:21-26 god glories in being a psychotic terrorist. Don't miss the atrocities of Deuteronomy 28, either!

In Joshua 6:18-19 the omnipotent creator is short of cash, again.

In Joshua 8:22-26 god demands more genocide, plus some more slavery as detailed in Joshua 9:21-27, but this time, in Joshua 10:10-11, we get slaughter and a chase scene!! Go, god!!
In Joshua 10:28-32 god demands still more genocide.

In Joshua 11:6-17 god still demands more genocide. There are more exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill" than there are to a rich man's tax code.

In Judges 1:2-7. god's takes a break from genocide, has his followers kill "only" 10,000 people, but at least they get to torture and mutilate somebody by cutting off both thumbs and big toes!

In Judges 1:12-13 Caleb offers his daughter as prize to anyone who conquers the City of Debir. The girl's cousin wins the contest, thus the prize.

In Judges 1:17-19 god gets back to good, ol' regular genocide. Killing innocent people is serious work!!

In Judges 2:14 god has a temper-tantrum and sells Israel into slavery.

In Judges 3:28-29 & 4:15-16 god reverts to, you guessed it, genocide.

In Judges 5:30 god hands out a damsel or two to each of his rapist soldiers. Booty Call!!

In Judges 10:17 god gets angry at Israel, again, and sells them into slavery, again.

In Judges 12:6 god slays 42,000 innocent people because someone with a speech impediment mispronounces the word "shibboleth". I'll bet you thought the word "lisp" was cruel jest.

In Judges 15:4-8 a "righteous" Samson captures 300 foxes, ties their tails together, and sets them on fire. Abusing animals is almost as righteous as killing babies, apparently.

In Judges 19:22-30, after taking in a traveling Levite, the host offers his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine to a mob of perverts (who want to have sex with his guest). The mob refuses the daughter, but accepts the concubine and they "abuse her all night." The next morning she crawls back to the doorstep and dies. The Levite mounts her dead body on an ass and takes her home. Then he chops her body up into twelve pieces and sends them to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

In Judges 21:7-23 in order to find wives for the Benjamites, who were unwilling to use their own daughters, the other tribes attacked and killed all occupants of a city except for the young virgins. These virgins were then given to the Benjamites as "wives".

In 1 Samuel 2:10 if god doesn't like you he will send a thunderstorm to break your body into little pieces. In 1 Samuel 2:31-34, if god really doesn't like you, he will cut off your arm, consume your eyes, grieve your heart, and slay your sons and grandfathers. In 1 Samuel 5:6, 9, and 12 we learn that if god really, really doesn't like you, he will give you hemorrhoids in your "secret parts".

In 1 Samuel 5:11 god wipes out another city.

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 god demands more genocide, this time as punishment for some no doubt petty transgression committed hundreds of years previously by the forefathers of these innocent people.

In 1 Samuel 15:7-34 god goads Saul into torturing and slaying his prisoner, a King.

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.

In Matthew 8:21 Jesus shows no compassion for the bereaved, saying to a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead."

In Matthew 8:32 Jesus abuses animals by sending some devils into a herd of pigs, causing the pigs to run off a cliff and drown in the sea below. The acorn does not fall far from the tree. Was there a local shortage of Egyptian cows? Moo!

In Matthew 10:15 Jesus becomes a terrorist, and threatens genocide against cities.

In Matthew 10:28 Jesus tries to scare people by telling them that his dad can beat up their dad.

In Matthew 11:20-24 Jesus threatens more cities.

In Matthew 12:47-49 "Mister Family Values" himself (Jesus) is disrespectful to his mother and rude to his brothers.

In Matthew 13:41-42 Jesus threatens to send his angels against any who offend him, and send them straight to hell. Love, peace, tolerance, and forgiveness are beneath him, apparently.

In Matthew 15:4-7 Jesus commits hypocrisy by demanding all others to honor their parents. "Sorry about being rude back in Matthew 12, Mom."

In Matthew 18:8-9 Jesus advocates self-mutilation, but for others, not him. He's perfect, thank you.

In Matthew 18:25 Jesus advocates slavery.

In Matthew 25:29 Jesus proposes a system of economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

In Mark 5:12-13 Jesus spooks 2,000 pigs, causing them to jump of a cliff and drown in the sea. Is this evidence of more animal abuse, or is the story from Matthew 8:32 getting better with each telling?

In Mark 6:11 Jesus resorts to threatening cities again. Die, innocent babies, Die!!

In Mark 7:9-13 Jesus criticizes people for not killing their children, as they should have, according to Old Testament law. The same law Jesus broke when he was disrespectful to his Mother in Matthew 12:47-49.

In Mark 10:29-30 Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and children.

In Mark 11:13-14 Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing fruit, even though it was out of season. Apparently, "Mister Perfect" wasn't much of an agronomist, or ethicist.

In Luke 8:20-21 Jesus is disrespectful to his mother and rude to his brothers, again. Or still?

In Luke 8:27-37 Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. This story does get better with each telling!!

In Luke 10:10-15 Jesus terrorizes entire cities, claiming they will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. No doubt these people preferred their pigs.

In Luke 12:46-47 Jesus likens god to a sadistic, diabolical slave-owner, who will beat you "with many stripes".

In Luke 14:26 Jesus decides that it is not enough for men to abandon their families; they must actively hate them, too. Where is the love??

In Luke 16:17 Jesus declares that all the vicious, irrational laws of the Old Testament are binding forever.

In Luke 17:27 Jesus talks about Noah, neatly demonstrating his own ignorance of science, history, and justice.

In John 2:4 Jesus is, again, rude to his mother. She seemed so nice, too.

In John 5:14 Jesus stupidly announces that god handicaps people as just punishment for their sins.
In John 7:8-10 Jesus lies to his family about attending a feast.

In Acts 5:1-10 Peter, with god's help, kills a man who sold his possessions, but did not fork over all of the earnings. Why is the omnipotent creator always short of cash?

In Acts 13:48 we learn that only pre-ordained people would be allowed in heaven. So much for freewill...

-------------------
So, it's a good thing that we have such a text to teach us morality; otherwise, we would be in trouble!

(There is an even funnier and more ridiculous example of using the Bible to adjudicate modern-day issues. If I can find it, I will post it.)

Anyway, the point is that the Bible is an interesting collection if books which are best appreciated in their historical context, rather than when taken as gospel truth (pardon the expression).
_________________
Context is everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Tinkerjeep



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

complexnumbers wrote:
Tinkerjeep wrote:
Complex#s - as for the "fittest" argument...you have a good point, but I think it needs refinement. And here is where: The worth of someone is not gauged by their ability to produce offspring with no other concerns...Ever dealt with Horse breeders, Dog breeders, Classist assholes? The point of the whole "fittest" thing as it relates to progeny is simply this- You must be of genetically superior strock in order to insure the future generations will be "fit" as well...thourough-breds and pure-bloods and all that shit. These people and their archaic classist beliefs ruled Europe for centuries. They inbred themselves to promote the family lineage...to the point of producing mentally and physically handicapped offspring. Its like cloning...you magnify the genetic errors and weaknesses if you don't bring in some divirsity. But in the classis, "pure-blood" world - The "fittest" are "papered". Apply this to your example...the guy who is slightly unfit will no doubt produce genetic failures a few generations down the line if he breeds with a similarly genetic inferior person. On the other hand... the one with the brains and the brawn needs to breed in order to maintain the fitness of the human race.


So sorry, but you are taking my words out of context. I am not talking at all about the "worth" of any person. I am not talking about horse breeders or dog breeders or inbreeders. I am talking about the meaning of the term "fittest" within the context of Darwin's theory of evolution. That is all.


No. You are seeing "worth" or "fitness" from too simplistic a P.O.V. It doesn't matter if your examples can ONLY multiply, disregarding the stregths of their minds and bodies. What does matter, is the strengths of their progeny...if genetically unfit ancestors breed they will produce increasingly unfit progeny untill either the progeny becomes sterile or is unviable and dies off before reproducing. You are over looking this simple fact.

Complexnumbers wrote:
You are actually proving my point by adding lots of irrelevancies to the "fittest" argument. The only relevant concept to evolution is, how many viable offspring do you produce. You refer to the successful breeder as "slightly unfit". That means you still don't get it. All evolution cares about is who passes on their genes. Not how those genes express themselves phenotypically.


If that is trully the only thing that matters to evolution then it is trully a stupid belief...since it can easily allow the flooding of the environment with genetically unfit, "low quality" life-forms. (Insert your judgement on the human race here.)

Complexnumbers wrote:
And damnit, Darwinism does not contradict Genesis. The apparent contradictions come from two sources:

First, Genesis describes the origins of life, while Darwinism describes the origin of species. These are totally separate questions. Evolution is not Biogenesis. It does not pretend to be.


Okay, here it is right here - Genesis 1:24 - "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds; livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND.' And it was so." (Emphasis added by me) Verse 25- " God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds, And God saw that it was good." Verse 26 -"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and all the creatures that move along the ground.' " This tells a different story than Evolution where it happens over a long period and things are not created by God, man is not with the animals on the same day (number 6 by the way).


Complexnumbers wrote:

Second, we do not have to interpret a "day" in Genesis to be one single revolution of our planet. Do we know what a "day" meant to God? If you look at the scientific theories of how the earth came to be like it is, and the order of how things happen in Genesis, there are a lot of parallels. Certainly many more parallels than there are inconsistancies.


Actually here is another quote -Genesis 1:3 -"And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Verse 4- "God saw that the light was good, and he seperated light from darkness." Verse 5 -"God called the light 'day,' and the darkness he called 'night.' And there was evening and morning -the first day."
It goes on from there, He creates the sky on the 2nd day. He created the dry ground and plant life on the 3rd day, He created the stars on the 4th day to seperate light from darkness and allow for seasons, days and years, and he created the sun and the moon for light. On the 5th God created fish and birds. On the 6th day He created the land dwelling animals and man. Each day is defined exactly the same "and the evening and the morning were the X day". Every time "day" is classified as the evening and the morning. Does that sound like a "day" could last millions of years? Maybe if you can't figure out what a day is and that it hasn't changed much in all those years.

Does God create everything and then decide...oh wait we need light and dark to become day...all the while the world is spinning around and life is going on in absolute frozen darkness for an undetermined time?

Complexnumbers wrote:
I am not espousing my own beliefs here. I am not coming down on the side of evolution versus no evolution, nor am I coming down on the side of Genesis as fact versus Genesis as myth. I am trying to make this a useful, productive discussion. Well, I am trying to be a teacher. Very Happy


That's fine but be sure of your data before you teach.[/quote]
_________________
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crotchfire



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 527
Location: You wouldn't believe me if I told you.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know about you guys, but I can't read Tinkerjeep's posts and take them remotely seriously.

Whether you make a good argument or not, the tone of everything you say is hostile. It's semantically charged, and it makes it sound as if everyone who disagrees with you, you automatically consider them idiots.

If I didn't know better, and maybe I don't, I'd say that you're not actually interested in debating and hearing other points of view, but that you'd rather just have everyone agree with everything you'd said to fellate your ego.

Frankly, it's annoying, and if you're going to argue, an openly hostile tone toward people with differing points of view (not to mention, assuming people will have a point of view here on the boards like the "black people are the missing link" one) will earn you no respect, nor will it earn you friends.

Personally, I'd say you're batting a zero on actual contributions to the content of this forum, whether or not what you say has merit. Were I a moderator (and it's a good thing I'm not, I rarely have the patience for this sort of thing), I'd have banned you already.
_________________
The official MILF-masta of the AlP forums.
In addition to my well-documented exploits, my first two initials are MF. Seriously, I'm not making that up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tinkerjeep



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, "crotchfire" if you can't read my posts without getting tangled in my semantiaclly charged statements. Maybe the problem is partially your perception. I do try to ask questions to put people on the defensive so they actually say what they believe, not what they want someone to think about them...I do try to get under the skin...and usually this is brought about after I've tried patiently reasoning with them and all I get from them is restating something that is obviously incorrect instead of coming out and saying something they believe based on strong feeling or facts. This "brickwall" they throw up is usually only knocked down when people get angry and their fear of stating their beliefs is over powered by their anger at me and my damn nuisance questions...But generally I try to be pretty even tempered and sensible. Perhaps I do use the wrong words at times. If you were talking to me face to face, it might change your perceptions a bit...maybe.

I'll let the oppurtunity go to psychoanalize you and your handle/avatar, eventhough thats the flavor your putting in your post about me. I'm sure you have a problem with my "attitude", but lets keep it off the board and just PM me. I'll listen. But the subject on the board is not "Tinkerjeep is a jerk". But if you want to start your own topic like that, feel free. I won't stop you...I am a jerk sometimes.

Blaster...I'm not going to read your entire bitch list, that thing seems like it was written by someone who just likes to focus on the things they believe make God a mean old bully with the power to do whatever he wants. I doubt you posted that to add anything constructive to the discussion, but rather to get us to "defend God". I don't need to defend God. He's been dissed and hated by more people than you or I.

If you do, however, have a legitimate gripe and you really want those issues addressed, well, first off, maybe you should read all those verses and try looking at them with this axiom in mind "Context is everything". It really is a good quote, maybe you should try standing on the principle. Taking things out of context is often the reason many people have a problem with a Biblical passage...the first citing- God making childbirth painful and subgegating women under men. Damn that's cruel, what a prick! But do you know why that happened? Read it in context. You will find the answers if you open your mind and your eyes.
_________________
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crotchfire



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 527
Location: You wouldn't believe me if I told you.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

See, the whole underlying premise of your entire reply to me can be restated as follows: "People disagreeing with me are obviously incorrect, and so I have to piss them off in order to get actual arguments of their beliefs out of them."

Probably the thing that pisses me off about you most is you sound very much like I did when I was 14. There's the psychoanalysis right there. I'd rather erase all memory of the way I was back then, because honestly, I find that person repugnant, now.

This is a problem that I'm posting out in public, rather than in private, because honestly, the only way I've ever seen to fix a superiority complex is public humiliation. Whether you're humiliated or not, I don't know if I actually care. If you'd do the following...

1. Concede a point when a point has been lost (something I've yet to see you do).
2. Stop with the condescending bullshit (I don't care how fucking smart you think you are. No one is impressed, and no one will give you one iota of respect until you stop acting as if you're the intellectual superior of everyone on the board. Grow up).
3. Stop starting arguments when you've already made up your mind on the issue and no amount of debate is going to change it.
4. Say something funny once in a while to pander to my ridiculously short attention span.

...I'd be satisfied.

The alternatives are:

You stop posting, you get banned, I ignore Tinkerjeep altogether, or I leave the board. Personally, I'd rather not leave the board, because I've grown rather fond of it. Still, it just wouldn't be the same board if it turned into an intellectual masturbatory session for high-minded high-schoolers with superiority complexes. Then again, if Tinkerjeep is the only one masturbating, then I can just ignore him. That seems like the best course of action... so far.

My cards are on the table.
_________________
The official MILF-masta of the AlP forums.
In addition to my well-documented exploits, my first two initials are MF. Seriously, I'm not making that up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alternate Spideygal



Gender: Gender:Female
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 3222
Location: Any where a friendly neighborhood Spider would be.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ohh....lol okay....I'm rashing up again...
_________________

Married to Azrael.
Queen of Innuendo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Munan
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 3232
Location: Living on my own

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tinkerjeep wrote:
I do try to ask questions to put people on the defensive so they actually say what they believe, not what they want someone to think about them...I do try to get under the skin...


Okay, cut!

I've received more complaints about this concerning you. This is definitely not how the members of the community of this forum talk with each other. It goes against the entire atmosphere of this forum.

SO: Tinkerjeep, I suggest you adjust. Read some of the threads, learn how people usually interact and try to fit in with the mores of the forum, then later on, as an accepted member of the forum, you can try and influence the modus vivendi. Otherwise, I suggest you find a forum more suitable to your way of discussing.

It always goes like that. I remember Crotchfire and me had some trouble getting used to each other when he started posting, but we're best of buddies now, since we both tried and didn't get on each other's nerves. To deliberately try and get on people's nerves after only a few posts is not a good way to start your stay at the aLp-forums, where we cherish the laid-back nature of our community. Personally I would like to see more intelligent discussions around here - we used to have them in the past, but even then the atmosphere was relaxed.

So far, I'm sorry to say, you've made an ill fit. I understand you might be upset about the immoral and godless ways we act, but if you'd paid attention, you'd know God is generally talked of as a kitten-killer and fairy-burner on this forum (though we've got pietous Christians and Muslims among us, who are respected and respect), there's several potheads around and people sometimes post drunk. This may all be very wrong according to you - and I'm sure that your different personal make-up could be a valuable addition to the forum - but if that's not the kind of forum you'd like to hang out at, then by all means...
_________________
The Justified Ancient of Mu Mu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Blaster
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 2544
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I obviously chose the negative portrayals of God from the Bible. That was a point. I was trying to show that many things from the Bible would be considered immoral or ridiculous by anyone with half of a brain. You would choose to ignore those points yet maintain an unswerving faith in the account of creation, despite the fact that they derive from the very same source? How selective of you.

Thank you for bringing my sig to attention. However, I do not see how you can espouse the view which it represents while simultaneously defending a literal interpretation of (some conveniently-chosen parts of)the Bible.

How is anyone supposed to take you seriously if you contradict your own arguments?

You can keep your cogntive dissonance, thanks.
_________________
Context is everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Darkfox



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, that's just it. Those things you have pointed out (and I think it speaks good of you that you are not author of this, because this is really ridiculous) really might be, and probably would be (and even are, if I think about the person who wrote it) considered immoral or ridiculous by anyone with half of a brain. But the person who does have the whole brain, not just half of it, would read these things in context (and, just as someone said, context is everything Very Happy ). Maybe it would suffice one verse before and one verse after the one mentioned, or sometimes even just the verse mentioned, because the comments are sometimes really ridiculous.

Personally, I don't see any problem in what you are arguing about. I think everyone has to realize that the Bible is just a *proof* of God's existence, AND his message to the people that he is here, and he cares. Most of the things in Bible are just an explanation of how do the things work. The problem is, most people don't want to hear from God and they just don't understand that all he wants is to re-connect the link between him and every single one of us (as we have seen the man has divided from God as shown in Genesis. Which is true. Look at ourselves). The trouble is, that people don't understand it and they seek for some *other* solution. They just don't understand he wants to see us all happy, but this ultimately means coming to him. Of course, because he created this world, and he let even you and me come to life. He knows everything about you, not even what you do, but also what you think and what you plan to do. He wants to help you solve your problems, he wants to help you to fulfil your dreams, if they wouldn't hurt someone else. He is not some being to suppress your individuality, he is the ultimate creator of this world but he gave us freedom, if we respect just some basic rules - but for our sake! He wants to be a part of the life of everyone, you just have to ask him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Alien Loves Predator Forum Index -> General B.S. All times are GMT - 5 Hours
    page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group