Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Qufu, China

#285 Sep 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
TOE cannot be falsified.
It can't?
Go dig us up some pre-Cambrian mammals, reptiles, and amphibians and I promise you, every single one of us will quit.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#287 Sep 23, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
It can't?
Go dig us up some pre-Cambrian mammals, reptiles, and amphibians and I promise you, every single one of us will quit.
Too bad you had nothing intelligent to say about the rest of my post. Precambrian reptiles and mammals would also falsify creation because the creation was also donr in stages. You evos think you were the first to suggest that life began in the sea and ended in mankind. Bible writers spoke to these long before evolutionists was dreamed it up.

Devonian whales at 290mya and modern birds thriving 212 mya also falsify current evolutionary tales. Devonian tetrapods dated to 400mya should also falsify evolution and support a creationist paradigm. I do not need a precambrian mammal.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n72...

Even if a precambrian mammal was found you lot would evoke some of your magic like strata mixing.

You are just as silly as that Dawkins and his precambrian rabbit. Such stupidity does not meet the scientific prerequisite of falsifiability and TOE has the hit and miss predictive ability of a crystal ball.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#288 Sep 23, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
It can't?
Go dig us up some pre-Cambrian mammals, reptiles, and amphibians and I promise you, every single one of us will quit.
Even me.

Where's that pre-Cambrian rabbit again?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#289 Sep 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad you had nothing intelligent to say about the rest of my post. Precambrian reptiles and mammals would also falsify creation because the creation was also donr in stages. You evos think you were the first to suggest that life began in the sea and ended in mankind. Bible writers spoke to these long before evolutionists was dreamed it up.
Devonian whales at 290mya and modern birds thriving 212 mya also falsify current evolutionary tales. Devonian tetrapods dated to 400mya should also falsify evolution and support a creationist paradigm. I do not need a precambrian mammal.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n72...
Even if a precambrian mammal was found you lot would evoke some of your magic like strata mixing.
You are just as silly as that Dawkins and his precambrian rabbit. Such stupidity does not meet the scientific prerequisite of falsifiability and TOE has the hit and miss predictive ability of a crystal ball.
Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Don't you ever read the articles that you link? There are no Devonian whales. You article was not about whales but about the earliest appearance of land dwelling animals. It looks like we might have to push it back 10 million years. Now that may look like a lot to you, but it is only a difference of only 3% of the current date.

Another Maz failure. Here is a helpful hint, try reading your links. If you know someone who understands evolution ask them what they mean.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#290 Sep 23, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I couldn't sleep and I saw that from your post that you still don't read articles, even when they give you only the abstract.
In the first article you cited does not imply what you said at all. Sm146 is not an isotope used for dating the Earth. Or the solar system. Its half life is much to short to make it useful to measure either. Also a change in half life by a third does not meat that many more half lives would have had to occur, no on the contrary only about one third more half lives would have occurred. It is occurs naturally as the slightest trace. So it is rather difficult to procure much less measure its half life. You have one paper that says that the original measurement of its half life was wrong.
And of course the second article you linked explains how the value of U235/U238 can vary slightly and how that may affect the values of only one dating methodology. This will not make a huge difference, it will only mean that the error bars will need to be increased slightly if you use that one particular method. There are several methods of dating using Uranium alone. There is U238 to Pb206, U235 to Pb207, and of course fission track dating, which is not all that common but really cool.
Neither of your articles put any doubt at all into the validity of radiometric dating. And since many materials can be dated by more than one method it is not uncommon to date an object more than once. The different methods act as a check on each other.
For beginners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dati...
You do not not know what you are talking about. Of course sm146 is used to date the earth and the slightest adjustment to uranium magic resulted in a younger earth of 700,000 years.
Here is a YEC creationist take on it.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.ht...

Just like TOE nothing will falsify your algorithmic magic and predetermined assumptions in relating to dating. More half lives should mean older, not younger, unless the amount of daughter isotopes was also recalculated to align with flavour of the month. Only these silly scientists could come up with such convoluted nonsense.

“It shrinks the chronology of early events in the solar system, like the formation of planets, into a shorter time span,” said Argonne physicist Michael Paul.“It also means some of the oldest rocks on Earth would have formed even earlier — as early as 120 million years after the solar system formed, in one case of Greenland rocks.”

http://www.anl.gov/articles/new-isotope-measu...

"If our analysis represents the age of the moon, then the Earth must be fairly young as well," said Borg, a chemist. "This is in stark contrast to a planet like Mars, which is argued to have formed around 4.53 billion years ago. If the age we report is from one of the first formed lunar rocks, then the moon is about 165 million years younger than Mars and about 200 million years younger than large asteroids."

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/A...

When hearing that the isotopic ratio for uranium has been measured to a more accurate value of 137.818, from a previous value of 137.88, one might not think it is such a big deal. However, a recent study indicates that this small bit of change calls for an age reduction of understood geological processes for up to 700,000 years. The study was conducted at the British Geological Survey and MIT – the same research group that determined the new value.
http://www.jhunewsletter.com/2012/04/13/earth...

The earth is getting younger as we speak!!!!!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#291 Sep 23, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Don't you ever read the articles that you link? There are no Devonian whales. You article was not about whales but about the earliest appearance of land dwelling animals. It looks like we might have to push it back 10 million years. Now that may look like a lot to you, but it is only a difference of only 3% of the current date.
Another Maz failure. Here is a helpful hint, try reading your links. If you know someone who understands evolution ask them what they mean.
You are a boofhead. I spoke to the Devonian whale in an earlier post.

Only mad scientists and their algorithmic magic would figure more half life turn overs to leave an amount of daughter isotopes results in a younger date.

The discovery of whale fossils was first documented in Michigan in 1861 and whale bones and teeth have been found here ever since, proving the existence of finback, sperm, and right whales in the region. And where there are whales, there are whale watchers, right? Indeed, say those in the know

http://greatlakesgazette.wordpress.com/2011/0...

Whale and even walrus fossils have been found in Michigan, proving that the state was once under water. A finback whale (Balaenoptera) bone was found in 1928; its fossilized remains date from approximately 290 million years ago.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...

"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?" 48
"Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..." 48

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scien...

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html

Of course these evos would not have it and dated the whale bones only to find nonsensical and contradictory findings.

There is not Maz failure here because my assertions are as unfalsifiable as yours and your contested whale phylogeny with descendants that predate their supposed ancestors.eg Basilosaurus dated to 49mya, is a hoot!!
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#293 Sep 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if a precambrian mammal was found you lot would evoke some of your magic like strata mixing.
No worries. A precambrian mammal fossil will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER be found.

And if it ever is, it will most likely because you lying "fundie christian creotards" put it there, sort of like how you fake Noah's ark evidence and overlapping dinosaur and human footprints.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#294 Sep 23, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
No worries. A precambrian mammal fossil will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER be found.
And if it ever is, it will most likely because you lying "fundie christian creotards" put it there, sort of like how you fake Noah's ark evidence and overlapping dinosaur and human footprints.
Nice to see you have nothing of substance to add to my above posts and prefer to stuggle on down the path to evasion.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#295 Sep 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice to see you have nothing of substance to add to my above posts and prefer to stuggle on down the path to evasion.
As if your posts contribute anything to ... anything.

It's not like anyone really pays any serious attention to you or your anti-science colleagues.

The world has heard it all before, for the past 200+ years; "blah, blah, blah, science is wrong, lie, lie, lie, I am right, misunderstand, misunderstand, misunderstand, I know more than the scientists do, misrepresent, misrepresent, misrepresent, the scientists don't know what their talking about, lie some more, lie some more, lie some more.

BTW what do you do for a living? I'm betting it has NOTHING to do with science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#296 Sep 23, 2012
Maz, like I said, get some help. Your whale fossil story looked like a typical creationist lie. One thing that gave it away is that they supposedly dated the "whale fossils" with carbon 14. C14 dating is not used on fossils since it has no C14 from the atmosphere left in them. C14 is not used for dating sea life either. So that is two strikes on the story right there. I will let you try to figure out why C14 does not give good dates for sea life.
You misunderstand the professional journals that you quote, you put your trust into creationist sites where lying is the norm. Haz you need to develop the ability to judge websites. If someone has an article that tries to upset the current paradigm they are going to need some pretty strong evidence. Not, the dog at my fossil and I can't find it anymore.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#297 Sep 23, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
As if your posts contribute anything to ... anything.
It's not like anyone really pays any serious attention to you or your anti-science colleagues.
The world has heard it all before, for the past 200+ years; "blah, blah, blah, science is wrong, lie, lie, lie, I am right, misunderstand, misunderstand, misunderstand, I know more than the scientists do, misrepresent, misrepresent, misrepresent, the scientists don't know what their talking about, lie some more, lie some more, lie some more.
BTW what do you do for a living? I'm betting it has NOTHING to do with science.
My favourite, regarding the bible: "It doesn't say what it says! It says what I tell you it means!!"

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#298 Sep 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
My assertions, or any variation of creationists assertions, are no more ridiculous then suggesting elements organised themselves into a complex factory of reproduction all by themselves.
First off, that's not evolution.
Second off, those assertions are, by definition, more ridiculous, if they invoke a Jewish Sky Wizard as a cause.
Indeed I should not need to present any further support for the creationist claim that an organisms ability to adapt is limited.
Then your claim is unsupported and can be ignored outright.

If you can't provide support for a claim, there's no reason that we should take that claim seriously.
You have a fossil record full of extinct species, your whole TOE is based in species extinction that did not adapt and survival of the so called fittest or luckiest.
First of all, your position does not allow for the existence of extinct species AT ALL. If species have gone extinct, then God has failed.

Second of all, the fact that an organism in the past is extinct while a similar organism in the present is not means that the species from the past DID evolve.
There is current research into climate change that also highlights many species inability to adapt.
Actually, no. There is research that shows that some species (particularly ones with very long life cycles and slow reproductive rates) will not be able to evolve to handle climate change because the rate of change far exceeds their ability to keep up.

ie redwoods can't move, can't spread seeds further, can't reproduce quickly - they are in trouble.
In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.
Wrong. Organisms evolve to best exploit resources.

If an organism has sufficient resources, mutations which give them access to other resources are of no consequence. If no new predator threatens them, new defenses are of no consequence.
I have already read evolutionists refute to Sanfords work. I say his algorithmic magic can't be any worse than yours.
I suggest evolutionists require just as much faith to accept TOE as creationists do.
And you're wrong. It's significantly worse because he's talking about theoretical populations, not real world situations.

You can create as many theoretical populations as you like. If that model doesn't stand up to real world examples, it's flawed.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Qufu, China

#299 Sep 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
TOE has the hit and miss predictive ability of a crystal ball.
Neil Shubin was awfully lucky, then.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#300 Sep 23, 2012
I just ran across this video that I have seen before whose title matches that of this thread almost perfectly. Except this is the video on Meth:

&fe ature=player_embedded#!

If you have about twice as much time here is the same video at normal speed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#301 Sep 24, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
As if your posts contribute anything to ... anything.
It's not like anyone really pays any serious attention to you or your anti-science colleagues.
The world has heard it all before, for the past 200+ years; "blah, blah, blah, science is wrong, lie, lie, lie, I am right, misunderstand, misunderstand, misunderstand, I know more than the scientists do, misrepresent, misrepresent, misrepresent, the scientists don't know what their talking about, lie some more, lie some more, lie some more.
BTW what do you do for a living? I'm betting it has NOTHING to do with science.
I am a credentialled social worker and an expert in my field. I have done research methods. I have done BIO101 and worked in labs, then decided there was more money in psychology.

One does not need to be a crdentialled scientist to read and understand.

Indeed it is you evos that go bla bla bla.

You did not refute a sinlg words I said. That would be because every word I said about the current state of evolutionary theory is correct

You lot prance around like egotistical boofheads tooting that your evolutionary theory is so well supported. It is not. What supports evolution is misrepresentation.

Whale and bird ancestry is a total farce. These evolutionary researchers have dated a Basilosaurs to 49mya. That is codated in existence at the same time as Pakicetus, 49-53mya and ambulocetus were around. Basilosaurus predates Indohyus at 48mya.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44867222/ns/techn...

In Aves researchers have found modern bird footprints dated to 212mya ansd have invented a mythical theropod to put them on to save your convoluted handwaving theory.

"These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters.".
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...

These are just 2 examples of the mess you have relating to your so called mountains of fossil evidence. I have not even started yet to demonstrate the misprepresentaion these supposed fossils are based on. I have plenty more examples of the misrepresentation you call evidence for evolution.

Likewise I can present more evo woffle in relation to orangs being the closest living relo to mankind. This article demonstrates that homology is a pick a box science and genetic comparisons can be twekaed to say whatever a researcher wants them to say. That is called algorithmic magic. The same fossils can be used to domonstrate common ancestry to a chimp and orang, a knuckle walker and not a knuckle walker. Isn't evolutionary science a hoot????

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/jbi_21...

Further to that the evidence I provided on Devonian whales and my use of these modern bird footprints as evidence of birds thriving half way back to the Devonian is unable to be falsified just like your woffle because my interpretation of the data is as unfalsifiable as yours.

So you can prattle on and you can ridicule me as much as you like. I can actually support my claims with more than hot air.

You can hide your head in the sand and tell me how you believe these researchers that are consistently wrong like as if the majority has never been wrong before eg human knuckle walking ancestry. The one thing you can't do is make evolutionary theory look credible to any one other than the faithful followers of the TOE philosophy.

"Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2082782...

The other thing you can't do is demonstrate how you know evolution is right. The how, when, where and why of evolution is still up for grabs because what you lot have found is chaos.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#302 Sep 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, like I said, get some help. Your whale fossil story looked like a typical creationist lie. One thing that gave it away is that they supposedly dated the "whale fossils" with carbon 14. C14 dating is not used on fossils since it has no C14 from the atmosphere left in them. C14 is not used for dating sea life either. So that is two strikes on the story right there. I will let you try to figure out why C14 does not give good dates for sea life.
You misunderstand the professional journals that you quote, you put your trust into creationist sites where lying is the norm. Haz you need to develop the ability to judge websites. If someone has an article that tries to upset the current paradigm they are going to need some pretty strong evidence. Not, the dog at my fossil and I can't find it anymore.
I do not misunderstand anything. You are a woffler.

I am not a YEC any way so going on about dating is futile.

The mess you call support for evolution is what you should be concerned about.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#303 Sep 24, 2012
To Nuggin

You and your researchers have no idea what they are on about.
This is nonsense.

Nuggin said....

"First of all, your position does not allow for the existence of extinct species AT ALL. If species have gone extinct, then God has failed.

Second of all, the fact that an organism in the past is extinct while a similar organism in the present is not means that the species from the past DID evolve."
You are an idiot. Firstly, God wiped out all life in the flood for starters.

Secondly, apart from your sounding like you have no idea what you are talking about, your entire philosophy is based on traits that allow one bunch of a species to thrive while the other goes extinct. That is why your evo researchers are gobsmacked to find many purported ancestors still around with their descendants eg Habilis. The point being only loosers would expect any one with their reasoning ability in tact to accept that co dated fossils demonstrate ancestry to an mythical ancestor.
There is no connection to environmental change and morphological change.

You lot are going to have to dream something else up!

She found that the distribution shifts were individualistic, with huge variations between species in the rate, time and direction of spread. For example, larch spread from south-west to north-east, white pine from south-east to north-west. Rates vary from 100 metres a year to over 1000 metres (Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, vol 70, p 550). In other words, trees show no predictable response to climate change, and respond individually rather than as communities of species

Research on animals has come to similarly unexpected conclusions, albeit based on sparser fossil records. For example, palaeontologist Russell Graham at Illinois State Museum has looked at North American mammals and palaeontologist Russell Coope at the University of Birmingham in the UK has examined insects (Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol 10, p 247). Both studies show that most species remain unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, perhaps longer, and across several ice ages. Species undergo major changes in distribution and abundance, but show no evolution of morphological characteristics despite major environmental changes.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2082782...

Algorithms are based on assumptions and all of them have many unknown insertion values such as population size, assumed mutation rates of unknown species and are pegged to a fossil record that is a total misrepresentation.

You evolutionsists thrive on confusion and you will always have it with you.While it is all confused you can successfully chase your tail for years on forums with many words and nothing to say of substance.

I have no doubt that evos can present mountains of woofle. It is your stubborn determination to call this mess of contradiction in any way factual that I refute. You have a theory and if there was any merit behind it at all, I would have no problem in being a theistic evolutionist.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#304 Sep 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Whale and bird ancestry is a total farce. These evolutionary researchers have dated a Basilosaurs to 49mya. That is codated in existence at the same time as Pakicetus, 49-53mya and ambulocetus were around. Basilosaurus predates Indohyus at 48mya.
I'm not even going to talk about your dates.
I'm just going to point out a very simple concept that you are completely overlooking.
Just because one species exists does not mean that an ancestral species is not also still around, nor does it mean that a species which will survive into the future is not around.
Not only can their be overlap, there MUST be overlap.
In Aves researchers have found modern bird footprints dated to 212mya ansd have invented a mythical theropod to put them on to save your convoluted handwaving theory.
The fact that dinosaurs and birds have the same footprints and that those foot prints are not found in any other group of animals is a good reason for you to stop bringing this fact up. It's extremely damaging to your argument!

The rest of your post is more blah blah.
Here's the problem.
ALL of these examples you are bringing up PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that Creationism is false.
You get that, don't you?
You can't complain about a whale ancestor which is 48myo and still argue that the Earth is 6,000 old and populated exclusively by jews.
You can't live in AUSTRALIA and believe that the Flood really happened.
Hell, the Abos have been in Australia for several thousand years LONGER than the Creationist age of the Earth!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#305 Sep 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
You are an idiot. Firstly, God wiped out all life in the flood for starters.
Read your Bible. God told Noah to collect between 2-6 of EVERY animal and Noah did.

That means Noah collected all the land dinosaurs as well.

Further, how could the Flood kill all the aquatic dinos and ancient fishes but leave the modern fishes and reptiles just fine?

If you are going to base your argument on mythology, you need to read your mythology.
Secondly, apart from your sounding like you have no idea what you are talking about, your entire philosophy is based on traits that allow one bunch of a species to thrive while the other goes extinct. That is why your evo researchers are gobsmacked to find many purported ancestors still around with their descendants eg Habilis.
This is simply you completely misunderstanding how evolution works at all.

H. Erectus spread from Africa to Asia and Europe. H. Erectus was STILL in Africa, but now also in Asia and Europe.

When the Ice Age isolated them from one another, those groups stopped sharing DNA and evolved independent of one another.

Hence we see Neanderthals emerging in Europe, H. Sapiens emerging in Africa and Denisovians emerging in Siberia.

All three groups existing at the same time along with some pocket groups of older species (ie Flores) still around.

Change doesn't happen to the ENTIRE GROUP at the SAME TIME in all locations.
There is no connection to environmental change and morphological change.
Ridiculous. Of course Neanderthals morphological changes were linked to the fact that they were living in an ice age.
In other words, trees show no predictable response to climate change, and respond individually rather than as communities of species
Yes, individual tree species vary dramatically in their ability to respond to climate change. Not all tree species will respond the same way, with the same speed or with the same degree of success.

As a result, some species will likely go extinct while others will succeed.

I accept your apology.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#306 Sep 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Research on animals has come to similarly unexpected conclusions, albeit based on sparser fossil records. For example, palaeontologist Russell Graham at Illinois State Museum has looked at North American mammals and palaeontologist Russell Coope at the University of Birmingham in the UK has examined insects (Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol 10, p 247). Both studies show that most species remain unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, perhaps longer, and across several ice ages. Species undergo major changes in distribution and abundance, but show no evolution of morphological characteristics despite major environmental changes.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2082782...
Pulled this into a separate post because I want to address it specifically.

You are presenting this article as if it were arguing that evolutionary change doesn't happen.

It's not. What it is arguing is that climate is not the main driving force in evolutionary change which, as the article clearly states, does happen.

I'd call you out on being dishonest, but I really just think the problem here is that you lack the education to grasp what you are talking about.

After all, you are a YEC. You think the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Noah was a real guy with a real boat.

Frankly, the fact that you are able to capitalize the first letter in a sentence is nothing short of a miracle.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min SobieskiSavedEurope 134,732
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 3 hr Al the Scot 997
How would creationists explain... 4 hr Dogen 449
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 4 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,641
Intelligent Design: Still Dead [EvolutionBlog] 7 hr geezerjock 1
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 8 hr The Dude 514
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 11 hr spiderlover 77
More from around the web