AiG on ID - Science and History - All - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Steve Wells	AiG on ID		Lead	[-]
Posts: 1019 12/31/05 23:22:23	Tags : None I found this article on the Answers in Genesis site. As you can see, the AiG folks are not too keen on ID. The article discusses their reasons in detail, but I was especially interested in this: *Quote:* There is no philosophical answer to their opponents logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movements success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways. In fact, these points are not just hypothetical. Historically, the intelligent design in isolation argument has achieved just these sorts of negative results. In other words, its been tried before and failed. The natural theology approach (using design, but keeping the Bible out of it) by the deists of former centuries led to an increase in deistic belief, i.e. a different god just as in point i) immediately above, with its attendant rejection of the Bible and the Gospel. The deists driving force was the rejection of Gods Word and, concomitantly, His right to exercise rule over our lives. Urged to deduce the existence of the Creator God from design alone, and thus leaving out the Fall and the real history of the world, thinkers concluded that any creator God must be cruel, wasteful, etc. Charles Darwin himself wrote in exactly that vein. I think the AiG folks are right on target here. What do the believers (Waterrock, David, and others) think about this? Does the fall help to explain the dark side of nature? Do you just accept the viciousness of God without making excuses for it? Or do you deny it as Paley did? And which approach do you prefer: Biblical Creation or Intelligent Design? And for the deists out there: how does ID differ from deism? Steve Wells
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Yark Hutprancer	Re: AiG on ID	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4004 01/01/06 03:29:01	*Quote:* There is no philosophical answer to their opponents logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. HAHA! So "the fall" is supposed to completely relieve this god of all responsibility for the horridness of his creation. That's funny. *Quote:* The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed This is the world that god designed! He just didn't make it fall-proof! This has always boggled my mind. How is it exactly that the entire world was corrupted by a simple act of disobedience resulting from FREE-WILL choice that this god is supposed to respect!? How did Eve taking a bite out of the Kiwi cause viruses to come to be? How did it cause mountain lions to maul people? How did it cause tsunamis to kill thousands? How did it cause cancer to begin to exist? Someone PLEASE explain this to me. All of this can ONLY have happened if god designed the world to react in this way from a simple act of free-will on the part of two of its inhabitants. This is the most ridiculous belief ever. But it's the only way people like the guy who wrote this article can attempt get their god off the hook for the obvious crap that he has created. How can I ever respect this stupid religion called "Christainity!?" I might as well believe in Pandora's Box. *Quote:* Thus, the movements success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways. Yeah! We were fine with the old ways that the Biblical God was open to ridicule and contempt! *Quote:* The deists driving force was the rejection of Gods Word and, concomitantly, His right to exercise rule over our lives. Atheists too! I haven't known many deists, but it seems to me that what drives them is a generally rational approach to the bible and truth (although I find the deistic "leaning" to be flawed). *Quote:* Urged to deduce the existence of the Creator God from design alone, and thus leaving out the Fall and the real history of the world, thinkers concluded that any creator God must be cruel, wasteful, etc. Um, earth to jackass... Putting the fall back in doesn't make the situation any better. "If I were God, and I made myself into a regular ol' person, I would have written down the stuff I said myself. I would have had people there with me taking notes. I wouldn't rely on people from the generation after my death to get the story right." - i would be an astronaut on the SAB Message Board
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
One Brow	Re: AiG on ID	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2348 01/02/06 10:32:45	*Quote:* And for the deists out there: how does ID differ from deism? As with Chritianity, ID differs from proponent to proponent. However, the ID of the DI engages in activities that specifically intervene in the affairs of the world (at least, most of the time they claim this), while deists take a more "front-loaded" approach, that the universe was initially set up so that natural developent would result in us. Most ID people take items like the flagelum and say it appeared by intervention, not pre-loaded causation. ----------------------------- "Come now, and let us reason together"
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NobleSavage1	Re: AiG on ID	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3766 01/15/06 21:00:22	*Quote:* And for the deists out there: how does ID differ from deism? Deism is philosophy that defers to science. ID presents itself as science but is really Neo-Creationism masquarading as deism (at least as it's being pushed these days). ================= "The individual human mind (is holy to me). In a child's power to master the multiplication table there is more sanctity than in all your shouted amens and holy-holies and hosannas. An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral and the advance of man's knowledge is a greater miracle than all the sticks turned to snakes and the parting of the waters." -Henry Drummond, character in "Inherit the Wind" www.deism.org The Union of Reason and Spirituality
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Steve Wells	Re: AiG on ID	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1019 01/15/06 21:46:00	*Quote:* Deism is philosophy that defers to science. If so, then it wouldn't believe in a deity, would it? There is no scientific evidence for a deity. (At least none that I know of.) Of course, the ID folks think there is. They claim that the universe is best explained by proposing that the it was designed (by a deity). Isn't this also the basis of deism? Or does a deist believe that in the existence of a deity on faith alone, without any evidence regarding the nature of the universe? Steve Wells
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: AiG on ID	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 01/15/06 22:44:45	*Quote:* I think the AiG folks are right on target here. What do the believers (Waterrock, David, and others) think about this? The ID debate holds limited interest for me these days, which would not have been the case many years ago when I was a natural sciences student in college. I finished undergraduate work before the ID movement began. Quite frankly, I have been surprised that it took this long for the ID movement to gain traction. I agree that the AiG article is on target. The ID movement to me is nothing more than the usual cycle of challenging the paradigm. Enthusiam among evangelicals for the ID movement is misplaced in my opinion. Belief in God does not occur as a result of mankind finding a way to remove or discredit perceived obstacles to faith (evolution). Mankind simply finds a way to erect other gods. *Quote:* Does the fall help to explain the dark side of nature? Depends upon what you mean by the "dark side of nature". If you mean cruel behavior of animals... such as predators killing and eating other animals, then I would have to say... "I don't know". *Quote:* Do you just accept the viciousness of God without making excuses for it? I do not agree with the premise of the question. God is not vicious. His actions can be perceived by others to be vicious, but that does not mean that He is vicious. *Quote:* Or do you deny it as Paley did? I have not read of Paley's denial, but would be interested in doing so. Can you suggest a link? *Quote:* And which approach do you prefer: Biblical Creation or Intelligent Design? I don't know... I have not studied either area sufficiently to know yet.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Steve Wells	Re: AiG on ID	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1019 01/15/06 23:43:58	*Quote:* Depends upon what you mean by the "dark side of nature". If you mean cruel behavior of animals... such as predators killing and eating other animals, then I would have to say... "I don't know". Well, it seems kind of important, David. Did God purposefully design the hundreds of thousands of species of parasites? Did he create a system that ensures that nearly all sentient creatures will die painful and early deaths from starvation, predation, or disease? Or did he originally create it entirely differently, without suffering, disease, or death for any of his creatures? Did spiders exist before Adam fell? Did cats play kinder games with mice? Did tapeworms pursue an entirely different lifestyle before Adam messed things up? These are not questions on which a believer can honestly remain agnostic, David. If you believe in a good God, you must explain (at least to yourself) the inherent cruelty of his creation. *Quote:* I have not read of Paley's denial, but would be interested in doing so. Can you suggest a link? Yes, here is an overview of Paley's ideas on natural theology, and here is his the text of his famous 1802 book, "Natural Theology". Steve Wells
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
PBCarter	Re: AiG on ID	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 162 01/16/06 05:10:33	*Quote:* This has always boggled my mind. How is it exactly that the entire world was corrupted by a simple act of disobedience resulting from FREE-WILL choice that this god is supposed to respect!? How did Eve taking a bite out of the Kiwi cause viruses to come to be? How did it cause mountain lions to maul people? How did it cause tsunamis to kill thousands? How did it cause cancer to begin to exist? Someone PLEASE explain this to me. I second this. The defence that sin caused the corruption of a perfect world implies that this corruption was a direct unmediated consequence of Adam and Eve's actions rather than a punishment handed down by God. I can find no scriptural support for this position and it actually runs contrary to my understanding of Genesis 3. *Quote:* All of this can ONLY have happened if god designed the world to react in this way from a simple act of free-will on the part of two of its inhabitants If we take it that every feature of the world was purposeful and that God is incapable of carelessness then the logic seems undeniable. *Quote:* How can I ever respect this stupid religion called "Christainity!?" I might as well believe in Pandora's Box. Actually, Pandora's Box has far fewer problems in terms of logical coherency. *Quote:* Um, earth to jackass... Putting the fall back in doesn't make the situation any better. It makes it better in terms of logical coherency. Not much better, I'll grant you.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
PBCarter	Re: AiG on ID	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 162 01/16/06 05:16:16	*Quote:* Depends upon what you mean by the "dark side of nature". If you mean cruel behavior of animals... such as predators killing and eating other animals, then I would have to say... "I don't know". I know we would probably all prefer that you could give us a definitive answer here (or as an alternative, a hopelessly confused one) but I applaud your honesty. "I don't know" is the perfect answer when one doesn't know. *Quote:* I do not agree with the premise of the question. God is not vicious. His actions can be perceived by others to be vicious, but that does not mean that He is vicious. I'm not sure I understand your position here. Viciousness is a term representing a fairly well-defined human concept. My initial guess would be that either you are suggesting that God's perceived viciousness is actually "being cruel to be kind" or that the term "vicious" cannot be applied to God. Could you possibly clarify this?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
PBCarter	Re: AiG on ID	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 162 01/16/06 05:20:36	*Quote:* These are not questions on which a believer can honestly remain agnostic, David. If you believe in a good God, you must explain (at least to yourself) the inherent cruelty of his creation. I think this might be a little strong. There is nothing dishonest in a believer remaining agnostic on this issue; the alternative - to hold that one knows the answer when one does not would be dishonest. I would say that it would be dishonest for a believer to be agnostic about this without being frequently and deeply troubled.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Diskeyezed	Re: AiG on ID	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 851 01/16/06 07:29:03	*Quote:* This has always boggled my mind. How is it exactly that the entire world was corrupted by a simple act of disobedience resulting from FREE-WILL choice that this god is supposed to respect!? How did Eve taking a bite out of the Kiwi cause viruses to come to be? How did it cause mountain lions to maul people? How did it cause tsunamis to kill thousands? How did it cause cancer to begin to exist? Someone PLEASE explain this to me. All of this can ONLY have happened if god designed the world to react in this way from a simple act of free-will on the part of two of its inhabitants. This is the most ridiculous belief ever. But it's the only way people like the guy who wrote this article can attempt get their god off the hook for the obvious crap that he has created. Actually, that's not the "only" way, nor even the way the Bible presents it. Genesis 3:14-17 claims that after the "fall," the bad stuff came about by a "curse" from God. Of course, that still makes it God's doing, but indicates that it allegedly wasn't merely a physical result of taking a bite out of a pomegranate. "As for the truth, it seems like we just pick a theory." -- Emily Saliers of Indigo Girls
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
PBCarter	Re: AiG on ID	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 162 01/16/06 08:00:17	*Quote:* Actually, that's not the "only" way, nor even the way the Bible presents it. Genesis 3:14-17 claims that after the "fall," the bad stuff came about by a "curse" from God Yes, that seems pretty incontravertible (of course we're talking about the Bible here so I'm sure someone will have ago.) The idea that all the bad stuff is a curse from God raises two major problems for me: 1. Why does every other life form on the planet have to suffer (natural disasters, disease, genetic disorder, physiological defects inheren in the 'design' of every species on the planet) along with us? 2. Whilst I can suspend disbelief enough to justify tornados and cancer as righteous punishment, it's the petty stuff for me: acne, fallen arches, period pains, short-sightedness etc. If God seriously put this stuff in as part of the curse, doesn't it just seem woefully infantile?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NobleSavage1	Re: AiG on ID	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3766 01/16/06 14:11:42	*Quote:* Of course, the ID folks think there is. Correct, which is why I called it "Neo-Creationism masquarading as deism." Deism makes no positive claims about the nature of that designer other than what we can observe in the natural universe. If science says, "evolution", than obviously evolution is the method of the Creator. That's what I mean by "defers to science". Science helps us understand our universe better and therefore helps us to understand our Creator. Also, deism makes no claim to be science and should not be taught as such. A skit I once imagined where deism became the new religion: "In the beginning, God created the universe. (pause for amens). For more information, see your friendly science teacher. (pause for amens). OK, now let's hear some music. (quietly thanks God for such an easy job)." *Quote:* Or does a deist believe that in the existence of a deity on faith alone I define faith as "letting other people think for you" so, by that definition, no. ================= "The individual human mind (is holy to me). In a child's power to master the multiplication table there is more sanctity than in all your shouted amens and holy-holies and hosannas. An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral and the advance of man's knowledge is a greater miracle than all the sticks turned to snakes and the parting of the waters." -Henry Drummond, character in "Inherit the Wind" www.deism.org The Union of Reason and Spirituality
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: AiG on ID	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 01/16/06 14:23:17	*Quote:* Re: AiG on ID Steve Wells Quote: Depends upon what you mean by the "dark side of nature". If you mean cruel behavior of animals... such as predators killing and eating other animals, then I would have to say... "I don't know". Well, it seems kind of important, David. Did God purposefully design the hundreds of thousands of species of parasites? Yes, of course, He designed the species of parasites... But as far as exactly when and why, I wish that I knew the answer... If all of creation was completed by the sixth day, then yes, the hundreds of thousands of species of parasites had been purposefully designed, or were packed away ready to be unleashed. However, I find it difficult to believe that the HIV virus was lurking around somewhere when Adam and Eve were walking in the garden... It is easier for me to believe that parasitic viruses later "arose" according to the overall plan of God. Does this mean that God's creation is ongoing? If yes, then this would seem to contradict Genesis 2:2 which says "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made". However, it is also important to remember that "thorns and thistles" apparently did not appear until after the fall... The question is, were the thorns and thistles a new creation? or had they simply been packed away and hidden from the beginning? I don't think that the Genesis account answers such questions firmly. Those who try to make dogma out of answering such questions usually fail. *Quote:* Did he create a system that ensures that nearly all sentient creatures will die painful and early deaths from starvation, predation, or disease? Again, I am not sure. It is interesting to me that there are some well respected Christian theologians who have said that Adam's body would have eventually "died" regardless of the fall. In other words, in spite of the remarkable design of our natural bodies, they were not meant to last forever. As far as starvation, predation, or disease, the accounts in Genesis seems to suggest that such things are the result of the fall... *Quote:* Did spiders exist before Adam fell? To my understanding, the Genesis creation accounts are silent regarding predatory insects. *Quote:* Did cats play kinder games with mice? I don't know. One of the speculations I have heard is that mammals, fishes, etc., were vegetarians before the fall. I find this difficult to understand or believe. *Quote:* Did tapeworms pursue an entirely different lifestyle before Adam messed things up? I don't know. It will be wonderful to someday know the answers to these questions. *Quote:* These are not questions on which a believer can honestly remain agnostic, David. If you believe in a good God, you must explain (at least to yourself) the inherent cruelty of his creation. The inherent cruelty seen in God's creation is not a difficulty with me... The difficulty for me is when and how it happened... The Bible is not explicitly clear about this.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Steve Wells	Re: AiG on ID	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1019 01/16/06 15:18:16	*Quote:* "In the beginning, God created the universe. (pause for amens). (pause for amens). How does this differ from Genesis 1:1?: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." What evidence (besides the Bible) do you have for your belief in creation? Steve Wells
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NobleSavage1	Re: AiG on ID	#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3766 01/16/06 17:05:02	*Quote:* How does this differ from Genesis 1:1?: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." All the stuff that follows. Hence the whole point of the joke. *Quote:* What evidence (besides the Bible) do you have for your belief in creation? I see order. Others see chaos. Personal POV. ================= "The individual human mind (is holy to me). In a child's power to master the multiplication table there is more sanctity than in all your shouted amens and holy-holies and hosannas. An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral and the advance of man's knowledge is a greater miracle than all the sticks turned to snakes and the parting of the waters." -Henry Drummond, character in "Inherit the Wind" www.deism.org The Union of Reason and Spirituality
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Yark Hutprancer	Re: AiG on ID	#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4004 01/16/06 17:11:45	We've had this discussion before. He sees patterns. he assumes they were ordered by an intelligence. Why he makes this assumption, I don't know. "If I were God, and I made myself into a regular ol' person, I would have written down the stuff I said myself. I would have had people there with me taking notes. I wouldn't rely on people from the generation after my death to get the story right." - i would be an astronaut on the SAB Message Board
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Steve Wells	Re: AiG on ID	#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1019 01/16/06 17:22:26	*Quote:* I see order. And from the order, design, and, therefore, a designer. Sounds like ID to me. Steve Wells
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe	Re: AiG on ID	#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3190 01/16/06 18:50:46	*Quote:* (Steve Wells): Sounds like ID to me. I think the difference is like how DfT claims to be a Christian while at the same time attacking "Christendom". Sure, by the exact definition of the words "Intelligent Design", Noble1 seems to fit. However, the ID movement is really a Biblical Christian movement, not a deist one.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NobleSavage1	Re: AiG on ID	#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3766 01/16/06 19:38:26	*Quote:* However, the ID movement is really a Biblical Christian movement, not a deist one. Bingo. Hence, "Neo-Creationism masquarading as deism." ================= "The individual human mind (is holy to me). In a child's power to master the multiplication table there is more sanctity than in all your shouted amens and holy-holies and hosannas. An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral and the advance of man's knowledge is a greater miracle than all the sticks turned to snakes and the parting of the waters." -Henry Drummond, character in "Inherit the Wind" www.deism.org The Union of Reason and Spirituality
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Steve Wells	Re: AiG on ID	#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1019 01/16/06 21:00:27	*Quote:* (Badsidh): the ID movement is really a Biblical Christian movement, not a deist one. I guess the difference it just too subtle for me to understand. They both believe the same thing, yet somehow they are different. Steve Wells
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

AiG on ID	12/31/05 23:22:23	Steve Wells
Re: AiG on ID	01/01/06 03:29:01	Yark Hutprancer
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 07:29:03	Diskeyezed
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 08:00:17	PBCarter
Re: AiG on ID	01/02/06 10:32:45	One Brow
Re: AiG on ID	01/15/06 21:00:22	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/15/06 21:46:00	Steve Wells
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 14:11:42	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 15:18:16	Steve Wells
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 17:05:02	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 17:11:45	Yark Hutprancer
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 17:22:26	Steve Wells
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 18:50:46	Badsidhe
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 19:38:26	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 21:00:27	Steve Wells
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 21:19:02	Badsidhe
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 22:04:34	Steve Wells
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 09:20:26	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 17:02:20	AniRB
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 22:38:42	David from Texas
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 00:02:09	Yark Hutprancer
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 09:12:56	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 21:43:32	One Brow
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 22:29:09	Steve Wells
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 23:48:12	Yark Hutprancer
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 07:03:22	PBCarter
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 09:09:30	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 09:30:56	PBCarter
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 09:36:29	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 10:34:23	PBCarter
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 11:17:10	Yark Hutprancer
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 13:18:41	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 13:57:13	Iznomneak
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 15:38:55	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/20/06 09:11:20	Iznomneak
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 14:59:03	Yark Hutprancer
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 15:45:29	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/19/06 03:39:44	PBCarter
Re: AiG on ID	01/20/06 07:36:12	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/20/06 08:39:56	PBCarter
Actually, I'm a Hard Atheist	01/24/06 20:34:31	Old Possum
Welcome back	01/24/06 21:46:24	One Brow
Re: Actually, I'm a Hard Atheist	01/25/06 00:22:40	Yark Hutprancer
Re: Actually, I'm a Hard Atheist	01/25/06 03:09:36	PBCarter
Re: Actually, I'm a Hard Atheist	01/25/06 09:56:25	Yark Hutprancer
Re: Actually, I'm a Hard Atheist	01/25/06 10:42:40	PBCarter
Come on! There must be something wrong in there... ;)	01/25/06 10:51:04	Yark Hutprancer
Re: Come on! There must be something wrong in there... ;)	01/25/06 10:53:30	PBCarter
Re: Actually, I'm a Hard Atheist	01/26/06 07:50:10	blue the sound
Re: Actually, I'm a Hard Atheist	01/26/06 12:01:38	Yark Hutprancer
Re: Actually, I'm a Hard Atheist	01/28/06 08:13:49	PBCarter
Re: Actually, I'm a Hard Atheist	01/29/06 01:18:05	Yark Hutprancer
Re: Actually, I'm a Hard Atheist	01/29/06 13:23:14	PBCarter
Re: Actually, I'm a Hard Atheist	01/25/06 03:00:12	PBCarter
I allow for the possibility, that I could be wrong.	01/26/06 16:06:10	Old Possum
Re: I allow for the possibility, that I could be wrong.	01/28/06 08:07:43	PBCarter
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 22:02:37	David from Texas
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 23:58:57	Yark Hutprancer
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 07:28:40	Keith and Company
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 09:27:16	One Brow
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 10:05:08	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 10:36:14	PBCarter
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 10:46:34	Keith and Company
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 10:50:13	PBCarter
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 15:49:15	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/17/06 13:20:00	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/15/06 22:44:45	David from Texas
Re: AiG on ID	01/15/06 23:43:58	Steve Wells
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 05:20:36	PBCarter
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 14:23:17	David from Texas
Role playing a Christian for a moment...	01/17/06 09:17:43	NobleSavage1
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 05:16:16	PBCarter
Re: AiG on ID	01/16/06 05:10:33	PBCarter
Re: AiG on ID	02/02/06 09:01:01	jesusisafag
Re: AiG on ID	02/02/06 09:09:20	raphjd
Ezboard troubles	02/02/06 10:45:46	Steve Wells
Re: Ezboard troubles	02/02/06 10:55:22	Keith and Company