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
     Refuting Evolution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution violates both the second law of thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Mass.  
The Law of Conservation of Mass says that mass can not be created nor destroyed.  If that is true, then mass could not have evolved.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:06 PM on April 3, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

nice work

oh wait, you didn't make any sense

nm
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:24 PM on April 3, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wrong on both counts!!!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:17 PM on April 3, 2003 | IP
ex-xian

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution violates both the second law of thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Mass.  
The Law of Conservation of Mass says that mass can not be created nor destroyed.  If that is true, then mass could not have
evolved.

Wow.  Ok, first, where did you study physics, because you should ask for your money back.  What you calling the law of consvervation of mass, is energy conservation.  Which states that energy cannot be destroyed or created, only converted.  This collolarily applies to mass.  This in no way offers any evidence against evolution, the total mass is unchanged, only the degree of complexity of the matter.

Also, the laws of thermodynamics do not conflict with evolution.  The second states that the entropy of a closed system increases.  Basically this means that systems give off heat.  Creationists try to force the view that evolution is contradicted by this by saying the the entropy of life must decrease, but the earth is not a closed system.  There is energy from the sun constantly bombarding the planet.  Further, if the creationists are right, shouldn't the "entropy" of humans be decreasing?  But this is nowhere claimed to be happening because it is absurd on its face--exactly like the claim that evolution violates the second law.


-------
Darwin bless you!
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 8:20 PM on April 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the first message means that the Big Bang would break numerous natural laws. No matter how much time has passed, nothing can never create everything. My physics is shaky at best, but I believe that the 2nd Law states that in the universe there is a constant amount of energy. However, when energy is used, some of it is converted to unusable heat energy, never to be used again. Because the universe is constantly using up the usable energy, eventually there will be no usable energy left. But, to have an end, there must be a beginning, usable energy must have come from an outside source (supernatural powers perhaps?).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:57 PM on April 4, 2003 | IP
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest questions the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in a closed system but forgot about the Sun. He makes a scientifically unsupportable comment on conservation of matter. I will try to educate him.

You do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Systems undergo entropy. You are assuming that the Earth is an isolated system, in which case the 2nd Law does not work. But the Earth is a planet in a solar system. The Solar System as a system is undergoing entropy. But that energy source is the Sun which while losing energy, is giving it to the Earth and planets. Earth gains energy from the sun which allows evolution to occur on earth, tides, photosynthesis. Earth is not undergoing entropy because of the Sun which you left out of the equation.

Your odd comments about conservation of energy are obsolete. It does not follow logically. Mass does evolve. Atoms decay producing particles. Mass and  energy are interchangeable. The amount of total mass and  energy is an additive constant, if we ignore quantum physics that proposes evidence that new particles and matter may pop into space. But we know for a fact that matter evolves. We know that Iron molecules bond to Oxygen to form rush, Iron Oxide. That is more complex than iron or oxygen alone. Na+ plus Cl- binds to form a molecule of table salt NaCl. Disordered solutions of blue green copper sulfate will evaporate forming very complex crystaline structures called Fractals based on their own properties as CuSO4 according to Mendelbrot's Equation. The fractal is of incredible complexity and it forms from a solution in which the Cu++ ions are juggling around SO4--.

Carbon oxides to CO2, in water H2CO3 or carbonic acid. Ammonia NH3 can bond to make an amino acid HCNOOH. Amino acids can bond naturally in a beaker to form a string of amino acids called a polypeptide the building unit of a protein. Various metals can be catalysts, with heat supplied by natural geothermal springs. The natural properties of the polypeptides and combinations produce nucleotides. Nucleotides link in long strings. Those strings of nucleotides with Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, and Guanine have trophic bonding for other matches A to T, and C to G and an alternate string of Nucleotides forme in the double helix. That is DNA.

What we don't know YET, is how DNA and other early primitive organisms Mitochondria got from there to a cell membrane of double layered lipoproteins. We know from looking at cell mitosis that as the nucleus undergoes division or mitosis,  the cell metabolism of the mitochondria and Golgi aparatus rapidly produce the lipoproteins that make up the cell membrane. We scientists admit that the origin of the first cell is still not fully known.

Once cells are made the rest of evolution naturally follows and examples at every level is present in the fossil record and in our very on human genome of old primitive genes that we have not discarded.

FreeAmerican




(Edited by FreeAmerican 4/7/2003 at 01:31 AM).


-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 01:15 AM on April 7, 2003 | IP
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The hypothesis that theism and/or religion were a Darwinian survival trait or survival advantage has much merit. I am an Atheist. But I know that worldwide I am only 20% of the world's population and only 5% here in America where I currently reside. That must mean something. In centuries past, such as the Middle Ages, Atheism was extremely rare as far as we know. Religion pervaded society.

I have postulated before, that religion is brain based. It occurs only in those humans whose brains are hard wired to process religious concepts unquestioningly. Atheists by contrast have circuits that reject religious concepts and magical thinking. We are incapable of believing in gods or invisible pink unicorns because of our brain structure as well as early programming perhaps. We now know that our brain structure is 95% determined by genetic codes in the Human Genome, while about
5% may be experience or programming altered synaptic connections. Therefore, a nucleotide code ultimately determines
whether you or I will be likely believers or resistant sceptics.

Why would greater than 80% of all humans have such a gene? As a Neo-Darwinian molecular geneticist and neuroscientist, the
answer seems obvious. The "religion gene" must have given the ancestors of modern humans a survival advantage. Early humans
who possessed the genes survived while most of those who didn't possess it perished or failed to pass on the "sceptical gene". What advantages did the gene confer?

First we must look at religion and religious behaviour. Religion today provides a worldview, but it is also a restrictive and
exclusive worldview. It sets those with the same view apart from others. This gives the group an identity, and makes others who
differ, unwelcome if not dangerous. We have seen that religion is associated with suspicion of others, and quite often homicidal violence against "wrong believers". Each group creates its gods.

The group members fear and hate those who reject their gods and vice versa. Religion is associated with hyper sexuality (even hyper homosexuality) that usually results in higher birth rates.

OK, so we have some early humans who have their own protective gods. They are militant and aggressive toward unbeliever tribes. They have strong group identity. The identity is as much kinship as religious. Even tribe members who are kin are banished or killed for heresy and unbelief. Religion is almost always a mind control system as well. That imposes discipline. Underlings follow orders from the shaman or the god appointed chieftain.

So, a religious tribe has identity, discipline, aggressiveness, prolific reproduction, paranoid fear and hatred toward those who are different in belief, a tendency to violence, and may be easily propelled toward attacking an unbeliever tribe by a shaman or a chieftain who also covets the extra land and female
slaves taken in a war.

Suppose the tribe nearby is unreligious or weakly religious. Those people would be like modern atheists. They would be argumentative, resistant to orders (i.e. undisciplined), uninterested in risking their lives for hypothetical gods. They sadly would be under-prolific with fewer children and eventually fewer warriors.

So in a war between the two tribes, who would triumph?  Obviously the disciplined, more aggressive, mutually supportive,
paranoid, violence prone, warriors who believe the gods protect them would win. The result would be that the genes of the religious tribe would be passed down. The sceptical tribe's
sceptic gene would be exterminated or nearly so.

The gene that programs for religious belief essentially programs a set of behaviours not just belief in gods. The gene's effect in
programming the limbic lobe of the brain produced all of the behaviours that we see today in religion: intolerance, hate, discipline, submission to leaders, willingness to risk life and limb for tribe's god (promising Heaven or Valhalla), gullibility (which makes them pawns of their chief and shaman), and hyper sexuality.

In patients with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, Marcel Mesulam has noted traits of hyper sexuality, violence, seeing/hearing god or
gods, and hyper religiosity. The behaviours are very closely linked anatomically in the limbic/temporal circuits, perhaps the
same circuits. Observations of religious charismatic experiences have shown autonomic phenomena similar to sexual orgasm, (pelvic thrusting movements, penile erections in males, submissive sexual postures and flushing in women Pentecostal ecstatic states.)

It is apparent that this gene and its resultant brain hard wiring produced people with the above behavioural tendencies. Anyone who has attended a meeting of the British Humanist Association or a meeting of Evolutionary Psychologists is immediately impressed by the fact that they are all arguing with each other, can' t agree on a common statement of policy, and are as difficult to organise as herding cats. Applying such
behaviour to early humans would show that they are at a great disadvantage in a conflict with a hyper religious group or tribe.

Therefore, humans with the religion gene passed it on along with its constellation of behaviours. It was a survival advantage
because it facilitated the development of disciplined groups of aggressive, violent, paranoid, relatively fearless of death, gullible
followers of leaders, which was a successful formula.

Those with the more recessive sceptical genetic codes have only prospered in modern times with Enlightenment influenced
constitutions. Yet, even then they remain a minority in all but a handful of West European and East Asian countries. And perhaps the smaller minority of sceptical gene carriers have been allowed to survive in very religious countries like the USA is because we are useful to the society in providing nearly all of
their scientists, physicians, psychologists, and inventers. In those professions the sceptical gene provides an adaptive advantage that
religious gene carriers lack.

Conclusion:

Religion and the majority tendency to myth beliefs and superstitious rituals is in my opinion an evolved trait, genetically propagated, that in early humans was a survival advandage.

FreeAmerican






-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 01:46 AM on April 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are isolated systems, in which neither matter nor energy are exchanged. There are closed systems, in which matter is exchanged, but not energy. There open, in which both matter and energy are exchanged.

Most of the time the earth is a closed system, exchanging energy but not mass. Whenever it fits the open system category is only like during a meteor shower or something and is that the kind of matter exchange than produces order or chaos?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:20 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you mixed up closed system in your opening paragraph. Energy is exchanged, not mass.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:24 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh yeah, that's what I meant to type, my bad.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:25 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest, the Earth is constantly recieving energy from the Sun.   It is not a closed system.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:58 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exhanging energy does not make something an open system! Exchanging BOTH mass AND energy makes somthing an open system. Wipe the freakin' crust out of your eyes.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:56 PM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In terms of entropy, it is the exchange of energy which matters.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:37 PM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Evolution

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Free America :nice report

(Edited by Evolution 6/29/2003 at 12:09 PM).


-------
Invest your love in each other not God. Uncertinity is the stuff of curiosity.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 7:18 PM on June 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Exhanging energy does not make something an open system! Exchanging BOTH mass AND energy makes somthing an open system. Wipe the freakin' crust out of your eyes"- Guest

News Flash: Second Law of Thermo Dynamics Proves Conclusively that Bread Cannot be Baked!

Dough In a pan in an oven is a closed system, No matter is being exchanged, therefore, Obvously, the simple form of dough could not possibly "Evolve" into the more complex form of brea. This proves conclusively the Creationist theory of pastry and bread making and Disproves the heretical and stoopid theory of "Baking"
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:53 PM on July 23, 2003 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bad analogy! Try this, from How NOT to defend evolution :

"Creationists often stress the second law of thermodynamics, or the entropy principle, as a very strong evidence against macroevolution, and have given abundant evidence in support of this position. Alters and Alters devote just one paragraph to answering this argument.

Here is the essence of their answer. "(Of course, the earth is not a closed system but gets vast energy inputs from the sun. Even the surface of the primitive earth had many energy sources that could have been available for organic synthesis . . .)" (p. 101). The fact is that the various energy sources they cite—solar radiation, lightning, meteorite impacts, radioactivity, volcanoes, and cosmic rays are destructive forces, not constructive. In the absence of both a pre-imposed directing program and complex integrative mechanism (neither of which naturalistic evolution could have), they would never synthesize organisms or increase their complexity; instead they would disintegrate any they encountered!"


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 9:58 PM on April 11, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact remaind that the 2nd LoT speaks only of the total energy of a system.  All these "destructive forces" add energy to the system (earth, in case you're having trouble following me), thus proving there is no violation of the law.

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 10:38 PM on April 11, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact is that the various energy sources they cite—solar radiation, lightning, meteorite impacts, radioactivity, volcanoes, and cosmic rays are destructive forces, not constructive. In the absence of both a pre-imposed directing program and complex integrative mechanism (neither of which naturalistic evolution could have), they would never synthesize organisms or increase their complexity; instead they would disintegrate any they encountered!"

What in the world does any of what you wrote have to do with the Second law of thermodynamics????  On a primitive earth these forces might have been destructive or not but they certainly were NOT entropic!  And of course with the arrival of green plants solar energy feeds them, increases their complexity (makes them grow) and these plants feed animals, increasing their complexity (making them grow), so solar radiation IS an influx of energy to our planet, energy that does not increase the total entropy of the planet!  
Creationists often use the 2LOT as a vague reason why evolution can not take place, although they can never explain it.  Young earth toad can't explain it either...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:14 PM on April 11, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YET quote ICR:
The fact is that the various energy sources they cite—solar radiation, lightning, meteorite impacts, radioactivity, volcanoes, and cosmic rays are destructive forces, not constructive. In the absence of both a pre-imposed directing program and complex integrative mechanism (neither of which naturalistic evolution could have), they would never synthesize organisms or increase their complexity; instead they would disintegrate any they encountered!"


However comforting you might find these words, they have only emotional significance, not physical.

Please open any textbook on thermodynamics and try to find a reference to "constructive" vs. "destructive" energy, the distinction exixts only in the imagination of creationists.

Amino acids are readily demonstrated to be synthesized from pre-biotic compounds under any of a number of conditions found on a pre-life earth, from the surfaces of interstellar ice grains, to cyanogen-olivine interaction, to the original Miller-Urey lightning experiment.  Subsequent polymerization of amino acids to long chain oligopeptides is also an observed effect of the chemisty of the compounds.  The effect of energy and chemicals forming compounds that is little more mysterious that the formation of nitrate compounds from lightning bolts during the present earth's atmosphere.




-------
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: 11:04 AM on April 12, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So this is what Creation Scientists would teach in schools:

Solar radiation is a "destructive force". Organisms struck by sunlight are "disintegrated"
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 5:01 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, that is not what creation scientists would teach in schools. Solar radiation is not always a destructive force. Although, when undirected it can be destructive and dissiminating. For example, if I stand in the sun for a week I have a better chance of getting sun cancer.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 5:50 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Clearly if solar radiation is not always a destructive force then ICRs following defense of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong:

The fact is that the various energy sources they cite—solar radiation, lightning, meteorite impacts, radioactivity, volcanoes, and cosmic rays are destructive forces, not constructive. In the absence of both a pre-imposed directing program and complex integrative mechanism (neither of which naturalistic evolution could have), they would never synthesize organisms or increase their complexity; instead they would disintegrate any they encountered!

(emphasis added)

Their argument here is that solar energy is a destructive force. You on the otherhand claim it is not always destructive. Either you are wrong or ICR is wrong. Personally I think ICR is wrong

(Edited by Void 4/13/2004 at 8:08 PM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 8:07 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Solar radiation is not always a destructive force. Although, when undirected it can be destructive and dissiminating.


The interaction of photons with matter is covered by Quantum Electrodynamics .  There is NO  distinction between destructive and "non-destructive" interactions.  This is purely a creationist pipe dream.



(Edited by Apoapsis 4/14/2004 at 10:32 AM).


-------
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: 10:30 AM on April 14, 2004 | IP
thebored

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics when applied to the whole universe refutes evolution. I don't care about Earth. The whole universe is a closed system. If your one of those radical scientists add on whatever "2nd demensions" you want. But everything falls into a closed system. The fact is the total amount of energy in the UNIVERSE not just Earth, is steadily decreasing and breaking down into unusable heat energy. The law of conservation of mass also applies in that no new energy is being created. Therefore we will run out of usable energy and thus mass ultimately.


(Edited by thebored 9/21/2004 at 11:30 PM).
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:26 PM on September 21, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics when applied to the whole universe refutes evolution. I don't care about Earth. The whole universe is a closed system. If your one of those radical scientists add on whatever "2nd demensions" you want. But everything falls into a closed system. The fact is the total amount of energy in the UNIVERSE not just Earth, is steadily decreasing and breaking down into unusable heat energy. The law of conservation of mass also applies in that no new energy is being created. Therefore we will run out of usable energy and thus mass ultimately.

As has been stated countless times, the 2LOT does NOT refute evolution, you have no idea what the 2LOT says or howit applies to the real world.  The energy of the universe is NOT breaking down into "heat energy", the second law of thermodynamics merely says the total amount of energy in a closed system will eventually become evenly distributed in that closed system.  Nowhere does it prevent the building of complexity, like I said in your other post, you have no understanding about the laws of thermodynamics.  I got a real chuckle out of this moronic statement:

"The law of conservation of mass also applies in that no new energy is being created. Therefore we will run out of usable energy and thus mass ultimately."

When in reality (from here: LoCoE

"The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less."

I think it's high time you realize you don't know what your talking about...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:48 AM on September 22, 2004 | IP
C_Darwin_rulz

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 2:56 PM on May 29, 2003 :
Exhanging energy does not make something an open system! Exchanging BOTH mass AND energy makes somthing an open system. Wipe the freakin' crust out of your eyes.  



You don't need to obtain mass from elsewhere. it's constantly being recycled by the natural forces of the earth.


-------
Evolution is a theory, not a hypothosis. That means there is a **** of a lot of evidence.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 12:11 AM on April 11, 2005 | IP
Mod

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution violates both the second law of thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Mass.  

Well, lets see shall we?


First law:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only modified in form.


Evolved means modified in form does it not?  Actually that makes no sense really, but I hope you see that The Theory of Evolution requires no energy to be created or destroyed.

Second Law:
Is a bit more complicated and talks about order tending towards disorder unless work is done. And things like that.  The challenge then: Demonstrate that evolution either requires
a) No work being done
b) Any work that is done is 100% efficient.

Demonstrate that and you have a case.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics when applied to the whole universe refutes evolution. I don't care about Earth. The whole universe is a closed system. If your one of those radical scientists add on whatever "2nd demensions" you want. But everything falls into a closed system. The fact is the total amount of energy in the UNIVERSE not just Earth, is steadily decreasing and breaking down into unusable heat energy. The law of conservation of mass also applies in that no new energy is being created. Therefore we will run out of usable energy and thus mass ultimately.


You start off wrong, but come to the correct conclusion still. Well done. We will run out of usable energy. Until that day though, we can use that usable energy (which is still in abundance) and put it to do work. Evolution requires work (that is to say reproduction and the subsequent mutations requires work).

As long as there is usable energy, it can be used (by definition). Any work that is done (in evolving for instance), must result in a net increase in universal entropy. Since it does, the second law remains inviolate.

Example: Having a baby requires energy. Ask any woman. From the egg being created to fertilisation, right through to birth. How much energy will this little tyke consume before it manages to create another little tyke? A lot! Every joule of energy burned up during our lives, is going towards making the universe a 'hotter' place.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 3:14 PM on April 16, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.