RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact.

RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/31/2015 8:16:54 AM)
Time is not a watch. We don't need cycles to understand that it passes. But we also can see that it is not constant. Ignorant slobbering is not understanding, babbling asswipe is not expertise. we can measure a second to great precision, but not perfectly. the time differences due to influences is not within the margin of error. They are greater. You better eat some more ass. Fucktards are still and constantly fucktarding. the demonstrated macabre hallucinatory asswipe spewing lack of comprehension of physics, law, and every subject you post on does essentially makes you the laugingstock of even the most feebleminded inmates of your residence.

Tkman117 -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/31/2015 8:29:12 AM)
Not to mention that since the pace of time is prone to changes when something observing time either A) approaches the speed of light or B) is influenced by a gravitational field. Time is a constant in a vacuum with no interfering matter, but considering time is relative, this constant is largely irrelevant to us since we exist in a medium that slows down time (our planet's gravity, our solar system's gravity, etc.). As a result, something cannot be a constant if it is relative. Even the speed of light isn't a constant since it can be slowed down in other mediums, such as air or water. The speed of light is a constant in a vacuum with no interfering medium, just as time is, but only the speed of light in a vacuum can be used as a constant to determine distance and other qualities of distant objects BECAUSE it is relative and can be changed by interacting with mediums. Interfering with distant objects changes the wavelengths of the light that can be observed and provide information about said distant objects.

Tkman117 -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/31/2015 8:39:03 AM)
Anything can be considered a constant when put under a certain set of parameters, but if they're prone to changes under different parameters, it can be considered relative. Gravity on earth is a constant: 9.81 m/s, but gravity isn't the same everywhere in the universe. As such gravity itself is relative depending on how much mass a body has. Now the FORCE of gravity is a universal constant, whereby mass warps space-time to create gravity wells that cause objects to attract toward each other. The more mass there is the higher the gravity, that is a constant of this universe. Other constants: the mass of a proton, electron or neutron. Those are the same no matter where you are in the universe. There are baseline constants in our universe that make it what it is, just time and light aren't considered parts of them.

Phydeaux -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/31/2015 12:30:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19 “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17) “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19) So I am wondering how many of those people who claim to be Christians do eat pork, shellfish, wear mixed fiber and all that, because they should all be stoned to death for it, because Jesus claimed he wants to uphold the old laws... He is talking about the Ten Commandments, not the laws of Leviticus. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. ~Matthew 22:36-38 I don't think that you can draw that conclusion from the text. While it's plain that JC was creating a new covenant, there are tons of references to the "law" and "the prophets". Very few would argue that Matt 5:7 was a reference to just the big ten. Well that one excerpt wasn't the only supporting text that I posted (see here and here). Additionally, there are the two verses of Matthew that follow it: And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. ~Matthew 22:39-40 Personally, I don't see how anyone can reconcile the above, or the teachings of Christ more broadly, with the barbaric nonsense we find in Leviticus. K. The suppositions of Lady Constanz and others are just nonsense. K. is correct. The number of times this concept is expressed in the new testament is almost innumerable. For example 1 Cor 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 1 Cor 6:12 "Everything is permissible for me," but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me," but I will not be mastered by anything. Heb 8:7-13 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away Mat 25:26 27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. Luk 22:20 19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood Jesus is explicitly saying that the old covenants between God and the Jews - the covenants of Abraham, Noah, David, Solomon etc - to these a new covenant was being established. To whom? There are many, many citations saying that Christ came first for the jews- witness his discussion to the Samaritan woman. However, fulfilling that mission the promise of salvation was extended to any that chose to receive him. For example Joh 1:12 11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, The fact that the old rules of the covenant are clearly shown by several examples: Acts 11:3-8. Believers are freed from the law; circumcision (required by the old law) is not required; what god has cleansed, no longer consider unholy. Mark 2:27 Believers are not required to worship on the 7th day; Jesus is lord of the Sabbath... 26how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?" 27Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28"So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." The law is not binding on Christians - and is not the basis of our belief or practice. We revere the words of the old testament - but the 519 laws prescribed for jews are relaxed. Christians are freed from kosher laws, freed from phylactery requirements. Freed from laws regarding oblations. Does that mean these things are meaningless? No. Washing your hands before meals is still a good idea. But we don't have to. And they are not the foundation of our faith - which is Christ alone.

Phydeaux -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/31/2015 12:51:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Here is the gravamen of why it doesn't work at all. Upon the cross, he turned to the thief and said, "Today you will be with me in paradise". Whereupon he laid three days in the grave. I understand time is not constant, but .......... Your understanding is wrong. You are equating the resurrection of the body, with the resurrection of the soul. They are indeed not the same. For example: Joh 2:20 19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body So notice - if the body and the spirit were the same, if Christ was destroyed with the death of his body, he could not have raised it up. So resurrection of the spirit is not the same as resurrection of the body. Christian dogma has ever held that upon his death visited the dead, and ascended with a multitude. These are born out by such scriptures as 1 Peter 3:18-19. (Christ witnesses to the dead (before his resurrection). Eph 4:*-10 Says that Christ ascended with a host of captives (the dead) Acts 2:31 said that Christ visited hades - but he was not abandoned there, his flesh to corruption

mnottertail -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/31/2015 1:21:41 PM)
and ghenna or sheol would not be paradise, even by beelzebub's standards. Thats where dogma says he went. I understand perfectly, and it has to be one or the other paradise or the depths, to preach to the dead.......because otherwise the theif is also a christ. My understanding is just fine, he wasnt talking about bodies being in paradise. Them fucking corpses were rotting on roman crosses. That leaves us with souls, and since jeebus went to preach to the dead, and said you will BE WITH ME in paradise, then he was fucking lying.

Phydeaux -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/31/2015 1:56:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail and ghenna or sheol would not be paradise, even by beelzebub's standards. Thats where dogma says he went. I understand perfectly, and it has to be one or the other paradise or the depths, to preach to the dead.......because otherwise the theif is also a christ. My understanding is just fine, he wasnt talking about bodies being in paradise. Them fucking corpses were rotting on roman crosses. That leaves us with souls, and since jeebus went to preach to the dead, and said you will BE WITH ME in paradise, then he was fucking lying. You understand nothing. As I supported with scripture above, it said he went to gehenna FIRST then heaven. So no, it does not have to be one OR the other. And if you understood perfectly, you would understand that. This is standard doctrine in every single Christian denomination. Second. Christian Theology says that God is triune. Ie., "I and the father are one"; "He who has seen the Father has seen the son". When the thief ascended to heaven he would have been in the presence of the triune God. Under either explanation, both standard doctrine, your objection fails.

mnottertail -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/31/2015 2:16:21 PM)
He went to gehenna and handled it in an hour. Yeah, the asswipe you posted does not say anything about down and left the same day. Apparently, not only are you not without understanding, you hallucinate English words that are not there. from around noon to three there was darkness..............a new day. In Israel, a day is counted from sundown to sundown. unless he who was taken down quite quickly after death according to the story, because of the sabbath coming (at dark) then today would be at the earliest, tomorrow. Because, he would not change the times, and the seasons. Thats a sign of your devil. Where was gods wife in all this in the original scriptures, btw? So, #EPIC FAIL on the perfect understanding, I understand perfectly, you got some issues.

Phydeaux -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/31/2015 2:25:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail He went to gehenna and handled it in an hour. Yeah, the asswipe you posted does not say anything about down and left the same day. Apparently, not only are you not without understanding, you hallucinate English words that are not there. In Israel, a day is counted from sundown to sundown. unless he who was taken down quite quickly after death according to the story, because of the sabbath coming (at dark) then today would be at the earliest, tomorrow. Because, he would not change the times, and the seasons. Thats a sign of your devil. Where was gods wife in all this in the original scriptures, btw? So, #EPIC FAIL on the perfect understanding, I understand perfectly, you got some issues. Actually, this is your third fail at Christian doctrine. Mathew 27:46 And about the ninth hour (3pm) .. jeses cried out ... and surrendered his spirit. Your own post says, this day you will be with me in paradise. It is only you that say God cannot visit gehenna and paradise in the same day. There is no scriptural contradiction. And, as usual with you mottertail, you ignore when you have no way to refute. Ie., the entire trieune god doxology.

mnottertail -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/31/2015 2:34:10 PM)
it had been dark, from noon to 3. new day, it was finished. Had god held the sun still as he did in the valley of ai, you might have something, but you dont. so, what did he do for three days? masturbation fetish or? Epic fail on the scriptures.

Phydeaux -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/31/2015 3:53:18 PM)
Fourth Scriptural fail. Lets suppose it was dark from noon to three, and then jesus died. Here's what scripture actually says: (From Matthew, your source) From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). 47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.” 48 Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” 50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. So it was dark until 3; then Jesus cried out; then people discussed him calling Elijah; then they gave him some wine; he drank and died. So, fail again. But even if you were to suppose your argument had any merit whatsoever, then what do you suppose a jew meant, if he awoke before sunrise and said - "Today I will work in the fields." Your supposed logic would have that to be a meaningless construction. When of course, it is explicitly stated in scripture, with understood meaning, as well as used in the culture at the time with at cultural meaning. STILL NO ANSWER ON "I and the father are one - today you will be with me in paradise. Clear to everyone mnotter that you are logicless, pointless and wrong. So absent a cogent reply no further point in discussing with you.

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (1/2/2016 6:32:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Not to mention that since the pace of time is prone to changes when something observing time either A) approaches the speed of light or B) is influenced by a gravitational field. Time is a constant in a vacuum with no interfering matter, but considering time is relative, this constant is largely irrelevant to us since we exist in a medium that slows down time (our planet's gravity, our solar system's gravity, etc.). As a result, something cannot be a constant if it is relative. Even the speed of light isn't a constant since it can be slowed down in other mediums, such as air or water. The speed of light is a constant in a vacuum with no interfering medium, just as time is, but only the speed of light in a vacuum can be used as a constant to determine distance and other qualities of distant objects BECAUSE it is relative and can be changed by interacting with mediums. Interfering with distant objects changes the wavelengths of the light that can be observed and provide information about said distant objects. Anything can be considered a constant when put under a certain set of parameters, but if they're prone to changes under different parameters, it can be considered relative. Gravity on earth is a constant: 9.81 m/s, but gravity isn't the same everywhere in the universe. As such gravity itself is relative depending on how much mass a body has. Now the FORCE of gravity is a universal constant, whereby mass warps space-time to create gravity wells that cause objects to attract toward each other. The more mass there is the higher the gravity, that is a constant of this universe. Other constants: the mass of a proton, electron or neutron. Those are the same no matter where you are in the universe. There are baseline constants in our universe that make it what it is, just time and light aren't considered parts of them. well the problem is that relativity really is not new. However we went from assuming there is a constant to pretending no constant exists. While on the perceptual side of the coin, dilation, I have no real issue with I do on the other hand with time. Time is a constant 'period'. From the posts I have seen I expect you and possibly one other may be able to wrap your minds around what I am talking about. If we stick the most accurate clock we have [cesium] in the national lab and as you alluded to call that the standard and its agreed upon around the world then that in fact is the stand from which we reference all time under any condition. I remember reading something about tesla laughing his ass off over einweeners great discovery of 'relativity' which was nothing new, except it had a name now. In the case of time this is nothing more than errors with respect to th ebaseline clock. So what does weener and crew do, well they insted of saying this is the interval duration based on our cesuim clock wlocated at xyz instead the asswipes claimed time itself changes which is bullshit. The value for the unit of time does not change as todays geniuses claim. Yes they do get differences on the time dial when a clock is exposed to either velocity or gravity etc but as I said time itself does not change. All mechanical clocks are nothing more than counters, if whatever is being counted changes due to interference the dial gives an erroneous reading. That said like anything we want to call a 'constant', even light which changes as much as 15 wavelengths resulting from the earths gravity for instance we are going to, and in fact expect to get measurement errors resulting from external interference on our measuring devices. Therefore the 'facts' are that the 'REALITY' is as I have said earlier that its nothing more than 'ERROR' or deviation from the reference which results from some external interference. Now of course in weeners days they had a big 'ether' war going on between the electrical minded teslas and theoretical physicists like weener who believe the ether did not exist despite the fact 'some-thing' like a wave simply cnnot exist in 'no-thing' [what they now guess and labelled dark matter to save themselves from looking like the fools they are]. I digress. Anyway I got in a knock down drag out fight over this with the faithful misguided believers who like snotty tail question nothing where I finally left the forum since they came right out and said they were going to censor me to protect the young yet [un]indoctrinated children of course who were struggling to understand the ways and means of institutionalized bullshit when I hit them with this; I said if the unit time truly changes then instead of using clocks that are susceptible to external interference lets replace all the time speeding and slowing down theories with a perfect clock. That is an idea abstract clock that is impervious to all or any interference, and handle it like we do the rest of the physical world when defining boundaries and limits. Of course that blows a complete hole and rips the continuum and the variable time theory now fails, proving that all we are looking at is nothing more than 'ERROR' that results from less than perfect clocks. 'Anything mechanical can be affected by external forces'. They pulled the switcheroo on us which is the same time much of our real science went south with it, and now that they are hitting brick walls starting to look backward claiming new discoveries which are often times old hat. That said time is a constant with its interval defined and documented at nist, all else is nothing more than error, time itself does not change but imperfect clocks do, correction is properly accomplished by simple and standard error correction methods. Saying that 'time' itself changes RATHER than some known or unknown factor causes a given error under given conditions and here is how you fix it, is an abortion and destroys scientific method. As usual they did nothing more than establish a fucked up twisted new way of looking at something to confuse youngsters by complicating things that are simple that us ancients took for granted. But I have to say it gave the dreamers lots to dream about. On the other hand I have no problem with the observer portion of the theory. (yet)

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (1/3/2016 5:53:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Ffs dont encourage it. yeh instead of you coming to an education education will come to you and get jammed down your throat. [8\|]

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (1/3/2016 5:55:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Sure you are, when you stop people from living in a manner that Jesus recommends. So... is it just the life that Jesus recommends that you seek special protection for? Do other religious beliefs not count? I am assuming that you're keen to allow people to ignore any anti discrimination laws if they go against Jesus's commands? What other laws would you allow people to break because its "whut Jesus would do?" Yea, I believe in the Buddhist gods, of which there are...none. If you believe and practice Buddhism then that is your religion with or with a diety.

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (1/3/2016 6:09:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Sir Real One . . . . quote: It should be clear that his postulate is an identical method and procedure used in creating a scientific hypothesis. Not at all! Meynell's pretend "science" lacks any reliable empirical data to begin his process. . . . observation, hypothesis, predictions, falsification, affirmation/rejection. your ad nauseum reliance on pure analytical reason has long since been shown to be insufficient to explain anything beyond lumps on your head. You deny understanding of the world beyond lumps on the head when you claim there is nothing empirical exists for the argument since murder = bad, pleasure = good cannot be accounted for by your methodology. It begs if you understand anything about the subject beyond a quick read for the sake of throwing some shit out here to appease atheists. Do you even understand what I just said? Ad hominem attacks are the death rattle of empty discourse. Did I say anywhere that all events were subject to scientific investigation? I did not. My position is that the existence of god is not suitable for scientific investigation, whose components I enumerated above. Especially that the hypothesis cannot be falsified, so it runs about in a circle biting its own ass. Ergo, rational theology is a philosophical inquiry only and Meynell is an arsehole. Carry on. quote: Can a positron be falsified? The position, or thesis, or theory, is expected to give rise to subsidiary predictions which are subject to falsification. One of the predictions of General Relativity was that Mercury's transit of the sun does not follow Kepler's Laws, if I have that right. The prediction was verified when viewed during an eclipse. Thou shalt not murder is religious, it cannot be qualified as bad without the method and procedures we know of as religion. Atheists cannot conclude on an atheist model that murder is either good or bad and remain within their own philosophical boundaries, and the closest they can come is that its merely another phenomena.

mnottertail -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (1/4/2016 7:28:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Fourth Scriptural fail. Lets suppose it was dark from noon to three, and then jesus died. Here's what scripture actually says: (From Matthew, your source) From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). 47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.” 48 Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” 50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. So it was dark until 3; then Jesus cried out; then people discussed him calling Elijah; then they gave him some wine; he drank and died. So, fail again. But even if you were to suppose your argument had any merit whatsoever, then what do you suppose a jew meant, if he awoke before sunrise and said - "Today I will work in the fields." Your supposed logic would have that to be a meaningless construction. When of course, it is explicitly stated in scripture, with understood meaning, as well as used in the culture at the time with at cultural meaning. STILL NO ANSWER ON "I and the father are one - today you will be with me in paradise. Clear to everyone mnotter that you are logicless, pointless and wrong. So absent a cogent reply no further point in discussing with you. Not wrong full of logic and point. It is clear you are in the rapture of hallucination, a day goes from the darkness to the light. Ask god, a day had turned. Otherwise it would be no great trick to have the sun stand still as it did in the valley of ai, and the day did not turn. I dont know where the I and the father are one today you will be with me in paradise comes from, it is not a standard translation of all the translations out there. The day turned before he went to gehenna and on to paradise, in every version of this fairytale I have read.

mnottertail -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (1/4/2016 7:30:27 AM)
quote: and its agreed upon around the world then that in fact is the stand from which we reference all time under any condition false. false premises make false conclusions.

Kirata -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (1/4/2016 9:20:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I dont know where the I and the father are one today you will be with me in paradise comes from, it is not a standard translation of all the translations out there. I and my Father are one ~John 10:30, KJV See: John 10:30 in all English translations Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. ~Luke 23:43, KJV See: Luke 23:43 in all English translations K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (1/4/2016 9:52:02 AM)
quote: Thou shalt not murder is religious, it cannot be qualified as bad without the method and procedures we know of as religion. Atheists cannot conclude on an atheist model that murder is either good or bad and remain within their own philosophical boundaries, and the closest they can come is that its merely another phenomena. I suppose it'd be a complete waste of time asking you where you get this sort of stuff, R0?

mnottertail -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (1/4/2016 9:52:51 AM)
oh, its a bleedin' phenomena, innit?

Page: << < prev 11 12 13 [14] 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625