PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution is Failing

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another point:  If there is such a dearth of fossils from which to deduce any lineage, why is there such a determination on the part of the evolutionist community to ram it down our throats that there is such strong evidence of evolution in the fossil record?


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:30 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another point:  If there is such a dearth of fossils from which to deduce any lineage, why is there such a determination on the part of the evolutionist community to ram it down our throats that there is such strong evidence of evolution in the fossil record?


Looks like I'm stumped. I honestly can't come up with a reason why it's so necessary to stress that a scientific theory based on evidence actually has evidence. Clearly, it's a sham, and hardly any of this evidence is worth anything at all.

and just for the record, if we use your number that 2% of all living creatures in the past have fossilized, wouldn't we have literally billions of fossils from which to deduce a transition a la macro-evolution?  


Why, yes!

Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like you're making a case that fossils are more likely to remain intact if they were buried rapidly, or shall we say, catastrophically?


Nothing gets past you. Not even the mass extinctions.

Of course, if you're asking me to dismantle the entire Great Flood story piece by piece, I'd be more than pleased to oblige.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/22/2005 at 10:07 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:59 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mass Extinction = Assumption


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 10:23 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, it is an assumption for BOTH sides of the argument.

And I don't put much faith in anything I read at talk.origins, it is such a propaganda site that I cannot trust its authors to be objective.


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 10:28 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Talkorigins may be biased, but it doesn't have "authors." Almost all its arguments are based cleanly off of genuine doctoral thesises and lists of data compiled by scientists that are then placed on the site.

Mass Extinction = Assumption


No. Unless, that is, you classify parrallel situations like the Justice system to be mere assumptions. To use this example a second time:

It doesn't matter if you don't have any eye witnesses; if the victim's vaginal secretions are on the suspect, and the suspect's semen is the only foreign material embedded within the victim's vagina, there's no longer a question over who raped her.

There aren't more than a handful of ways fossils can be placed in certain situations. Unless you care to delve into explanations that science simply cannot touch by definition, you're stuck with very few options, at least until new evidence is brought to the table.

It's a fact there were various mass extinctions. It's a fact many of them occured over 65 million years ago. That's just as factual as the proposition that the earth orbits the sun. ...After all, we can't rule out the possibility that a supernatural deity created the entire universe last Thursday in such a way that everything in fact indicates a universe of roughly 15 billion years.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/22/2005 at 11:13 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:11 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Question:  What explains the occasional discovery of an evolved species in or near the same strata as its alleged ancestor?

Where is the problem?  Evolution doesn't demand that an ancestral population goes extinct when an offshoot population evolves from it.  

Question:  Given only the evidence at hand, to wit:  A species presumed to be macro-evolved is discovered within a very short time span geologically from a distant ancestor species, but to date no transitional fossil evidence exists to indicate the transitional lineage between these two fossils presently in hand; what can we deduce from this immediate evidence?

Depends on what we can determine from examining the fossils we do have.  How close does comparative anatomy put them?  There has to be a reason they are presumed to be related.  We know that most organisms DON'T fossilize, so the lack of every stage of transition is really no problem.  
Do you have any examples of what you are talking about? I can't think of any organisms said to be related, yet lacking evidence that they are related....  Because one of creationism's biggest problems is, it can't explain the transitional fossil series we have found, series that clearly support the theory of evolution and nothing else.  Look at the series of transitonal fossils describing the evolution of synapsid reptiles into mammals.  
Biologists overwhelmingly concurr that this is how mammals evolved.  From here:
SynapsidEvolution
"An Example of a Transition Series: from Synapsid Reptiles to Mammals
This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence is quite complete. Each group is clearly related to both the group that came before, and the group that came after, and yet the sequence is so long that the fossils at the end are astoundingly different from those at the beginning. As Rowe recently said about this transition (in Szalay et al., 1993), "When sampling artifact is removed and all available character data analyzed [with computer phylogeny programs that do not assume anything about evolution], a highly corroborated, stable phylogeny [family tree] remains, which is largely consistent with the temporal distributions of taxa recorded in the fossil record." Similarly, Gingerich has stated (1977) "While living mammals are well separated from other groups of animals today, the fossil record clearly shows their origin from a reptilian stock and permits one to trace the origin and radiation of mammals in considerable detail." For more details, see Kermack's superb and readable little book (1984), Kemp's more detailed but older book (1982), and read Szalay et al.'s recent collection of review articles (1993, vol. 1).

The list of some 27 species which best documents the transition from mammal-like reptiles to mammals starts with pelycosaurs (early synapsid reptiles; Dimetrodon is a popular, advanced, example) and continues with therapsids and cynodonts up to the first unarguable "mammal". This covered some 160 million years, from the early Pennsylvanian (315 ma) to the late Jurassic (155 ma), with a 30 million year gap in the late Triassic. Most of the changes in this transition involved elaborate repackaging of an expanded brain and special sense organs, remodeling of the jaws & teeth for more efficient eating, and changes in the limbs & vertebrae related to active, legs-under-the-body locomotion. What is most striking (here, as well as in most other transitional fossils) is a mosaic mixture (existing in each species along the way) of some earlier (more primitive) traits along with newer, more derived traits, with a gradual decrease in the primitive traits, an increase in the derived traits, and gradual changes in size of various features through time."

So how do you explain these series of fossils that support evolution so well, that appear in a strict chronological order that explains their incremental changes....How do you explain them with creationism?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:36 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My point, as it has been since I joined this thread, is that there are assumptions made (by BOTH evolutionists AND creationists) to justify their position.  It is often ASSUMED that there must be a lineage, even if one does not exist in the fossil record.

But creationism has been conclusively disproven.  Assumptions are made when no evidence is available, the theory of evolution is well evidenced from multiple fields, biology, geology, genetics, twin nested hierarchies, ERVs, comparative anatomy, embryology.  If there is evidence to support the theory, it's not based on assumptions.  The TOE has a mountain of evidence supporting it.  Please give us an example of an assumed lineage that doesn't exist, since we see real fossilized lineages for all major taxons of organisms.
And ANY fossil lineage falsifies creationism.

And just for the record, if we use your number that 2% of all living creatures in the past have fossilized, wouldn't we have literally billions of fossils from which to deduce a transition a la macro-evolution?

I don't know about 2% but since we haven't found all the fossils that have ever existed, there just might be billions of transitional fossils waiting to be found.  Once again, how do you explain the transitional series we DO have by creationism?

Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like you're making a case that fossils are more likely to remain intact if they were buried rapidly, or shall we say, catastrophically?

This is probably true, but the earth has had many catastrophies in it's 4.5 billion years.  You can't be trying to say all fossils were created by one catastrophy ( like a flood...), are you?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:19 AM on September 23, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from deductive-christian at 4:25 PM on September 22, 2005 :My point, as it has been since I joined this thread, is that there are assumptions made (by BOTH evolutionists AND creationists) to justify their position.  It is often ASSUMED that there must be a lineage, even if one does not exist in the fossil record.


yes it is assumed.  everything is assumed to a degree.  but evolution provides an assumption backed by countless evidence.  So until we figure something else out more in sync with the actual state of the universe, its the best bet.

Quote from deductive-christian at 4:25 PM on September 22, 2005 :And just for the record, if we use your number that 2% of all living creatures in the past have fossilized, wouldn't we have literally billions of fossils from which to deduce a transition a la macro-evolution?


billions of fossils maybe, but there have been trillions of species existant on this planet, and you would also have to take into consideration the period of time occupied by a certain species.  The reason we find so many dinosaur bones for instance is because, relative to other types of animals, dinosaurs existed for a long period of the earth's recent biological history.

Quote from deductive-christian at 4:25 PM on September 22, 2005 :Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like you're making a case that fossils are more likely to remain intact if they were buried rapidly, or shall we say, catastrophically?


you wouldn't be hinting at a flood would you?

There is absolutely no evidence of a flood completely covering the earth at any time.  There is not enough water on the earth for that to be possible.  But floods happened; the sea has been a lot higher than it is today.  Also volcanoes, glaciers, ever hear of the Ice Age.

Quote from deductive-christian at 4:30 PM on September 22, 2005 :
Another point:  If there is such a dearth of fossils from which to deduce any lineage, why is there such a determination on the part of the evolutionist community to ram it down our throats that there is such strong evidence of evolution in the fossil record?


because it is ACTUALLY THERE.  Instead of some theory from a book written 2 millenia ago.  You can go and look at fossils and find similarities and differences, relate that to location, and fossils around it, the time it lived in, etc.  There is something that actually can be observed and analyzed to show a piece of that past.

Quote from deductive-christian at 5:23 PM on September 22, 2005 :
Mass Extinction = Assumption


it is an assumption with enourmous credit.  almost everything on the crust of this earth is a testament to it.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:54 AM on September 23, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mass Extinction = Assumption

How are mass extinctions an assumption?!?!
We have evidence.  Where are the dinosaurs, why don't we find them beyond the K T extinction line?  Once again, there is evidence for mass extinctions, just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean mass extinctions are just assumptions.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:13 AM on September 23, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from deductive-christian at 10:23 PM on September 22, 2005 :
Mass Extinction = Assumption



Do you believe it is an entirely unsupported assumption?

(Pardon for my absence, I have been and am frantically preparing to present results at a scientific meeting in Europe next week.)


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:07 AM on September 23, 2005 | IP
Army_of_Juan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is a very informative thread, probably one of the best I've seen on the topic. I've actually bookmarked it as a reference for debunking other creationist forums.

Demon, you are a God among men (LOL pun! ...yes I suck). You should start your own religion and call it "Evolutionism V2.0, now with 20% more geology!"

I should have stopped while I was ahead....

(Edited by Army_of_Juan 9/23/2005 at 7:02 PM).


-------
"I am Sofa-King we Todd Ed." - I. B. Creationist
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 7:01 PM on September 23, 2005 | IP
Foxtrot12

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, Demon, I (Pallim, Box of Fox, Foxtrot12, yes I know, I can never seem to keep one account on at a time) and Apo are avid pro-evolutionists. More than an evolutionist, I obsess with the scientific method-- if something doesn't apply to it, it doesn't make the cut and gets knocked down in my book.

Look  Here to see us completely smoking peddler... (oh, we love peddler. He was the essence of a creationist in such severe denial that if we showed him an animal evolving in front of his eyes, he'd kill himself before admitting to evolution).
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 12:49 AM on September 24, 2005 | IP
frankgiann

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

People, I just cant believe the ignorance on the part of these creationists. Lets get down to the real deal here. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to support your diluted theories other than what was written in some books thousands of years ago. The scientific evidence is overwhealming for evolution and our museums are filled with this evidence, it does not claim to have all the answers YET...but were getting there, and I cant believe how stupid some of you are to post WRONG scientific facts and psuedo statistics to try to prove your thoery, to me your one step short of these terrorists and you are dangerous people because if your gullible enough to believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, then your dumb enough to believe anything. The simple fact of the matter is that your unwilling to accept the fact there is no god, never was, never will be. You are the first people to believe in a man that lives in the sky but refuse to belive in something that has irrefutable scientific proof.
I have not found not one shred of evidence supporting your twisted creation claims....and this brings me to my next question....which religions view should we take here??? The Christian view?? The Jewish? the Muslim???
....take a step back, your nothing more than some water and a few elements, your not superior, your not special, and the only sin here is the fact that your the only species smart enough to ponder his existance...this is where the problem lies.
Insecure people that refuse to believe that once we die, we die...get real people !!!


(Edited by admin 11/23/2005 at 07:34 AM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 06:57 AM on November 23, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If we are just a few random molecules and there is nothing after this life then why are you wasting time posting on this board.  You should be eating, drinking, making merry (I know I read that somewhere).  You just wasted whole minutes of your inferior, finite life reading and posting on this board.  I never understand how it is that atheists get upset.  
Don't they understand that emotions are just chemical processes.  Nothing to be upset about.  As for your "terrorist" comments, I'll chalk that up to ignorance.

Sinc,
  Ed


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:35 AM on November 23, 2005 | IP
Linx_O

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The simple fact of the matter is that your unwilling to accept the fact there is no god, never was, never will be. You are the first people to believe in a man that lives in the sky but refuse to belive in something that has irrefutable scientific proof."

So Frankgiann, give me some evidence that there is no God... Then give me some "scientific proof" on evolution.

I will be very interested in your findings.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 12:16 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So Frankgiann, give me some evidence that there is no God


Evidence that there is a supernatural deity does not exist. Disproving something for which there is no evidence is a fallacy--and a very silly one at that. The burden of proof is on you, my friend. You're like a prosecutor demanding that the defendant prove his innocense.

Then give me some "scientific proof" on evolution.


Rats. One of those wiseguys who knows Evolutionists don't have anything to back them up.

...or do they?

Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

It's apparent already you won't read that several-hundred-page document, but hey--blind denial is an easy strategy.

Lastly, did you mean "scientific evidence" instead of "proof?" It's just that in Science, there's no such thing as absolute proof.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/3/2005 at 2:40 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:36 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
Linx_O

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Haha! Yes you are very right! You just totally proved my point. You can't prove scientifically whether there is a God or not. There is also no "evolutionary proof", just evidence to point towards evolution.

That’s what I was asking Frankgiann. If he knows that there isn't a God, then what evidence does he have on the subject. And if there is evolutionary "proof" (like he said and not evidence), then I would very much like to see it.

So I’m sorry about the misunderstanding... I probably just didn't say it right.

 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 3:46 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One, to disprove God (or at least, the deity that most people refer to when they use the term God, which is to say the Godhead of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) then you would only have to prove that the Bible is untrue as it is the only source of information on the subject.

Two, I'm not sure, but I don't think evidences is a word.

Three, I need a nap.  Not that you'd find it interesting, but I'm actually bored enough to type it right now.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:42 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is also no "evolutionary proof", just evidence to point towards evolution.


Just as there's only evidence to point torwards Gravity, Enertia, and Conservation of Matter and Energy. Evolution is as strong a scientific conclusion as any of those I've listed. As far as science goes, Evolution has been proven.

That’s what I was asking Frankgiann. If he knows that there isn't a God, then what evidence does he have on the subject.


If something is absent to begin with, there's no reason to draw the conclusion that it exists. The whole problem with religion when you try to integrate it into a scientific standard of thinking is that you already have the conclusion. If the idea of a god had not been thought up yet, there would be absolutely no reason to believe one exists right now. This is the logic that drives the "there is no God" statement.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:56 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
Linx_O

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:56 PM on December 3, 2005 :
Just as there's only evidence to point torwards Gravity, Enertia, and Conservation of Matter and Energy. Evolution is as strong a scientific conclusion as any of those I've listed. As far as science goes, Evolution has been proven.


I don't understand... If evolution has already been proven, then why did the "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory come out? Of course I'm under the assumption that you guys are Neo-Darwinists. But still, doesn't this give a bit of instability to the evolutionary theory?





(Edited by Linx_O 12/3/2005 at 6:54 PM).

(Edited by Linx_O 12/3/2005 at 7:05 PM).
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 6:51 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
doubletwist

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No Silly, punctuated equillibrium is simply a construct to understand exactly HOW evolution took place not whether it did!!!  No true scientist is wondering IF evolution took place.  This debate died in the 1970's upon our understanding of DNA and more specific microsatellite differentiation (at least among scientists) it always takes the general public a little longer.   What you may be arguing against is speciation!!! not evolution.  We have the ability to WATCH evolution (a change in a species over time) occur in less than 48 hours with bacteria!!!  It is the belief in god has done us well through our evolutionary history.  It was a construct for social control among other things, hence the god gene, but it will most likely be our demise as a species in the future.  (See the deaths due to religion in the last 300 years!!!)
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 9:39 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
doubletwist

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationsists where are you???  Defend your view??
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 10:24 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Our view on what?  A "god gene"?  Please.  Let me guess, there is also a "gay gene"?  And a "pedophile gene"?  How about a "necropheliac gene" or a "bestiality gene"?  Does that mean all atheists aren't making a decision, they're just reacting to the absence of the "god gene" in their body?  That'd be nice.  I can just blame everything I've ever done wrong on some gene that I do or do not have.  I am responsible for nothing.  Therefore I can not be held accountable for anything.  Maybe all the people on death row had "murder genes".  All hail the power of "I'm just a victim".


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:41 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
doubletwist

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, you just want to respond to the "god gene" reference, fine.  Actually, there has been a link to homosexuality in terms ofgenetics; SQ3R, but like most traits, it is polygenic meaning it is controlled by many genes.  But the research is compelling.  And in reference to your "I'm a victim" stance, with respect to genetic determinism, I believe that environmental determinism is much more confining!!
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 01:00 AM on December 4, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah good, now I can blame everything on my genes and my environment.  I am no longer responsible for anything.  How liberating.  

As for death's due to religion.... please.  Show me a major religion that promotes violence.  I'll wait.  To say religion kills people is like saying guns kill people or that pencils make spelling mistakes.  To someone with no morals, anything can be an excuse.  

There, I responded to another of your comments.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:22 AM on December 4, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah good, now I can blame everything on my genes and my environment.  I am no longer responsible for anything.  How liberating.


I don't think anybody is trying absolve criminals of guilt based on their genetics.  If anything, the scientists, who look for correlations between certain abhorent behavior and genetic traits, do so with the hope that the trait can be corrected (not that I believe that being gay or believing in the supernatural is abhorent). Remember that for every defense attorney that uses "science" to get his client placed in a "hospital" instead of the penitentiary, there is also a prosecuter that uses science to keep the same client in the hospital at parole hearings. You will always have defense attorneys and prosecuters who misuse and misrepresent scientific information.  But this is a problem for the criminal justice system to sort out. Science has nothing to do with it.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:38 AM on December 5, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.