Forum Poll :Evolution Re:Majority of Americans reject theory of evolution (doh!)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:08:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Forum Poll :Evolution Re:Majority of Americans reject theory of evolution (doh!)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: Which statement fits your position on evolution (going to church means at least once a week)
#1
I go to church and God created humans.
 
#2
I go to church and Humans evolved but God guided the process.
 
#3
I go to church and Humans evolved and God wasn't involved.
 
#4
I dont go to church and God created humans.
 
#5
I dont go to church and Humans evolved but God guided the process.
 
#6
I dont go to church and Humans evolved and God wasn't involved.
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 62

Author Topic: Forum Poll :Evolution Re:Majority of Americans reject theory of evolution (doh!)  (Read 5669 times)
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,903


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: October 26, 2005, 01:42:29 PM »


Re:Majority of Americans reject theory of evolution (doh!)

And was this somehow a surprise? 

off course. not believing in evolution is a process that involves brainwashing you with religious garbage from you are born.

you arent born believing in god. you arent born racist. but they are both nurtured from an early age.

So is that how you became a crazy Democrat?

no i became a democrat as i was sick and tired of religion being used in politics.

Over 80% of people in Australia, UK, Sweden,Denmark etc are religious but they dont go to church as they have better things to do than listen to a person intrepret a book that was written by a group of sexist pigs.

Before we had schools, the only way to get educated was to commit yourself to christ hence you became a monk. Now we live in the 21st century but backward states like Alabama, Texas etc have taken religion to far. Hank Irwin believes that katrina was gods doing (doh!) he is an elected offical!

We have a guy running for governor in Alabama who believes the 10 commandments should be publicly displayed. These commandments are completely irrevelant 2000 years on.

We can sit and discuss the merits of having religion in ones life but the use of it in society is what divides this country.

We are at war both home and abroad. Religion will lose and its not people like me who are to be blamed for its downfall but the people that take religion to far.



Do you even know what the 10 Commandments say?

Your issue is that Christians have a reputation for voting Republican. if that were reversed and they had a reputation for voting Democrat, you wouldn't bother with this ranting and all of the cosmos sized generalities and venom you let fly. That's really what your issue is. It makes no sense to say you became a Democrat because you are sick and tired of religion in politics. If you were really tired of religion in politics, you wouldn't BE political for the reason you gave.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: October 26, 2005, 02:02:58 PM »

Your issue is that Christians have a reputation for voting Republican.

Considering that over 75% of the US population is either Christian, Jewish, or Islamic, I'm sure there are one or two that vote Democrat.  hehehe . . . but then again, we're getting an anti-region rant from someone named "Catholic."  hahaha
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: October 27, 2005, 02:00:17 AM »
« Edited: October 27, 2005, 02:03:26 AM by Storebought »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm. You quote one of the many sources that I threw out of my initial search.
Why did you throw it out?

...Rest of thread...

The quality of a source is nearly as important as the source itself, so I throw out every web site search result that (1) is not written by someone with credentials in the field (2) poorly referenced (i.e. no peer reviewed journals) or not referenced at all (3) has a polemic or apologetic nature.

The source you found came from a Usenet discussion group, so out it went. I don't bother citing cranks, whether the crank support my argument or not. The data do that for themselves.

So, following my own criteria, I found a delightful little page from your university that couples statistical algorithms to the mutations of DNA. They even wrote a PostScript book on the subject that I've downloaded. Wild stuff.

However, in the PostScript book, the models they derive are applied to point mutations in specific creatures, namely Drosophilia. Yes, the models describe mutation rates of DNA over generations of one creature (well-characterized by biochemical methods), but they don't describe mutation rates in populations of the same creature, which is the basis of macroevolution.

To be truthful, I'm curious about the direction that research will take, so I will suspend my judgement until those computational biologists create theorems that can describe mutation rates in statistical ensembles of genomes.   
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: October 27, 2005, 02:36:43 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm. You quote one of the many sources that I threw out of my initial search.
Why did you throw it out?

...Rest of thread...

The quality of a source is nearly as important as the source itself, so I throw out every web site search result that (1) is not written by someone with credentials in the field (2) poorly referenced (i.e. no peer reviewed journals) or not referenced at all (3) has a polemic or apologetic nature.

The source you found came from a Usenet discussion group, so out it went. I don't bother citing cranks, whether the crank support my argument or not. The data do that for themselves.

So, following my own criteria, I found a delightful little page from your university that couples statistical algorithms to the mutations of DNA. They even wrote a PostScript book on the subject that I've downloaded. Wild stuff.

However, in the PostScript book, the models they derive are applied to point mutations in specific creatures, namely Drosophilia. Yes, the models describe mutation rates of DNA over generations of one creature (well-characterized by biochemical methods), but they don't describe mutation rates in populations of the same creature, which is the basis of macroevolution.

To be truthful, I'm curious about the direction that research will take, so I will suspend my judgement until those computational biologists create theorems that can describe mutation rates in statistical ensembles of genomes.   


I already told you, movement of a population's genes as a whole varies on how genetically fit they are relative to those of smallish changes. Some things seem to be more able to evolve that others. If their genes are a local optimum of genetic fitness, you will see less evolution. One problem is that what genetically fit means changes with outside pressures. You really can't state a theorm here, the system is too complicated. The best you could do is compare different populations and how fast they seem to evolve, and come up with a statistical distribution.

Have you ever heard of genetic algorithms? They do something similiar but with computer algorithms, FPGA, or walking robots.

As for your your criticism of talkorigins,

1. How do you know they don't have credentials?
2. You missed the very long reference list at the bottom.
3. What do you expect when they're refuting ID?
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: October 27, 2005, 04:19:04 AM »
« Edited: October 27, 2005, 05:34:01 AM by Storebought »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm. You quote one of the many sources that I threw out of my initial search.
Why did you throw it out?

...Rest of thread...

The quality of a source is nearly as important as the source itself, so I throw out every web site search result that (1) is not written by someone with credentials in the field (2) poorly referenced (i.e. no peer reviewed journals) or not referenced at all (3) has a polemic or apologetic nature.

The source you found came from a Usenet discussion group, so out it went. I don't bother citing cranks, whether the crank support my argument or not. The data do that for themselves.

So, following my own criteria, I found a delightful little page from your university that couples statistical algorithms to the mutations of DNA. They even wrote a PostScript book on the subject that I've downloaded. Wild stuff.

However, in the PostScript book, the models they derive are applied to point mutations in specific creatures, namely Drosophilia. Yes, the models describe mutation rates of DNA over generations of one creature (well-characterized by biochemical methods), but they don't describe mutation rates in populations of the same creature, which is the basis of macroevolution.

To be truthful, I'm curious about the direction that research will take, so I will suspend my judgement until those computational biologists create theorems that can describe mutation rates in statistical ensembles of genomes.   


I already told you, movement of a population's genes as a whole varies on how genetically fit they are relative to those of smallish changes. Some things seem to be more able to evolve that others. If their genes are a local optimum of genetic fitness, you will see less evolution. One problem is that what genetically fit means changes with outside pressures. You really can't state a theorm here, the system is too complicated. The best you could do is compare different populations and how fast they seem to evolve, and come up with a statistical distribution.

Have you ever heard of genetic algorithms? They do something similiar but with computer algorithms, FPGA, or walking robots.

As for your your criticism of talkorigins,

1. How do you know they don't have credentials?
2. You missed the very long reference list at the bottom.
3. What do you expect when they're refuting ID?

From the Questions and Answers page of Talkorigins:

Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

   We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals. Further, a number of college courses have chosen to use materials from the Archive in their coursework. See: Awards, Honors, and Favorable Notices for The Talk.Origins Archive.


I don't take them on their word, and found independent literature on the the topic, exactly as the site recommends.

And from a site on Genetic Algorithms

Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are adaptive heuristic search algorithm premised on the evolutionary ideas of natural selection and genetic. The basic concept of GAs is designed to simulate processes in natural system necessary for evolution, specifically those that follow the principles first laid down by Charles Darwin of survival of the fittest. As such they represent an intelligent exploitation of a random search within a defined search space to solve a problem.

I could be a deep cynic like the authors of the physics textbook I'm studying and claim, "when a physicist speaks of a heuristic solution he is apologizing in advance for a sloppy and nonrigorous one," but because I am a chemist, I already know that plenty of science is already sloppy and nonrigorous.

Indeed, the GA site states:

GAs were introduced as a computational analogy of adaptive systems. They are modelled loosely on the principles of the evolution via natural selection, employing a population of individuals that undergo selection in the presence of variation-inducing operators such as mutation and recombination (crossover). A fitness function is used to evaluate individuals, and reproductive success varies with fitness.

The Algorithms

1. Randomly generate an initial population M(0)
2. Compute and save the fitness u(m) for each individual m in the current population M(t)
3. Define selection probabilities p(m) for each individual m in M(t) so that p(m) is proportional to u(m)
4. Generate M(t+1) by probabilistically selecting individuals from M(t) to produce offspring via genetic operators
5. Repeat step 2 until satisfying solution is obtained.

The paradigm of GAs descibed above is usually the one applied to solving most of the problems presented to GAs. Though it might not find the best solution. more often than not, it would come up with a partially optimal solution
.

So, in general, you could design an algorithm that would sample all outcomes given some set of parameters, leaving the researcher the alternative to pick the outcome that most supports his theory? Of course, that would be unethical, but, then again...

I think I found the reason why evolutionary biologists find microevolution, which is indisputable, so pallid in comparison to macroevolution:

The attractiveness of macroevolution reflects the exhaustive documentation of large-scale patterns which reveal a richness to evolution unexplained by microevolution. If the goal of evolutionary biology is to understand the history of life, rather than simply document experimental analysis of evolution, studies from paleontology, phylogenetics, developmental biology, and other fields demand the deeper view provided by macroevolution.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Dr Erwin states in his article:

...discontinuities have been documented at a variety of scales, from the punctuated nature of much speciation, to patterns of community overturn, the sorting of species within clades by differential speciation and extinction, and finally mass extinctions. These discontinuities impart a hierarchical structure to evolution, a structure which impedes, obstructs, and even neutralizes the effects of microevolution.

That phrase "hierarchichal structure to evolution" contradicts your view of "...movement of a population's genes as a whole varies on how genetically fit they are relative to those of smallish changes." .. in fact, Erwin spends seven pages arguing against your conclusion.

My problem with both is the ad hoc explanations of those hierarchical structures.




Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: October 27, 2005, 05:24:18 AM »
« Edited: October 27, 2005, 05:27:02 AM by jfern »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm. You quote one of the many sources that I threw out of my initial search.
Why did you throw it out?

...Rest of thread...

The quality of a source is nearly as important as the source itself, so I throw out every web site search result that (1) is not written by someone with credentials in the field (2) poorly referenced (i.e. no peer reviewed journals) or not referenced at all (3) has a polemic or apologetic nature.

The source you found came from a Usenet discussion group, so out it went. I don't bother citing cranks, whether the crank support my argument or not. The data do that for themselves.

So, following my own criteria, I found a delightful little page from your university that couples statistical algorithms to the mutations of DNA. They even wrote a PostScript book on the subject that I've downloaded. Wild stuff.

However, in the PostScript book, the models they derive are applied to point mutations in specific creatures, namely Drosophilia. Yes, the models describe mutation rates of DNA over generations of one creature (well-characterized by biochemical methods), but they don't describe mutation rates in populations of the same creature, which is the basis of macroevolution.

To be truthful, I'm curious about the direction that research will take, so I will suspend my judgement until those computational biologists create theorems that can describe mutation rates in statistical ensembles of genomes.   


I already told you, movement of a population's genes as a whole varies on how genetically fit they are relative to those of smallish changes. Some things seem to be more able to evolve that others. If their genes are a local optimum of genetic fitness, you will see less evolution. One problem is that what genetically fit means changes with outside pressures. You really can't state a theorm here, the system is too complicated. The best you could do is compare different populations and how fast they seem to evolve, and come up with a statistical distribution.

Have you ever heard of genetic algorithms? They do something similiar but with computer algorithms, FPGA, or walking robots.

As for your your criticism of talkorigins,

1. How do you know they don't have credentials?
2. You missed the very long reference list at the bottom.
3. What do you expect when they're refuting ID?

From the Questions and Answers page of Talkorigins:

Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

   We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals. Further, a number of college courses have chosen to use materials from the Archive in their coursework. See: Awards, Honors, and Favorable Notices for The Talk.Origins Archive.


I don't take them on their word, and found independent literature on the the topic, exactly as the site recommends.

And from a site on Genetic Algorithms

Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are adaptive heuristic search algorithm premised on the evolutionary ideas of natural selection and genetic. The basic concept of GAs is designed to simulate processes in natural system necessary for evolution, specifically those that follow the principles first laid down by Charles Darwin of survival of the fittest. As such they represent an intelligent exploitation of a random search within a defined search space to solve a problem.

I could be a deep cynic like the authors of the physics textbook I'm studying and claim, "when a physicist speaks of a heuristic solution he is apologizing in advance for a sloppy and nonrigorous one," but because I am a chemist, I already know that plenty of science is already sloppy and nonrigorous.

Indeed, the GA site states:

GAs were introduced as a computational analogy of adaptive systems. They are modelled loosely on the principles of the evolution via natural selection, employing a population of individuals that undergo selection in the presence of variation-inducing operators such as mutation and recombination (crossover). A fitness function is used to evaluate individuals, and reproductive success varies with fitness.

The Algorithms

1. Randomly generate an initial population M(0)
2. Compute and save the fitness u(m) for each individual m in the current population M(t)
3. Define selection probabilities p(m) for each individual m in M(t) so that p(m) is proportional to u(m)
4. Generate M(t+1) by probabilistically selecting individuals from M(t) to produce offspring via genetic operators
5. Repeat step 2 until satisfying solution is obtained.

The paradigm of GAs descibed above is usually the one applied to solving most of the problems presented to GAs. Though it might not find the best solution. more often than not, it would come up with a partially optimal solution
.

But I think I found the reason why evolutionary biologists find microevolution, which is indisputable, so pallid an alternative to macroevolution:

The attractiveness of macroevolution reflects the exhaustive documentation of large-scale patterns which reveal a richness to evolution unexplained by microevolution. If the goal of evolutionary biology is to understand the history of life, rather than simply document experimental analysis of evolution, studies from paleontology, phylogenetics, developmental biology, and other fields demand the deeper view provided by macroevolution.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

In fact, Dr Erwin is directly contradicting your view. You both can't be right.

I remember hearing something about a genetic algorithm that made a robot learn how to walk.


Most mutations have zero noticable effect. In mammals, a rate of 1 mutation per 500 million base pairs is typical, or around 6 base pairs out of the 3 billion in our DNA..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11792858&dopt=Citation

Mutation rates aren't constant with respect to where you are in the genome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2911369&dopt=Citation


A crude calcuation is 3 base pairs per year, pgymy chimps are 1.2% different, so they differ by 12 million years of evolution. Since some of that evolution will be repetitive, we have a common ancestor about 7 million years ago.

Remember most of our DNA is junk, so most mutations are safely kept.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/H/HominoidClade.html

Classifying species in terms of how they are related is very quantative now. Yes, not too long ago, it was more of an art than a science, but genetics has made quite a lot of progress since they found the double helix.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: October 27, 2005, 07:10:53 PM »

I accidentally voted "I don't go to Church/Humans evolved/God guided it" instead of "I do go to Church/Humans evolved/God guided it." Subtract a vote from the former and add one to the latter.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: October 29, 2005, 08:05:18 AM »

I don't go to church and Humans evolved but God guided the process

Dave
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: October 29, 2005, 09:42:20 AM »

I'm surprised this site is way more pro-evolution than the general public.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: October 30, 2005, 10:59:06 AM »

Really why? People who have the internet tend to be from the more well off parts of the population so some social liberalism would tend to be more common...
Logged
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,903


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: October 30, 2005, 02:21:08 PM »

I'm surprised this site is way more pro-evolution than the general public.

I'm not. I imagine boards like this present a too highly specialized topic to interest the general public. It's probably no more representative of the general public than, say, a movie classics board.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: October 30, 2005, 03:07:36 PM »

I would actually be one of the 51% if given this poll. This issue is more complicated than it appears at first, and Internet culture tends to obscure this for some reason (I don't think it's just this site, but a lot of bloggers).

The Bible says God created man in his present form. If I consider myself a Christian destined for eternal salvation, and there are a variety of cultural, personal, and rational reasons to make this leap of faith, then I cannot answer in reply to this question that God has no role in creating humans. In making such an answer I have unequivocally rejected God, and any hope of life after death.

On the other hand there are obviously compelling reasons to believe in evolution. This creates I believe a sort of duality in life which can be left either resolved or unresolved, but there are powerful forces moving in the direction of non-resolution just as there are powerful forces moving in the direction of resolution. Just because the issue is not resolved it does not necessarily mean, though perhaps it unfortunately frequently does, that the person has not grappled with these issues deeply. I think that I have, and the matter is still unresolved. This is possible when two absolutes, truth and life, clash with one another.

It is because of this duality that I think you see these responses, with only 15% taking the atheist position but 67% also not rejecting that position. Seen from this view the responses are perfectly understandable and no mystery at all.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: October 30, 2005, 03:11:30 PM »

I would actually be one of the 51% if given this poll. This issue is more complicated than it appears at first, and Internet culture tends to obscure this for some reason (I don't think it's just this site, but a lot of bloggers).

The Bible says God created man in his present form. If I consider myself a Christian destined for eternal salvation, and there are a variety of cultural, personal, and rational reasons to make this leap of faith, then I cannot answer in reply to this question that God has no role in creating humans. In making such an answer I have unequivocally rejected God, and any hope of life after death.

On the other hand there are obviously compelling reasons to believe in evolution. This creates I believe a sort of duality in life which can be left either resolved or unresolved, but there are powerful forces moving in the direction of non-resolution just as there are powerful forces moving in the direction of resolution. Just because the issue is not resolved it does not necessarily mean, though perhaps it unfortunately frequently does, that the person has not grappled with these issues deeply. I think that I have, and the matter is still unresolved. This is possible when two absolutes, truth and life, clash with one another.

It is because of this duality that I think you see these responses, with only 15% taking the atheist position but 67% also not rejecting that position. Seen from this view the responses are perfectly understandable and no mystery at all.

Great post
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: October 30, 2005, 03:14:10 PM »

I would actually be one of the 51% if given this poll. This issue is more complicated than it appears at first, and Internet culture tends to obscure this for some reason (I don't think it's just this site, but a lot of bloggers).

The Bible says God created man in his present form. If I consider myself a Christian destined for eternal salvation, and there are a variety of cultural, personal, and rational reasons to make this leap of faith, then I cannot answer in reply to this question that God has no role in creating humans. In making such an answer I have unequivocally rejected God, and any hope of life after death.

On the other hand there are obviously compelling reasons to believe in evolution. This creates I believe a sort of duality in life which can be left either resolved or unresolved, but there are powerful forces moving in the direction of non-resolution just as there are powerful forces moving in the direction of resolution. Just because the issue is not resolved it does not necessarily mean, though perhaps it unfortunately frequently does, that the person has not grappled with these issues deeply. I think that I have, and the matter is still unresolved. This is possible when two absolutes, truth and life, clash with one another.

It is because of this duality that I think you see these responses, with only 15% taking the atheist position but 67% also not rejecting that position. Seen from this view the responses are perfectly understandable and no mystery at all.

Great post

Thanks Al.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: October 31, 2005, 10:08:10 AM »

I'm surprised this site is way more pro-evolution than the general public.

Well, you can read it that way.  Of course, you can also read it that there are many pro-God votes/folks on here as well.  Just depends on how you count the "people evolved with Gods help" votes.
Logged
Keridwyn
Rookie
**
Posts: 23


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: November 14, 2005, 04:02:44 PM »

I voted #5, though that doesn't accurately represent my view.  I believe that God *is* Nature, so did not "control" evolution, but is definitely not "not involved" either.

Keridwyn
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: November 15, 2005, 01:56:25 PM »

I voted for option 5...I do not go to church all that often. Overall I agree with Beet, pretty much. I don't know for sure what happened but I definitely believe God played a role in it.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 13 queries.