Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 151 of 1163 (786515)
06-22-2016 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
06-22-2016 1:52 PM


Re: Limestones, trilobites and so-called faunal succession.
If I saw the examples again I might be able to show contradicting evidence, but the point was that your evidence was ambiguous, subject to other interpretations, not that different evidence was needed but that your evidence wasn't conclusive.
One thing that might help is thinking about the direction of the tectonic forces and why they might affect one location but not another. Seems to me the main forces are always coming from the same direction, being the forces that keep the continents moving. Are there others? Seems to me that YOU need to explain how a supposed tectonic event disrupted a particular layer in one location but not others that are nearby.
Since we are off topic, I won't take this any farther in this thread other than to say that you are wrong in more ways than you can imagine. Your Bible is not a geology text. It is apparent that you consider lack of evdence to be better than actual data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 1:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 152 of 1163 (786592)
06-23-2016 5:51 PM


Well, it looks like no one is willing to support the yexplanations as presented in the opening post.

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 153 of 1163 (786811)
06-27-2016 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2016 2:08 PM


Dr A, your sophistry never ceases to amuse me. Even more amusing is the ignorant approval of it by the ever faithful evo-club that surrounds you to pat you on the back.
Exhibit A:
DrA writes:
But in that case do we not have to conclude that a velociraptor has the same hydraulic properties as a gorgonopsid? So why are they never found buried in the same strata together?
This is APPALLING reasoning, called, Arguing from silence fallacy. The fact is you SHOULD know that on the pre-flood continent both species could have been separated by ecological zonation, by thousands of miles. Your argument is that if a flood happened today, you should be found in the same strata as your friend who lives 2,000 miles away from you.
Dr A writes:
Creationists are dimly aware that the fossil record exhibits order, although (as we shall see) they don't really know what this order consists of. In the creationist imagination, the fossil record has crude, primitive organisms at the bottom, and then as one works up through the sedimentary layers the organisms get progressively more sophisticated, complex, agile, intelligent, etc, culminating in the awesome wonder that is Man
This really is awesome, because it is so backward. Do you think one of the most complex eyes, the aggregate eye, from a trilobite, was, "simple". I think if creationists are dimly aware, you are simply dim-witted, here you have actually contradicted the very thing we argue, and what we argue is that all creatures are modern and complex.
Furthemore, what do you know about what is in my, "imagination", do you have access to my thoughts?
Dr A writes:
One obvious objection is that these ecological zones would necessarily differ not just in altitude but also in location: they cannot be stacked one on top of another like different floors in an apartment complex, with the mammals living over the reptiles, and the reptiles above the fish. But in the fossil record we do find land animals and other clear indications of a terrestrial habitat directly above marine fossils and sediments.
But what you fail to know or either deliberately OMIT, is that in some places there isn't even found a cambrian-era. Here you make it seems as though there is neat an uniform fossil-record, with every strata, neatly laid down all over the earth. In fact there are arguments for example, which makes sense not just of the strata, but the odd features in it, such as a compression-event in the grand canyon, because the Cambrian layers are tilted, flatly cut off at that angle.
You also fail to mention that we find, "marine fossils" in every layer, not just the bottom layer like you want to make out. The law of superposition applies in a flood as well as long-ages. You forget that our model argues that is a stage of inundation and there is the recessional stages. Mt St Helens shown how quickly for example, strata can build up.
Dr A writes:
This leads us on to the fundamental creationist blunder which we mentioned at the start of this discussion: they have not the faintest idea what the fossil record looks like, and so are contriving their explanations for something that isn't actually there.
This is amusing considering you think the fossil-record is a, (and I quote) "apartment complex". Talk about an own-goal!
Your post is a RANT. A long-winded one of that, consistent of a lot of wind, mostly in the form of question-begging-epithets, such as, "dimly", "blunder"
Dr A writes:
We should not anticipate that any creationist will ever explain the actual features of the fossil record in terms of the Flood. It is unlikely at this late date that any of them is going to find out what the fossil record looks like, an activity which would both contradict their prejudices and involve doing some actual work. But I invite any creationist who wants to to give it a try.
Oh I see it, but it's all of that negative-evidence which I don't see, that counts. Columbo should have taught you by now that it isn't just what you see but it's what you don't see. For example we don't see the thousands of missing fictional evolutionary forms.
So for the sake of argument, even if the fossil record didn't favour a flood, what makes you think that this would somehow favour evolution?
Do you want to know what would favour evolution? here is a clue: NOT a general fixity of forms, but the actual transitionals that show us how they evolved into things there were not precedingly. Show me the real fossil evidence of how a seahorse which is a vertically swimming fish, evolved from a horizontal swimmer, so that we can see how it achieved it. Show me the real fossil-transitions of pterosaurs and bats, showing the useful inbetween stages between quadrupedal motion and flight. Show me the real fossil evidence for the transitionals for jellyfish, ichtyosaurs, dugongs, manatees, turtles, starfish, snails, dragonflies, millipedes, etc, etc, etc...
Nice rant Dr A, but if you want my respect you're going to have to abandon sophistry and rhetorical tricks, and actually show something of intellectual credence.
Dr A writes:
So creationists also drag in a second mechanism, "hydrological sorting" (which real scientists usually call "hydraulic sorting"
No true scotsman fallacy. If there are creationists with genuine scientific qualifications, then they are, "real" scientists, so the term, "real" is a question-begging-epithet.
"Khan, I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect" - Captain Kirk, The Wrath Of Khan.
For me the, "great creationist fossil failure" is the greatest rhetorical-epithetical baloney of this thread. In case you haven't studied logic 101, if I find in the fossils, when looking for a pine tree, an identical 250 million year old pine tree with no evolutionary ancestors, then that is the only logical, "success" I can hope to find. If a flood largely created the fossils, and animal kinds have always been the same, then I would expect to find that very thing, no matter what the layer is. It also would not matter the evolutionary-age of the layer, for all layers, or most, would have been laid down in one year.
So logically speaking, the fossil record is the greatest success we could hope for, for if we argued apriori what the fossils should contain, and if we had never known what they yet contained, we would predict as creationists that we would find the same animals that look identical. And if evolutionists had never seen the fossil record, since their theory explains how everything on earth was created by evolution, the correct logical prediction would be that the fossils would generally show evolutionary change, not, "stasis". Putting the word, "evolution" before stasis might make a nice oxymoron, but let's face it, in order for a jellyfish to become a jellyfish I don't need evolution, I JUST NEED JELLYFISH! (Occam's razor)
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2016 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-27-2016 7:03 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 160 by edge, posted 06-27-2016 7:35 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 161 by edge, posted 06-27-2016 7:39 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 171 by Pressie, posted 06-29-2016 1:00 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 154 of 1163 (786812)
06-27-2016 5:01 PM


Woodmorappe writes:
There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8—16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field.
Secondly, those locations where it has been possible to assign all ten periods represent less than 0.4% of the earth’s surface, or 1% if the ocean basins are excluded. Obviously it is the exception, rather than the rule, to be able to assign all of the ten Phanerozoic periods to the sedimentary pile in any one location on the earth. It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological column when it is absent 99% of the time.
The Geologic Column: Does it exist? - creation.com
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by edge, posted 06-27-2016 7:24 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 163 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-28-2016 12:03 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 167 by 14174dm, posted 06-28-2016 12:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 155 of 1163 (786814)
06-27-2016 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2016 2:08 PM


Dr A, just a question out of general interest. I notice you always say, in many of your posts and threads, "creationists do X" or, "creationists say P". I am just wondering, since I am a dim creationist, why you don't seem to notice that it is a logical error to treat a group as an individual person?
It just seems you always say, "creationists do this.." then you will note the thing you are accusing, "them" of doing.
So since I am a dim person that doesn't do my homework, do you know that this type of rhetorical-argument, is called the hasty generalisation fallacy? You seem to get an experience of a creationist, or at least what you think they are saying, and apply that to all of the group, "creationists".
Logical Fallacies
I mention this because YOU DO IT A LOT. Basically you just want to say mean things about creationists don't you? "creationists do this, creationists do that".
In any group there are individuals who argue certain things. I have debated evolutionists that simply don't do ANY homework and similarly there are creationists that don't do ANY homework.
Certain behaviour does not belong to the group, "creationist"
Example: Catholics wear clothes.
Does this now mean that catholics are the group that should be known for wearing clothes, and nobody else from any other groups?
Oh but I am the, "dim" creationist, right? Perhaps I invented the fallacy of hasty generalisation or borrowed it from a, "real" intellect, which we call, "evolutionists"?
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2016 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Tangle, posted 06-27-2016 6:14 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-27-2016 7:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 156 of 1163 (786817)
06-27-2016 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by mike the wiz
06-27-2016 5:39 PM


Hi Mick, why don't you put down your book of logical fallacies and argue some facts?
As you note, there are people here who are not dim, we've also read the book and have progressed from psedo-philosophical argument to real knowledge. Why not follow?
Where's your beef?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by mike the wiz, posted 06-27-2016 5:39 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 12:26 PM Tangle has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 157 of 1163 (786821)
06-27-2016 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by mike the wiz
06-27-2016 4:18 PM


This is APPALLING reasoning, called, Arguing from silence fallacy.
Argument from silence - Wikipedia
You might at least learn the meanings of the terms you throw around.
The fact is you SHOULD know that on the pre-flood continent both species could have been separated by ecological zonation, by thousands of miles.
Claims of "ecological zoning" were answered in my post.
Your argument is that if a flood happened today, you should be found in the same strata as your friend who lives 2,000 miles away from you.
Please do not lie to me about what my argument is.
This really is awesome, because it is so backward. Do you think one of the most complex eyes, the aggregate eye, from a trilobite, was, "simple".
No, of course not. Why do you ask? Have you hit your head on something?
But what you fail to know or either deliberately OMIT, is that in some places there isn't even found a cambrian-era. Here you make it seems as though there is neat an uniform fossil-record, with every strata, neatly laid down all over the earth.
I do know that, which is why I do not in any way "make it seems as though there is neat an uniform fossil-record, with every strata, neatly laid down all over the earth".
You also fail to mention that we find, "marine fossils" in every layer ...
That is because I am not a liar.
... not just the bottom layer like you want to make out.
That is not what I "want to make out" and I explicitly say the exact opposite. I quote the creationist Henry Morris saying it, and then point out why it's complete bollocks. Once more I have to wonder if you have hit your head on something.
This is amusing considering you think the fossil-record is a, (and I quote) "apartment complex".
No I do not. As people can see who (a) bothered to read my post (b) are not suffering from severe concussion.
Oh I see it, but it's all of that negative-evidence which I don't see, that counts.
Your ignorance of the fossil record does not "count for" anything.
So for the sake of argument, even if the fossil record didn't favour a flood, what makes you think that this would somehow favour evolution?
I think that the aspects that favor evolution favor evolution. In this particular post, I was analyzing the conspicuous failure of the creationists not the triumphant success of the evolutionists.
No true scotsman fallacy. If there are creationists with genuine scientific qualifications, then they are, "real" scientists, so the term, "real" is a question-begging-epithet.
I said that real scientists tend to call it "hydraulic sorting". This is true.
For me the, "great creationist fossil failure" is the greatest rhetorical-epithetical baloney of this thread. In case you haven't studied logic 101, if I find in the fossils, when looking for a pine tree, an identical 250 million year old pine tree with no evolutionary ancestors, then that is the only logical, "success" I can hope to find. If a flood largely created the fossils, and animal kinds have always been the same, then I would expect to find that very thing, no matter what the layer is. It also would not matter the evolutionary-age of the layer, for all layers, or most, would have been laid down in one year.
So logically speaking, the fossil record is the greatest success we could hope for, for if we argued apriori what the fossils should contain, and if we had never known what they yet contained, we would predict as creationists that we would find the same animals that look identical. And if evolutionists had never seen the fossil record, since their theory explains how everything on earth was created by evolution, the correct logical prediction would be that the fossils would generally show evolutionary change, not, "stasis". Putting the word, "evolution" before stasis might make a nice oxymoron, but let's face it, in order for a jellyfish to become a jellyfish I don't need evolution, I JUST NEED JELLYFISH! (Occam's razor)
So, you have no explanation for the order in the fossil record?
I thought not.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by mike the wiz, posted 06-27-2016 4:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 158 of 1163 (786823)
06-27-2016 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by mike the wiz
06-27-2016 5:39 PM


Dr A, just a question out of general interest. I notice you always say, in many of your posts and threads, "creationists do X" or, "creationists say P". I am just wondering, since I am a dim creationist, why you don't seem to notice that it is a logical error to treat a group as an individual person?
I will concede that (since creationism is not based in reality) creationism has not achieved the same sort of consensus that we so often find in real science. On the other hand, since creationists rarely invent their own bullshit, but rather accept it wholesale from their leaders, there is a sort of mainstream creationist position on the fossil record, and I have stated it perfectly fairly.
If you are aware of a different set of pathetic excuses for the appearance of the fossil record which you would like me to have a look at, please feel free to provide me with a link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by mike the wiz, posted 06-27-2016 5:39 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 159 of 1163 (786824)
06-27-2016 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by mike the wiz
06-27-2016 5:01 PM


(Woody quote)There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8—16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field.
Well, yes, Woody is correct ... partially. Do you know why?
Because there have been multiple erosional events in the stratigraphic record, removing much of it.
So how does that happen in the middle of a global flood?
This is really a red herring and Woody knows it. He's just making it to make you feel like you are making a scientific argument. And, basically, he doesn't have to hang around here and defend his statement. He leaves that up to you.
Anyway, the stratigraphic record and its incompleteness is not a surprise to anyone trained in the science. I know of NO geologist who ever expects the record to be continuous and complete at any given location. If it is, then fine, but it is not important to the argument. I expect there to be gaps. This is due to erosion and the presence of land masses causing sedimentary types to vary laterally just as they do today.
Woody continues:
Secondly, those locations where it has been possible to assign all ten periods represent less than 0.4% of the earth’s surface, or 1% if the ocean basins are excluded. Obviously it is the exception, rather than the rule, to be able to assign all of the ten Phanerozoic periods to the sedimentary pile in any one location on the earth. It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological column when it is absent 99% of the time.
Okay, sure. Please find us ANY reputable geologist who says that the geological record must be intact anywhere.
And what about Precambrian sediments?
And what 'ten Phanerozoic periods" is he talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by mike the wiz, posted 06-27-2016 5:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 160 of 1163 (786825)
06-27-2016 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by mike the wiz
06-27-2016 4:18 PM


For me the, "great creationist fossil failure" is the greatest rhetorical-epithetical baloney of this thread.
Actually, I find it to be quite apt. No YEC has ever explained the fossil record and even Faith admits this. What Dr. A has done is laid out the main YEXplanations and summarily destroyed them, just as has been done in the past, but in a single post.
In case you haven't studied logic 101, if I find in the fossils, when looking for a pine tree, an identical 250 million year old pine tree with no evolutionary ancestors, then that is the only logical, "success" I can hope to find. If a flood largely created the fossils, and animal kinds have always been the same, then I would expect to find that very thing, no matter what the layer is. It also would not matter the evolutionary-age of the layer, for all layers, or most, would have been laid down in one year.
Sure, then you just have to show us how all of the geological processes that we see in the record were able to happen in one year.
It's that easy.
Show us how mountain ranges rose up and eroded away in a year.
Show us how dinosaurs were able to procreate and make nests in one year while under water.
Easy.
So logically speaking, the fossil record is the greatest success we could hope for, for if we argued apriori what the fossils should contain, and if we had never known what they yet contained, we would predict as creationists that we would find the same animals that look identical. And if evolutionists had never seen the fossil record, since their theory explains how everything on earth was created by evolution, the correct logical prediction would be that the fossils would generally show evolutionary change, not, "stasis". Putting the word, "evolution" before stasis might make a nice oxymoron, but let's face it, in order for a jellyfish to become a jellyfish I don't need evolution, I JUST NEED JELLYFISH! (Occam's razor)
I need a translation of this paragraph. It appears to be as jumbled as your understanding of geological history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by mike the wiz, posted 06-27-2016 4:18 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 12:57 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 161 of 1163 (786826)
06-27-2016 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by mike the wiz
06-27-2016 4:18 PM


You also fail to mention that we find, "marine fossils" in every layer, not just the bottom layer like you want to make out.
I/we do?
I think you are confusing the geological time scale with the stratigraphic column.
At least since the Devonian, we have seen both marine and terrestrial fossils.
Maybe you could explain your statement better.
The law of superposition applies in a flood as well as long-ages. You forget that our model argues that is a stage of inundation and there is the recessional stages. Mt St Helens shown how quickly for example, strata can build up.
It also shows how fast they can erode away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by mike the wiz, posted 06-27-2016 4:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-27-2016 7:43 PM edge has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 162 of 1163 (786827)
06-27-2016 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by edge
06-27-2016 7:39 PM


I think you are confusing the geological time scale with the stratigraphic column.
I think he's confusing me with Henry Morris, but it's hard to tell what's going on in his head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by edge, posted 06-27-2016 7:39 PM edge has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 163 of 1163 (786836)
06-28-2016 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by mike the wiz
06-27-2016 5:01 PM


The creationist "hypothetical geologic column"
...the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column
So what is this "hypothetical geologic column"?
My understanding of the creationist "hypothetical geologic column" is that they find the thickest sediment layer they can, of each Phanerozoic period, regardless of where on Earth such is found. Then they pile all these into some sort of grand (and very thick) column of rock, which becomes their "geologic column". Then the creationists complain that such a column is found nowhere in the world. Of course it isn't - Their column is pieced together from strata from all over the world.
Moose
Added by edit:
OK, I just looked at Mike's source. It contains:
quote:
The column to the left represents the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period (100 miles).
That page or similar must have been where I got my understanding.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by mike the wiz, posted 06-27-2016 5:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by edge, posted 06-28-2016 9:59 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 165 by jar, posted 06-28-2016 10:03 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 164 of 1163 (786845)
06-28-2016 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Minnemooseus
06-28-2016 12:03 AM


Re: The creationist "hypothetical geologic column"
That page or similar must have been where I got my understanding.
I'm not sure what Woody's logic is on this point. Is he saying that 'this is what the geologic column should like like if old ages were true'?
Does that somehow refute the actual measured columns and that the rocks are not all that old?
It almost sounds like he is saying that since my column does not exist, then yours does not either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-28-2016 12:03 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 165 of 1163 (786846)
06-28-2016 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Minnemooseus
06-28-2016 12:03 AM


Re: The creationist "hypothetical geologic column"
some Creationist source writes:
The column to the left represents the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period (100 miles).
Why in the world don't statements like that immediately raise the "Bull Shit" flag for anyone that reads them?
Who attributed 100 miles as the maximum thickness of some layer?
Why would periods of different length result in similar depth deposits?
As usual, do they ever present the model, method, process, procedure or thingamabob that will explain their assertion?
Are there really people that can read such nonsense with laughing at the utter ridiculousness of such an assertion?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-28-2016 12:03 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by edge, posted 06-28-2016 10:54 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024