Wakeboarder :: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham


HOME FORUMS PHOTOS GEAR SHOP CLASSIFIEDS

FAQ

Memberlist

Stats

Favorites

Profile

Blogs

Bill Nye debates Ken Ham
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Wakeboarder Forum Index -> Non-Wakeboarding

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 10, 2014 7:29 pm Post subject:

Isn't that kind of species change much more evident and observable in plants and microorganisms than in animals? How many animals have had a species change since humans were observing and recording them? How exactly are mice being observed in this way? Has someone witnessed a mouse changing to a squirrel? As far as genome studies, why do I see more and more studies showing less and less similarity between humans and various primates than we saw years ago? _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

Chad H
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much

Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 6449
City: Atlanta

Posted: Feb 10, 2014 7:47 pm Post subject:

Okie Boarder wrote:

As far as genome studies, why do I see more and more studies showing less and less similarity between humans and various primates than we saw years ago?

Curious.. What scientific journals do you subscribe to or read and find these studies in?

microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much

Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377

Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:09 pm Post subject:

Okie Boarder wrote:

Isn't that kind of species change much more evident and observable in plants and microorganisms than in animals? How many animals have had a species change since humans were observing and recording them?

Yes, but only because microbes can replicate so much faster (sometimes in 20 min or less) than animals. That said, when we breed animals for specific traits (colour, temperament, yield, size, etc) we are observing evolution.

Okie Boarder wrote:

How exactly are mice being observed in this way? Has someone witnessed a mouse changing to a squirrel?

A mouse isn't going to turn into a squirrel, although they share a common ancestor. We are talking about relatively small changes that can be introduced through selective breeding. If two or more groups of one "species" become separated, however, those changes within each group may result over time in groups of animals that we would classify are distinct from one another.

If a species is well adapted to a particular environment, there may be little selective pressure for it to change. If the environment is suddenly altered then the rate of evolution will likely increase in turn, and those organisms with beneficial mutations will be selected for.

Humans in the developed world are thankfully under less selective pressure from infectious diseases than we used to be. On the other hand, we're poorly adapted for a life where high calorie foods are readily available.

Okie Boarder wrote:

As far as genome studies, why do I see more and more studies showing less and less similarity between humans and various primates than we saw years ago?

That depends on which primates you're talking about. Better technology in analyzing and sequencing DNA allows us to make a more accurate determination of evolutionary relationships. Some of them are closer to us than we thought.

Such as:

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:31 pm Post subject:

Everything you are saying points towards evolution, but not species change. IOW, "micro evolution" versus "macro evolution", as they say. The way I understand it, evolution as a mechanism for origins of life depends upon species change, right? _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:40 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I've read those types of articles and reports, and I've also read ones like these.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/06/16/news-to-note-06162012

Quote:

Commenting on the apparent similarity between bonobos and humans, molecular geneticist and creationist Dr. Georgia Purdom says, “Just as with the chimp genome, we see numbers reported of over 98% similarity between the bonobo and human genomes. This shouldn’t be surprising when you understand how the bonobo genome was sequenced. The scientists used human and chimp genomes as a template or scaffold to assemble the bonobo genome because of the supposed common ancestry shared by them. This type of sequencing is very biased and leads to inflated amounts of similarity.” For more information about the way evolutionary bias affects the technology used to sequence and compare genomes, see How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/implications-for-comparative-genomics

Quote:

and Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89%.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/blastin

I would expect your initial reaction is to just dismiss these because they come from creationist type folks, but I would love to see you read through them and comment based on the content.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much

Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377

Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:43 pm Post subject:

Okie Boarder wrote:

Everything you are saying points towards evolution, but not species change. IOW, "micro evolution" versus "macro evolution", as they say.

But almost no one but creationists use those terms. Why choose an arbitrary cut-off for where evolution ends? IOW, over time, what stops these small changes from accumulating into what would we would consider a different species? There is no barrier that exists.

Okie Boarder wrote:

The way I understand it, evolution as a mechanism for origins of life depends upon species change, right?

Evolution doesn't explain the "origins of life" but rather how organisms have evolved over time. Natural selection is the proposed mechanism for determining which of these "changes" are kept (selected for).

A question for you. How does creationism account for adaption? I mean if all organisms were created exactly as they are today, how are they able to adapt to new environments?

jt09
Ladies Man

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin

Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:47 pm Post subject:

i can't believe you people are trying to explain evolution to someone who thinks the world was created in 7 days, a 500 yr old man rounded up 2 of every animal on the planet for a 40 day cruise, and a dude lived after being puked up by a whale 3 days after being eaten.

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:54 pm Post subject:

Chad H wrote:

Okie Boarder wrote:

As far as genome studies, why do I see more and more studies showing less and less similarity between humans and various primates than we saw years ago?

Curious.. What scientific journals do you subscribe to or read and find these studies in?

I have read tons of articles, but I don't subscribe to any specific scientific journals. What I've read is that they continue to map human DNA and the further they get, the more differences they find between humans and various primates.

Here's one example link that isn't really a scientific journal, nor is it a creationist oriented scientist, talking about the amount of human genomes have been sequenced. If they are only this far along, how can they claim so much similarity to the primates? Also, how far along are they on the primates and what effect would that have?

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-much-of-our-genome-is-sequenced.html

Are the scientific journals you're subscribed to painting a distinctly different picture?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

Last edited by Okie Boarder on Feb 10, 2014 9:30 pm; edited 2 times in total

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 10, 2014 9:00 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Understood on the first point. But, from what I've read about, there are some big questions and a lot of assumptions regarding the smaller amounts of changes we've been able to observe, and the larger amounts of changes required to start from big bang, then millions of years of evolution, then end where we are today. When we look at the early part of that theory, what makes us think that evolution and big bang are correct and another possibility are not? Seems like there are plenty of arguments to support creation when you look back and try to figure out what happened.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 10, 2014 9:06 pm Post subject:

jt09 wrote:

i can't believe you people are trying to explain evolution to someone who thinks the world was created in 7 days, a 500 yr old man rounded up 2 of every animal on the planet for a 40 day cruise, and a dude lived after being puked up by a whale 3 days after being eaten.

If you are talking literal interpretation, it was 6 days, he was 500 when he started the ark and 620 when he was done, and it was 2 of every kind, not every animal. Wink

_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 10, 2014 9:24 pm Post subject:

Quote:

As much as you've said that and we've agreed it shouldn't be that way, it appears that our scientific community is trying to teach us that is the case; at least in regards to what we are teaching future generations. Nye promoted the same thing in the debate. From what I've read, the big bang and evolution are the explanations of where we came from and what has happened since life began. If that is one of the accepted theories, then there are many that don't agree and have presented information that seems to contradict those ideas. That information seems like a reasonable explanation. Of everything I've read regarding creationism, I haven't seen anything that disagrees with evolution the way you speak of it, microman, like we've talked about before. The conflict comes in when evolutionists try to use the observed evolution to extrapolate into that which has not been observed and all the way back to the big bang or the primordial soup. How does science observe and test those ideas?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

jt09
Ladies Man

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 5:54 am Post subject:

Okie Boarder wrote:

If you are talking literal interpretation

and here lies the difference between us. i have zero problem reconciling evolution and creationism because i see the bible as a collection of stories passed down from generation to generation through multiple languages from a wide geographic area (relatively speaking) and various families, races, tribes and nations (as they were). they are tall tales and exaggerations and interpretations shaped to fit a desired story, not a true and accurate historical reckoning. it blows me away that educated people give credence to the book in a strict, literal, manner.

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 6:42 am Post subject:

Have you ever dug into how the Bible was written? I'm assuming you haven't based upon your terminology of "stories passed down from generation to generation through multiple languages". I'm not sure you care, but if you were to dig in deeper, you would find that there has been painstaking effort to ensure translations are remaining true to the original language that was written, as much as possible. Also, there was quite an effort to preserve the original writings that occur close to the events and toss out those that were too long after for concerns of myth and legend creeping in. Something interesting I've noticed is there have been quite a few atheists that have gone on a quest to prove the Bible wrong and found out otherwise. Many have become believers after going through that period of discovery. The Bible does contain true and accurate historical information that has been verified and proven many times over. _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? Last edited by Okie Boarder on Feb 11, 2014 6:50 am; edited 1 time in total

jason_ssr
Wakeboarder.com Freak

Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 4054
City: Dallas, Tx

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 6:48 am Post subject:

jt09 wrote:

a 500 yr old man rounded up 2 of every animal on the planet for a 40 day cruise

Um, it rained for 40 days. The cruise was much longer. Get to Sunday-school, hippy!

The beauty of being a creationist is that its a story and any facts can be spun to fit it. You cant be wrong!

The beauty of being an evolutionist is science is always right....until its wrong, but proving its wrong makes it right again. You cant be wrong!
_________________
TONA

My avatar is NOT a pic of me! HAHA!

jt09
Ladies Man

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 7:04 am Post subject:

Okie Boarder wrote:

The Bible does contain true and accurate historical information that has been verified and proven many times over.

right. like men living in the belly of a whale and 500+ yr old men building boats for [much longer than] 40 day cruises w/ all those animals.

wakeboarderdave1
Wakeboarder.com Freak

Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 3161
City: St. Thomas, MO

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 7:48 am Post subject:

jt09 wrote:

Okie Boarder wrote:

The Bible does contain true and accurate historical information that has been verified and proven many times over.

right. like men living in the belly of a whale and 500+ yr old men building boats for [much longer than] 40 day cruises w/ all those animals.

Or when Jesus made a few loaves of bread and a couple fish feed a lot of people?
_________________
RIP DLS.

"When you've got that many stars on your hat, you're pretty good." - Keith Jackson

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 8:34 am Post subject:

jt09 wrote:

Okie Boarder wrote:

The Bible does contain true and accurate historical information that has been verified and proven many times over.

right. like men living in the belly of a whale and 500+ yr old men building boats for [much longer than] 40 day cruises w/ all those animals.

Not all accounts in the Bible are able to be verified, and many seem impossible or miraculous. That doesn't mean they didn't happen, but it does mean those particular events may not be able to be proven at this time. It's reasonable to question those, IMO.

Miraculous things happen, even today. A human should not be able to lift a car off another person, but it has happened many times. People survive catastrophic events with no logical explanation for why they survived. If those events happened 1,000 years ago, were only written with a few eyewitnesses to corraberate and you read about them, I bet you would question their validity, as well.

There are many accounts in the Bible that can be and have been proven and some that have not. It is what it is and if you feel something has to be 100% perfect and proven for you to believe it, that is certainly your perogative. That makes for a very small amount of things you consider to be true.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

Last edited by Okie Boarder on Feb 11, 2014 8:42 am; edited 1 time in total

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 8:37 am Post subject:

Double post _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? Last edited by Okie Boarder on Feb 11, 2014 8:41 am; edited 1 time in total

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 12:30 pm Post subject:

Quote:

A question for you. How does creationism account for adaption? I mean if all organisms were created exactly as they are today, how are they able to adapt to new environments?

There's a huge variety of genes already present in all living creatures. Different expressions of different genes result in wide variations, some more suitable for certain environments than others. It's not so much that an animal adapts to the environment, but rather more likely the animals suited for each environment survive there or if they're the migratory type, they move there.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

dirtysparks
Wakeboarder.Commie

Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 2428

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 12:42 pm Post subject:

I want to see some knowledge bestowed upon thee from

Quote:

the person who is most educated about the subject on this forum.

ohsix
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much

Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 6837

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 1:33 pm Post subject:

dirtysparks wrote:

I want to see some knowledge bestowed upon thee from

Quote:

the person who is most educated about the subject on this forum.

Me too. HE HAS SLIDES!

microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much

Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 1:42 pm Post subject:

Okie Boarder wrote:

Something interesting I've noticed is there have been quite a few atheists that have gone on a quest to prove the Bible wrong and found out otherwise. Many have become believers after going through that period of discovery.

This seems to be an old wive's tale that gets passed along through evangelical churches. Odd how no one ever is produced to verify it.

Okie Boarder wrote:

The Bible does contain true and accurate historical information that has been verified and proven many times over.

The true authors of most of the books of the Bible aren't even known and yet people put so much time and energy into studying, reading, and discussing a book written by an unknown number of men who wrote at a time when most people still believed in a flat earth.

Okie Boarder wrote:

But animals can't possibly contain all the genetic variety necessary to survive in changing conditions. Creationism, however, tells us that all life was created exactly as we find it today. If this isn't true, however, then "life"(animals plants, microbes, etc.) must have evolved. You can't have it both ways in this case.

jason_ssr
Wakeboarder.com Freak

Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 4054
City: Dallas, Tx

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 2:16 pm Post subject:

microman wrote:

Creationism, however, tells us that all life was created exactly as we find it today. If this isn't true, however, then "life"(animals plants, microbes, etc.) must have evolved. You can't have it both ways in this case.

Creationism only states a diety created animals. It does not speak to evolution afterwards one way or the other. In this aspect, the two scenarios do not disagree. The only place they disagree is the origin of life/primal ooze type stuff. Science doesnt have a strong foothold in origins anyway, so this always seems like a half hearted "debate".

Ultimately the screw-up in this "debate" is the misuse of the word "evolution" and how it is manipulated by each group to get the other team to jump offsides in every discussion. Its confusing because modern evolution discussions are not addressing the origin of species, though it always implied that they are (what was the title of Darwins book?)
_________________
TONA

My avatar is NOT a pic of me! HAHA!

jt09
Ladies Man

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 2:18 pm Post subject:

jason_ssr wrote:

Creationism only states a diety created animals. It does not speak to evolution afterwards one way or the other. In this aspect, the two scenarios do not disagree.

except for that pesky 6000 year old earth thing.

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 2:29 pm Post subject:

microman wrote:

This seems to be an old wive's tale that gets passed along through evangelical churches. Odd how no one ever is produced to verify it.

If you're truly interested in knowing, I could go back through some of the resources I've read through and give you some names.

microman wrote:

The true authors of most of the books of the Bible aren't even known

The true authors of most of the books ARE known.

microman wrote:

But animals can't possibly contain all the genetic variety necessary to survive in changing conditions.

Says who?

microman wrote:

I'm not sure what you are basing the first statement upon. My understanding of creationisms position on this is that life was created in full form, but that doesn't negate the ability for changes over time. There are definitely quite a few arguments that support creation and evolution together.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 2:34 pm Post subject:

jt09 wrote:

except for that pesky 6000 year old earth thing.

That is definitely one of the points of contention. That's where a link like this (and many of the points Ham was making) can come into play. There are questions being asked about the reliability of dating methods.

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

Note: I do NOT claim to be anywhere near an expert on this subject...just offering up one of the pieces of information I've read.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much

Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 3:05 pm Post subject:

jason_ssr wrote:

Creationism as it's most commonly defined says that all life was created by a supernatural being and did not evolve. Does it not? Intelligent design, the dressed up version of creationism, claimed that "life" was too complex to have evolved. Again, you can't accept that organisms evolve through adaptions and at the same time say that this evolution couldn't have produced the diversity that exists around us.

Okie Boarder wrote:

The true authors of most of the books ARE known.

Really? I guess that depends on how you define "known".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

Okie Boarder wrote:

Says who?

Genetics. Genomes change over time in response to environmental/selective pressure. Random mutations produce new genetic variants that didn't exist previously. We know this and have observed this.

Okie Boarder wrote:

To believe this you need to really suppress a lot of evidence that shows common descent among organisms.

Chad H
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much

Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 6449
City: Atlanta

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 4:30 pm Post subject:

Okie Boarder wrote:

jt09 wrote:

except for that pesky 6000 year old earth thing.

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

Note: I do NOT claim to be anywhere near an expert on this subject...just offering up one of the pieces of information I've read.

So this all is coming from a computer science researcher/teacher
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/

Now I'm not going to take the time to read all of this right now, because honestly I have a lot of stuff to read that actually pertains to that pesky science matter, but it's really easy to write something like what I skimmed through and make it seem very convincing, if you only know some of the material.

With that said, I hope this stirs the pot.

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 6:00 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Well, that claim depends a lot on what you are calling evolution. Since evolution is a term that addresses both species change and change within species, typically, and science hasn't differentiated the two, it seems like the waters are muddied a bit. If you are saying evolution is how life originated and then progressed, then creationism would argue against that. However, creationism accepts what science has observed and called evolution, which creationism may call adaptation or micro evolution, to be true. Everything current that I've read considers the origins of life to be from God, and then it goes from there, with changes moving forward from that period of time.

Quote:

Really? I guess that depends on how you define "known".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

Looks like wiki let you down. There are a few books where the authors cannot be verified. If you understand how particular the Jewish are about writings and history, it makes perfect sense why the Bible is what it is. If they could verify the content, with a specific guideline on accuracy (witnesses, evidence, etc.), then they included it. If not, they excluded it. Many of the books where the authors are not known for sure have suspected authors, but the Jewish will not let that author be claimed because of their stringent rules.

Quote:

Genetics. Genomes change over time in response to environmental/selective pressure. Random mutations produce new genetic variants that didn't exist previously. We know this and have observed this.

So, you're trying to say that the genes weren't already there and just appeared, and that is a distinct difference from how they originated? How do you know this and how was it observed?

Quote:

To believe this you need to really suppress a lot of evidence that shows common descent among organisms.

Not sure I see what you're trying to say here. What evidence are you claiming is being suppressed and how does it conflict with the idea life was created in full form, then carried on from there?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

Last edited by Okie Boarder on Feb 11, 2014 6:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 11, 2014 6:01 pm Post subject:

Chad H wrote:

Okie Boarder wrote:

jt09 wrote:

except for that pesky 6000 year old earth thing.

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

Note: I do NOT claim to be anywhere near an expert on this subject...just offering up one of the pieces of information I've read.

So, I assume that means you completely understand the basis of the argument and its content. How about you refute that content upon the basis of that understanding and show us all why it is wrong.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

jason_ssr
Wakeboarder.com Freak

Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 4054
City: Dallas, Tx

Posted: Feb 12, 2014 6:24 am Post subject:

microman wrote:

Creationism as it's most commonly defined says that all life was created by a supernatural being and did not evolve. Does it not?

The Bible doesnt address evolution at all. Evolution as you define it has never been in question by creationists. We can see it with our own eyes. Heck with domestication we actively take part in it do we not?

But, thats just it, evolutionists think creationists do not see evolution as occuring. Thats not true. Creationists see evolutionists as believing life evolved from the primal-ooze-nothing. That is not accurate either.

Creationist believe life originated from a diety. What has happened since is not addressed in the Bible, so has no religious debate. Evolutionists only observe what they can from fossil data, and typically do not address the origin of life.

The debate comes in schools when a religious student imposes his beliefs on a science class, and the teachers reaction is to squash the debate by extrapolating evolution back to the origin of life in an attempt to prove him wrong. Both are doing a disservice to the class.
_________________
TONA

My avatar is NOT a pic of me! HAHA!

Okie Boarder
Ladies Man

Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

Posted: Feb 12, 2014 6:36 am Post subject:

microman, forgot to post last night. A few examples of Atheist turned Christian are CS Lewis, Anne Rice, and Lee Strobel. _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

wakeboarderdave1
Wakeboarder.com Freak

Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 3161
City: St. Thomas, MO

Posted: Feb 12, 2014 7:15 am Post subject:

You can put me in the Christian turned Atheist group. _________________ RIP DLS. "When you've got that many stars on your hat, you're pretty good." - Keith Jackson

E.J.
Ladies Man

Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 7597
City: Mogadishu

Posted: Feb 12, 2014 7:49 am Post subject:

Okie Boarder wrote:

microman, forgot to post last night. A few examples of Atheist turned Christian are CS Lewis, Anne Rice, and Lee Strobel.

That list actually made me laugh out loud....made my morning.... Laughing

I hope this thread continues unabated for the entire year Exclamation

jason_ssr
Wakeboarder.com Freak

Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 4054
City: Dallas, Tx

Posted: Feb 12, 2014 7:55 am Post subject:

E.J. wrote:

I hope this thread continues unabated for the entire year Exclamation

LOL, its happened before. I guess this thread proves the existence of reincarnation.
_________________
TONA

My avatar is NOT a pic of me! HAHA!

Display posts from previous:

	Wakeboarder Forum Index -> Non-Wakeboarding	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

Add To Favorites

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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Wakeboards - Wakeboard Videos - Wakeskating - Wakepics - Sector 9 Longboards