Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God Does Not Exist Because. . . (2)

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 10000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 17:30:10 GMT
Reminds me of the line from Frasier where Ros calls him "the dumbest smart guy I ever met".

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 14:56:13 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Mark, interesting as always - but can you prove it using pipe cleaners? Anita will never believe it unless the proof involves pipe cleaners.

Cheers, Clive.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 14:54:16 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Hi Mark- re your abilties on the memory front.

My oldest chum (40 years best mates now) is a Doctor of History , academically brilliant. He combines this with a level of stupidity that always makes us both laugh.

One incident when he rang me to tell me that he was considering that there might be poltergeists due to personal experience. After a lot of questioning it boiled down to his lunch had gone missing, he put it under the grill, he was alone in the house, the phone rang and when a returned forom answering it his lunch had vanished. Mystery. He was still hungry and the toast was still in the toaster so he knew he hadn't eaten it, ( when studying he does get a bit absent minded- date of an ancient king-, no problem, daughters name, tricky.)

He had gone through all the options and decided that the polterguist was the only option, even though he admitted that as an atheist, the whole idea of such things was beyond credence- "perhaps" he said "we have been wrong about dismissing the supernatural?"

After some questioning I pointed out that (a) only a cretin would try to grill corned beef, (b) if he looked in the bottom of the grill pan the liquid grease therein would demonstrate the inadvisibilty of consuming the muck, (c) it was going to cost him a lot of ale to ensure the rest of our chums didn't hear about it!

This is a man who is an acknowledged authority, consulted by governments and auction houses, academically brilliant but with the common sense of a whelk.

Cheers, Clive.

P.S. I do not know how, but everyone of our chums heard about it- must be magic!

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 13:08:53 GMT
Hi Clive

We can but try! I guess I am lucky as I have a good memory for some things, although my good lady would say that, although I can remember where I read something years ago, I fail miserably at remembering when to turn the oven off or similar chores.

Bert and Tom have a distinct advantage as they tend to draw on a single volume, the books of the Bible. I've had to spend many hours researching various subjects to ensure that I have the details correct. Luckily the internet and a good personal library from my university days help. The pile of books I have next to me seems to grow each time I visit this forum.

There are some subjects where, in the end, it is a case of having to agree to disagree. I always hope that the reader will at least accept that there are other points of view.

I think there is a big difference between arguing against someones faith, which a matter for them to decide, and arguing about external facts. Extraordinary claims should be supported by extraordinary evidence to back them up and when there is a wealth of evidence to counter some of the claims made, I will try and point them out.

I admit there are times when it does seem rather like banging your head against a brick wall! Maybe the person a post is addressed too wont or can't accept the evidence presented, but it is nice to know that others may be interested in what is written.

Cheers
Mark

Posted on 3 Mar 2012 12:47:50 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Mar 2012 12:48:23 GMT
Some interesting information for those who like to put a date on the Flood story from Genesis. The record for the oldest tree had been around 4000 years for quite a long time. That has been far exceeded by a Spruce tree in Sweden that has been found amongst a cluster of 8000 year old trees. The oldest of the cluster has been growing for 9550 years! For more information see - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7353357.stm

Cheers
Mark

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 12:42:37 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Your dedication is admirable , as is Drews, but you might both be better off banging your heads against a brick wall. Bert and Tom have the steel trap-door mind of the zealot.

For myself, I have learned a lot from you and other posters on biology, physics and chemistry, some of which I understand, some I do not. I admit to being about as academic as a haddock, but we live and learn.

Cheers, Clive.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 12:32:59 GMT
Hi Clive

Thank you for saying that. I hope that it will do the job it was intended to do, but I have some doubts about that!

Cheers
Mark

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 12:25:27 GMT
C. A. Small says:
MJB_ yet another interesting and informative post,

cheers, Clive.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 11:44:52 GMT
DB says:
Hi Drew

I'm sorry, i am short of time again, but i will address one or two of the points you have made.

I have no argument with your point that some people take offence when their world view is criricised, but as i have said, that is their problem, and you have the right to criticise the view itself.

You say:-"Ridiculous views (and some views are ridiculous) need to be told they are ridiculous" I didn't say ridiculous people. You shouldn't extrapolate beyond the statement itself. This is unfortunately what people do, so when they are told 'Believing in God is stupid' they imagine that it is suggesting they are a stupid person.

As the Oxford dictionary definition of 'stupid is - unintelligent, slow-witted, foolish are you sure it isn't?

If you are addressing one person, I think that to say 'believing in god is stupid' is a personal criticism of the person themselves.
What it actually infers is that 'believing in god' is a 'stupid' thing for that person to do, and is therefore a personal attack on the way they think. Ie they are unintelligent, slow-witted, foolish etc.

To say 'THE belief in God is stupid' is not criticising the person, it is criticising 'the belief' and is acceptable.
Personally, I don't think it is the most articulate use of language, or the best way to debate the subject, but i uphold your right to feel that way and use this word.
I would however,be inclined to think that someone as articulate as you, wouldn't need to use such language, and those that do, know exactly what they are doing by using the word 'stupid' in order to irritate, and to try to cause the debate to become combative.


DB -"I would defend your right to say 'I believe your view about football is ridiculous,' but I would not defend your right to say ' I believe you are ridiculous because you hold that view about football.'"

Drew-Why? It's effectively the same thing. If a view on football or anything else is ridiculous then the person holding that belief, is ridiculous with respect to that belief.

DEF, Ridiculous -deserving or inviting ridicule

I disagree. You are making a subjective decision based on your own views of football and calling the person themselves ridiculous because their view doesn't match yours. Not logical.
Their stated view of football (in your opinion) may be stupid, but in order to decide whether the person is 'deserving of ridicule'(stupid) for holding this view, you have to be able to prove beyond doubt that their view is totally false, and not just different to yours.

I find it hard to understand why it is necessary to use inflammatory language, unless one wants to inflame. The English language is rich in expression without recourse to these words.
i find that it degrades the person using them, and degrades the argument itself.

Drew says :-
I think we could also doing with pausing and asking ourselves if the other person really did just attack us personally or attacked a personal cherished belief and we you can tell the difference between the two.

I agree. Although, i sometimes feel it can be less about the belief, and more about testosterone levels at times.(sexist I know)
I think a give away is when the person is addressed as being a 'stupid' person. This often occurs when the discussion is beginning to go one way, and may be used to distract from, or avoid an uncomfortable point.

Would like to talk more, but it is family lunch at my parent's house on Saturdays.

Regards ( and dare I say God Bless)

Diane

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 10:42:57 GMT
Bert Einstein Wrote - "If the Bible is wrong - you needn't worry about it. Your hope can rest with 'evolution'."

Wow - progress at last! I am impressed! Before explaining my praise, I'd like to straighten out one point. My hope can't rest with evolution as it is a process that happens when new life is conceived. If I had children, then their descendants would be the ones to benefit from evolution. But that is just a technicality.

Your phrase "If the Bible is wrong" is all I wanted to hear. Accepting the possibility, however remote you feel that to be, the it **might** be wrong in places. The OT was written down long after the events it describes and just maybe a few things got changed in the many generations it was passed on as a spoken story.

Science is the same. We believe that gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today. But there is a teeny tiny chance that we are wrong about that. There is a vanishingly small chance that a UFO will land tomorrow and an odd looking alien ooze out and inform us that unless we pay our gravity bill, it will be turned off in 28 days time. Of course, that is a ridiculous assumption and we can be 99.999 (with a lot more "9"s) sure that it wont happen.

It's the same with evolution. We are 99.999 (with a lot more "9"s) sure that works the way we believe it to. I have had to change my language in my replies to your posts as you have previously taken my terminology as some sort of weakness with evolution itself.

Why does it matter? When someone is absolutely 100% positive about their belief system and meets someone else who is absolutely 100% sure about their different belief system the result tends to be violence, either verbal or physical. If both sides accept that the other has value (even if only as a model to explain something in the outside world) and both sides accept that there is a teeny tiny chance that the other one might just be correct after all, you can have discussions and debates and learn from each other.

I don't expect you for one minute to say that you actually think the Bible is wrong. I wouldn't say for one minute that evolution actually is false. BUT, if, at the back of your mind, you always remember that there is a chance, however small you believe it to be, that you might be wrong about the things you believe, you can go a long way to avoiding the worst excesses of human stubbornness.

That one line in your post gives me hope for the future!

Cheers
Mark

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 10:16:13 GMT
Drew Jones says:
He does seem to hand us heads I win, tails you lose requests. Make statements alone and you need references, provide the references and you're just blindly following the conspiracy. That's why I'm hoping we can get onto presenting and discussing the evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 10:09:02 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Mar 2012 10:11:06 GMT
Hi Drew-

I suspect your post to Bert on the subject of evolution will get the same reaction as mine have. Either you are "making it up" if you describe the facts of the matter in your own words or are "an unthinking photocopier" if you quote learned sources!

Sometimes the blind will simply refuse to see.

Cheers
Mark

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 09:57:55 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Mar 2012 10:29:35 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"... but sometimes there are individuals whose attitude towards others so utterly invalidates any claim to truth, that you wonder why they cannot see it."
Because it's an ad homienem. You can't dismiss an argument on the basis of the person proposing it. We might not like it but the fact is that a person we perceive as holding a rude or unbecoming attitude for any reason, no matter how belligerent may still have a valid point. It's just an inconvenient part of debate and life in general.

Posted on 3 Mar 2012 09:55:01 GMT
Bert Einstein - Mitochondrial Eve.

I thought you may find the following of interest as mitochondria has cropped up a few times recently.

An interesting and useful property of mitochondrial DNA is that it is inherited from your mother rather than, as will our cell DNA, a mixture from both our patents. This means that if mitochondrial DNA was copied perfectly each and every time, we would all have the same "version" of that DNA. But, despite being excellent at copying itself, the odd mistake can creep in. Parts can be repeated or altered occasionally. Although these mutations happen randomly, over a long enough period of time, they even out to provide a useful biological clock.

To give another example. Each time you toss a coin, you can't predict if it will come down heads or tails. You can sometimes have a run of heads or a run of tails. But, if you tossed the coin 2,000 times you can predict that you would have 900 and something heads and 900 and something tails.

So, "who is this Mitochondrial Eve?", I hear you ask. She is the woman who all humans alive today are descended from. We could all trace our family tree back to a single common ancestor. She lived something like 200,000 years ago in Africa (probably East Africa) when anatomically modern humans (as distinct from the later behaviourally modern humans) were starting to develop as a separate population from the other species of, now extinct, humans.

This does not mean, however, that she was somehow the only woman to have surviving children at that time. To make the point clearer, think of a population of people taken to live on some lonely island with no new settlers coming to join them. To start with each family has a different surname. As a surname is passed down the male line (mitochondrial DNA passes down the female side of the family, but this is just an example to explain the process) any family on the island that has only daughters or no children in the first generation, will see their surname vanish. Their daughters take on a new surname when they marry or they die without passing on their family name to any children at all. As the generations pass, more and more surnames become "extinct" until eventually you arrive at an island full of (horror of horrors) Bowyers, or Einsteins or Smiths or whatever.

A similar thing happened with the mitochondrial DNA. The other lines present at the time Mitochondrial Eve was alive belonged to individuals whose descendants eventually, either had no children or just sons. Their line of mitochondrial DNA, like the surname in the above examples, died out.

One more advantage to the slow mutation in the mitochondrial DNA is it can be used to date populations. As humans left Africa and began to spread across the world, new areas were inhabited. Once there were too many people for one area to support, some either chose to move away to pastures new or were driven out. The population expanded in area, although each individual person or group may only ever have travelled a few miles. As the distances between groups got larger, the interbreeding between those groups grew rarer. Any mutation in the mitochondrial DNA in one group stayed there. By today measuring the difference between the mitochondrial DNA in different populations we can arrive at a reasonably accurate map of how and when different populations split from each other and one group ventured off, over the horizon as it were.

Cheers
Mark

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 09:41:22 GMT
K. Moss says:
Hi Silver.

You do get "all sorts" here. I know that my posts are not exactly a model of remorseless logic and scrupulous academic credentials, but sometimes there are individuals whose attitude towards others so utterly invalidates any claim to truth, that you wonder why they cannot see it.

Bert is such a one. Indeed, he betrays a harshness and degree of arrogance towards (all) others here that, when he does start spouting JW dogma, it just sounds like white noise, without real substance.

And, he loves to jump to premature conclusions about people. I've had the 'apostate' word chucked at me, even though I've never been a JW. He hates Roman Catholics and representatives of what he calls 'Christendom', but reserves an especially toxic brew of spleen for those who once were part of the WTS and then left - presumably because they actually know the score. I can speak on the basis what other JWs have told me, but you can speak from first-hand experience, and that's more powerful.

And it's a shame. Sometimes, he does actually make a reasonable point but by then everyone is so immured to all the unpleasantness, that they're either not interested, or they ignore him. I am presuming that this behaviour is designed so that he may feel persecuted, as one of the good and faithful servant class.

Regards, Kevin

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 08:59:05 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Mar 2012 18:04:28 GMT
Bert Einstein -

To answer your final question first and also through it back at you
>>>>"Do you understand basic English?"
Yes, thank you for asking.

My post may have been confusing as it has obviously confused you. I am not saying, and did not say, that a Lab spent many tens of thousands of years observing the slow, accumulative changes in a group of isolated humans being tested. That would, of course, be silly.

The trouble with watching human evolution is that we have a fairly long life span. Exactly the same life span, on average, as the researchers working in this field. Bacteria, plants and some insects however, have a much faster life cycle and are therefore much better suited to this sort of study. If we can watch one DNA based life form give rise to a different species due to the random errors in copying its DNA, then other life forms with the same basic DNA and the same ability to introduce random errors when it is copied will do the same.

Evolution can said to be established as fact on two different set of observation, a little extra redundancy for you there. Firstly, the definition of evolution, the scientific definition and not a straw man definition put forward by those who deny this fact with the purpose of trying to cast doubt, is

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

This can very easily be measured by taking samples from people of different generations and seeing if there has been any change of the frequency of alleles. This frequency does change.

Now, please allow me, as you have specifically asked for this information, to include another quote without returning to your "are you just an unthinking photocopier" insult? If I wrote it in my own words you would claim it was my mere speculation and I want to make it absolutely, without one shadow of an iota of a hint of a doubt, that I am taking this from scientific papers and not making things up in an attempt to annoy or bait you. Therefore I need to include some quotes. Okay?

"The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220)."

Examples of a new species being observed -

1) Plants

i) Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) - "While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas."

ii) Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis) "Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926."

iii) Tragopogon "Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus."

There are many more, but lets move onto animals.

2) Animals

i) Flounder Fish - "(Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift"

ii) Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella) "Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case."

There are many more, but I don't wish to bore you.

The number of experiments with Fruit Flies are too numerous to quote at length, but should you wish to research them see - Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) and (Dobzhansky 1972), Thoday and Gibson (1962), Thoday and Gibson (1970), Crossley (1974), (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990). The advantage with fruit flies is that you can study a large number of generations in a single career.

I'll give the last word to Theodosius Dobzhansky who expresses the feeling of many biologists when he says "...evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry"

I hope that helped?

Cheers
Mark

*** EDIT *** PS You might find Google Scholar useful for checking the references I mentioned - see http://scholar.google.co.uk/

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 07:35:14 GMT
C. A. Small says:
SIlver s- no a lot of us would agree with Withnail.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 07:17:50 GMT
C. A. Small says:
T.W but if you believe that god talks to the pope, and god knows everything, then why didn't god tell the various popes throughout history what was going on, and to stop it? How can you stay in a church where the leader ( the pope) covered up (or tried to) child abuse to protect the church?

The obvious answer is because there is no god.

There is no doubt that tens of thousands of children have been abused since the 1950's, the real number will never be known, the number of priests involved- who knows- the churches ability to silence children and a desire to protect the church ensured that the abuse only became known relatively recently, as the power of the church lessened in developed nations.

What goes on in South America and Africa must only be speculated about- but I know how I feel about it. Hopefully soon the churches power in these areas will diminish and die, then we can start the whole sorry process uncovering the abuse of children again.

How can you stay in a church where the leader ( the pope) covered up (or tried to) child abuse to protect the church?

Posted on 3 Mar 2012 06:11:39 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 06:08:41 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Mar 2012 06:13:19 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"Great answer Jones! Sadly lacking in references. Any idea why?"
OK then, which biologist would you except as authoritive when declaring confidence in evolution? I'd hate to do all that leg work just to find they weren't proper scientists in your eyes. Was Project Steve not enough for you?

"Your post merely reflects your own opinion - not that of the scientific community because you have merely speculated 'would be, would be, would say'. How about some actual examples from real people - quotes from texts .. that sort of thing."
Nice try, the 'that's only your opinion' gambit would be looking much stronger if you were bringing in the evidence, references and papers to back up your pet thesis setting the standard and putting the conversation on that level, at the moment it's just a case of shifting the burden of proof which loses it's fun quite quickly.

"I know what your saying .. I know what physicists say and what chemists say, but how about what biologists actually do say about 'evolution' - that's what counts."
So you understand that the theory of gravity is sound and that germ theory is sound, you allow the word 'theory' to work in it's scientific sense for these and are happy for me not to give quotes but when it comes to evolution everything changes! Evolution is just a fact you have to live with. Genes replicate imperfectly, changing over time, populations therefore develop and over time the developments add up to speciation. It's quite simple, the mutations have been witnessed in the lab, speciation is observed in the field.

"Good try - at least you're trying to keep up."
Not exactly hard, like you're setting a great pace. So far you've given us the basic creationist gambits - a poor conflation between theory in the scientific use and colloquial use, DI dishonest Dissent from Darwin list. Let's step it up a gear since you're so keen:
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

"Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
- American Heritage Dictionary

Happy with those? Do quotes sort it for you or would you now like to be walked through the supporting evidence? It's the latter I always think better.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 01:46:54 GMT
I like it..........brilliant observation.

Cheers
silver

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 01:42:03 GMT
Or in my case, choose not to start.

Good post, thanks.

Best wishes
silver

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 01:32:19 GMT
Hi G. Heron

You are exactly right. He has no facts only brainwashed prejudice.

Best wishes
Silver

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 01:26:50 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Mar 2012 01:58:02 GMT
Kevin

Thank you for your post and making some very valid points. His language is very spiteful as you so rightly pointed out. I was not 'chucked out' but decided it was not for me. So you understood everything so well.

Silver

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 01:21:01 GMT
No, you are not the only one.

Cheers
Discussion locked

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  201
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  11 Sep 2010
Latest post:  5 Mar 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions